Whites: Dead Man Walking

From your link:

Isn't that almost just what I said? Africa had a larger population, so greater diversity. The paper even theorized that the various human races may have arisen as recently as 70,000 years ago. That doesn't leave much time to acquire a diverse genome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Punjabster,

To be honest I haven't really read this thread thoroughy, for one thing I am too bothered by how the Cubs lost to the Rockies, don't ask, and not that I really care. I really don't care about race either, I am 100% sure that I am more attracted to the individual than the race, nobody marries a race; people aquint with the individual. Race is the last shit on my mind when I meet people, some people are low life swines while others are civil, friendly, and have some common sense. If you live in NYC or any other large city you probably have an idea of my view. People that worry or think about race are people that are unaware of other race and their history, however unglorious or prosperous. A lot of people go about spreading ridiculus notions like one race is more complicated than the other, or one race is more hostile, or one race is more violent, or one race is more hipocritic. These fuckers, these same people have never read much of history of our civilizations. The only thing that truly varies amongs races is intelligence, which was a function of geo-climatic earth conditions thousands of years ago, and still a function of socio-infrastructure today. And intelligence is relative, it can be thought to anybody as long as the proper requirements are there; therefore nobody is born with any trait embedded in the genes except for certain rare instances. It's our primitive instincts that tells us to flock with people like us, the same way a polar bear will flock with other polar bears and not a sun bear for instance, and that instinct is coming out of fear. I'm not sure whether we will ever rid this instinct in humans in some countries but neither do I really personally care, all I know is that I am not an animal but a reasonable man who's more interested in what the individual has to offer; it only takes one person to change the world at a time. People are superficial, there are lots of superficial people out there. When it comes to race, it all depends on how small or large you view the planet, which is also very correlated to how large or small you view your own ego. My guess? People don't fancy equality, they see it as mundane, thats why they love capitalism(may I point out that we are the only species on this planet that are constantly in competition with each other over territory and basic essentials. I guess we are one highly motivated lot). Me, I'm fucking happy we have other races, even if its to make fun of. Well, I hope I made my point. And By the way I really like your username..."punjabster"...Keep jabing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spurious,

Now that we have recorded the African genome...what further use can Africans be to us?

Moderator note:
Inaccurate, racist post: infraction for trolling 3 points

Africans are not put on earth for your personal use

 

i didn't know we recorded the African genome. Congrats. That was quite a feat! Sequencing the genome of millions of people!

didn't know this was already possible.

 

Anyway, I can't be bothered reading papers or researching it right now, but (correct me if I'm wrong spurious) but we know very precisely about the human bottleneck by tracing allele frequencies and distributions within mitochondrial DNA (passed only by mothers) in populations worldwide. It leads back to virtually one instance of a progenitor "mother" approx 70K years ago.

 

Trolling and complaint posts removed. Please read the moderation FAQ for this subforum. Please address complaints by PM or use site feedback forum

Sam

 

Err...

You used them as slaves... bought and sold them....lynched them as well?

 

No I did not.

 

Count Suduko:

Shut up! Don't quote scientific discoveries on sciforums! It doesn't matter that Rushton found that blacks (on average) have fewer corticol neurons than whites and Asians, and that Jensen found that blacks (on average) have a lower cranial capacity than whites and Asians. And that these variations may be correlated with IQ.

Of course, such interpretations are challenged by other scientists in the field, but this doesn't change the fact that their studies were published in peer reviewed scholarly journals. So the mod squad can't 'sting' me for posting 'racist links' and 'assertions unsupported by science' when I post the following:

The sources with the relevant information include: Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-96103-6.

Rushton, J. P. (2001). "Black-White Differences on the g Factor in South Africa: A "Jensen Effect" On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised". Personality and Individual Differences 31: 1227-1232. DOI:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00210-5.

A summary of the data is given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_(test_data)#Brain_size_.26_structure_and_race

 

I assume you like Rushton missed out on the advantages of the "high IQ"

There have been criticisms of Rushton's work in the scholarly literature, most of which Rushton has replied to, often in the same journals. For example, Zack Cernovsky, in the Journal of Black Studies, has made several criticisms, such as "some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum."[16]

Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote in a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006 that psychologists should critically examine the science employed in Rushton's race-realist research. Through a re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper they assert that the testing methods were in fact biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton's methodology such as the use of non-equivalent groups in test samples.[17] Rushton replied in the next issue of the journal saying his results were valid and it was the criticisms that were wrong.[18]

Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.[19] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.[20]

After mailing a booklet to psychology, sociology, and anthropology professors across North America, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, asserted: "It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research."

In Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton uses a methodology he calls "aggregation" of evidence, in which he averages hundreds of studies, modern and historical, with equal weight regardless of the quality of the data to demonstrate the racial patterns he asserts. He says that by averaging many studies the results one gets can be very accurate. He argues that measurement errors typically cancel out when multiple studies are averaged, and that his approach is less biased than the work of researchers who selectively pick and choose from the worldwide literature based on critical analysis.

A number of scientists however find sufficient problems with his methodology to completely dismiss his conclusions. Douglas Wahlsten, a biologist, criticized Rushton's book in a review writing:

averaging does nothing to reduce bias in sampling and measurement, and such flaws are abundant in the cited literature. For example, among the 38 reports on brain weight, all but two gave figures for only one group, with most cases being people living in the nation of their ancestors, such as an article on Japanese living in Japan and another on Kenyans living in Kenya. The obvious differences in environment make all of these data of dubious worth for testing hypotheses about genetic causes of group differences.[5]

Wahlsten also further criticizes Rushton's particular use of data in the same book review:

The author is an earnest believer in genetically determined race differences, and he vows to cling tenaciously to his world view unless his opponents can provide conclusive proof to the contrary. In my opinion, this is the kind of approach to be expected from religious zealots and politicians, not professional scientists. A rigorous evaluation of the evidence cited by Rushton reveals the methods in most studies were seriously flawed and render the data inconclusive. If the evidence is so poor, the proper action for a scientist is to suspend judgment. In reality, there is not one properly controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature.[5]

As Wahlsten points out, Rushton's only defense of his methodology is challenging his critics to explain how his averaging all the studies in the world-wide literature has produced a pattern on such a diverse collection of variables with Negroids and Mongoloids falling so persistently at opposite extremes and Caucasoids always in the middle. Rushton dismisses any critical analysis of the data he has used, and instead suggests that the onus is on his critics to gather new data using modern techniques. Rushton has stated, "Identifying potential problems in particular studies should lead to calls for additional research, not trenchant acceptance of the null hypothesis. Deconstructing data has led to erroneous dismissal of fascinating brain-behavior relationships for six decades."

David P. Barash also harshly criticises the 'principle of aggregation' in his review:

...Rushton argues at length for what he calls the 'principle of aggregation', which in his hands, means the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit

In a review of Rushton's book, anthropologist C. Loring Brace wrote:

"Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy of 'racialism'"[6]

Brace argues that Rushton assumes the existence of three biological races with no evidence except Rushton's speculation as to what an extraterrestrial visitor to Earth would think. Brace also disagrees with Rushton applying the concept of heritability (normally applied in the context of individuals) to groups. Finally, Brace claims Rushton makes unsupported claims about sub-Saharan African societies.[6]

Other critics have also charged that his interpretations, conclusions and methods are "sloppy" and "unscientific"[7]. For example, Rushton's diagram of cranial capacities is in error, as Neanderthal in fact had a greater cranial capacity than modern humans [8]. Genetic studies also show that there is greater genetic diversity within African populations (for example between Khoisanid Capoid, Mbuti pygmy, Sudanese Nuba, West African Negro and Ethiopian Cushitic populations, than there is amongst any two groups outside Africa rendering aggregation methods applied here nul and void [9].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution_and_Behavior