Turn on thread page Beta

Race contributes to appearance and even disease susceptibility, but never behavior? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    There is no debating that race greatly affects one's appearance. Some diseases even afflict certain races more than others. This can be attributed to generalized genetic differences that exist between races. Suggesting that genetic make-up can also be a significant factor in behavior is a reasonable assertion to make. So why is it not acceptable to suggest that certain races may be generally prone to certain behaviors?

    I think that this is a possibility that most reasonable people consider. It is just not socially acceptable to investigate or argue the point. The issue is dismissed as if it is racist, because the discussion is likely to advocate racist views. Is it right for a society to reject an idea, despite that idea's possible merits, if acknowledging those merits could have destructive consequences?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by falseprofit)
    There is no debating that race greatly affects one's appearance. Some diseases even afflict certain races more than others. This can be attributed to generalized genetic differences that exist between races. Suggesting that genetic make-up can also be a significant factor in behavior is a reasonable assertion to make. So why is it not acceptable to suggest that certain races may be generally prone to certain behaviors?

    I think that this is a possibility that most reasonable people consider. It is just not socially acceptable to investigate or argue the point. The issue is dismissed as if it is racist, because the discussion is likely to advocate racist views. Is it right for a society to reject an idea, despite that idea's possible merits, if acknowledging those merits could have destructive consequences?
    behaviour is generally determined by environment. ie grow up in a council estate, you are more likely to get involved in crime. grow up going to private school, you are statistically less likely
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    behaviour is generally determined by environment. ie grow up in a council estate, you are more likely to get involved in crime. grow up going to private school, you are statistically less likely
    I would say that behavior is determined by environment and genetics. Environment is more important, but I certainly have some behaviors that I think my DNA play a role in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    East Asians are the master race. Lol

    Seriously, this is an issue that is affecting many areas. Science is extremely dogmatic now. It's morphing into a new priesthood with pre defined set of world views that cannot be challenged.

    It's a worrying time because if science is allowed to turn into a new religion, then it will set society back centuries.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    I would say that behavior is determined by environment and genetics. Environment is more important, but I certainly have some behaviors that I think my DNA play a role in.
    It's a fact that both genetics and environment effects behaviour. OP has a good point which is worth investigating.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There's a lot of evidence that intelligence is partly genetic - it isn't just an unfounded stereotype that Asians are clever - but people tend to get a little tetchy whenever you bring race into science.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Personality probably is partly heritable, same as IQ, but the thing is that the variation within one race is already so large that comparison of averages between races on these traits are pretty meaningless and non-informative for any purpose in the real world. Because even if the population averages are different, there would be a very large range of personalities and a large overlap of populations of different races as a whole. In other words, there will be many female eskimos who are smarter and better-behaved than many white males and vice versa - so you'd be obviously stupid to select someone for a role based on race rather than independent assessments (qualifications, interview, experience, portfolio / publications, references).

    In pharmacogenetics you would do a test to check which allele is present in the person and then select the appropriate medication, unless you know that the allele is present in >90% of the population, in which case you don't have to do a test (in such a case there could well be zero overlap between isolated populations which is obviously different from behaviour or IQ which we already know are traits that do overlap significantly even between isolated populations).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    Personality probably is partly heritable, same as IQ, but the thing is that the variation within one race is already so large that comparison of averages between races on these traits are pretty meaningless and non-informative for any purpose in the real world. Because even if the population averages are different, there would be a very large range of personalities and a large overlap of populations of different races as a whole. In other words, there will be many female eskimos who are smarter and better-behaved than many white males and vice versa - so you'd be obviously stupid to select someone for a role based on race rather than independent assessments (qualifications, interview, experience, portfolio / publications, references).
    There is a relevant social consequence to be considered. Race and gender groups working for equal opportunity, operate under the premise that all behavioral differences between groups are solely attributed to social circumstances. This allows them to assert that any disparity in measurable events such as pay, poverty, incarceration rates, education, and IQ are caused solely by historical or institutionalized discrimination. The implication is that if one group underperforms within society, then the blame lies with society and never with the underperforming group. There will continue to be an ethical mandate to improve the opportunity for underperforming groups, even if their opportunity currently exceeds that of their counterparts.

    Perhaps we should change the term "equal-opportunity" into "equal-results".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Minority groups will continue to claim discrimination until their average social outcome is equal to or better than the national average. By regarding any suggestion that there may be general differences in average behavior between groups as racist, they eliminate the argument that social inequality may be influenced by something other than discrimination. It is an effective strategy but not necessarily an honest one.
    Offline

    20
    What exactly is average behaviour? What are you trying to measure here?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by + polarity -)
    What exactly is average behaviour? What are you trying to measure here?
    I would guess common behavioural characteristics seen throughout the race.

    Such as we see in breeds of dogs or cows. They all have common behaviour throughout that breed but there are always exceptions.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes behaviour is influenced by dna too. But it's mostly culture and environment.
    And you can't really do anything with the fact that dna is responsible for behaviour I mean look how many white people are chavs, nobel winners(ok not as many as chabs obvs but there are a lot of smart people with morals) etc I mean differences are huge between white people so it doesn't really matter cuz it's the same with blacks asians etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by falseprofit)
    There is no debating that race greatly affects one's appearance. Some diseases even afflict certain races more than others. This can be attributed to generalized genetic differences that exist between races. Suggesting that genetic make-up can also be a significant factor in behavior is a reasonable assertion to make. So why is it not acceptable to suggest that certain races may be generally prone to certain behaviors?

    I think that this is a possibility that most reasonable people consider. It is just not socially acceptable to investigate or argue the point. The issue is dismissed as if it is racist, because the discussion is likely to advocate racist views. Is it right for a society to reject an idea, despite that idea's possible merits, if acknowledging those merits could have destructive consequences?
    it has been investigated and put as false and nuture effects behaviour the most
    and you know this
    well done with race baiting
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by falseprofit)
    Minority groups will continue to claim discrimination until their average social outcome is equal to or better than the national average. By regarding any suggestion that there may be general differences in average behavior between groups as racist, they eliminate the argument that social inequality may be influenced by something other than discrimination. It is an effective strategy but not necessarily an honest one.
    well duh
    that is the point
    racial equality
    so how are you helping the cause
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    it's plausible. people will misuse it though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because too often people conflate equal opportunity with 'absolute parity', the situation exists where in studying racial polymorphism as we do gender dimorphism people are classed as racist or discouraged owing to the fact its perceived being acceptant of difference will result in the creation of an underclass despite mountains of legislation to the contrary. Every person is individual, in finding out whether or not certain races have certain predispositions we do not diminish the right for each person to be judged of their own merits and characteristics. Social influence (that is to say the nurture side of any such debate) is fine to debate because it influences behaviour without racial distinction but people get oddly upset when they're told their race on average is less or more something. The logical stance would be to simply place oneself on the scale and then continue not being affected by it in any way but I suppose in order for society to actually be truly post-racial we would cut all positive discrimination and not give a damn about anything but the person as an individual (thus also removing negative discrimination). Such research would be allowed because anybody could make a joke about anyone else (racial or otherwise) and everyone would laugh. That's true tolerance. The current system just amplifies and enforces any resentment and distance between racial and cultural groups.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    behaviour is generally determined by environment. ie grow up in a council estate, you are more likely to get involved in crime. grow up going to private school, you are statistically less likely
    But statistically if you're an African-American you're more likely to commit a violent crime. I'm not saying I think black people are just naturally more aggressive but you have to be careful when you use statistics


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.