Asian Guy

The site below suggests that the theory of evolution fuels racism. I'm certainly not a creationist nor am I a racist' date=' but it is interesting to note that eugenics, the rise of Adolf Hitler, etc were very much the result of (a misunderstanding of) Darwinian theory.

 

http://www.onehumanrace.com/[/quote']

 

Human nature is ethnocentric, regardless of world view. In other words, 'racism' is in our genes. Humans evolved in tribal groups, and ingroup/outgroup morality was selected for - killing the outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup. Traitors were killed off, only 'racist' members were valued.

 

Regarding Charles Darwin, he was an ardent supporter of eugenics, believing that the '"scum" of society were proliferating, in his own words, see http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

 

Also, Darwin was the half-cousin of Francis Galton, the creator of modern eugenics, see http://www.galton.org/

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

And knowledge cannot be acquired without an adequate IQ. Someone with an IQ under 90 will most likely never be able to learn calculus. In fact, here is a chart of the national IQ averages of 185 countries: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm And one will see an overall trend showing that the higher the IQ average, the more advanced the nation.

And the last link I'll post supporting the claim that race is a valid concept: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/miele.htm

I'll let you have the last word.

January 04, 2004

Routing The Race Deniers (Not That They’ll Notice)

By Steve Sailer

Read mensnewsdaily.com interview with Steve Sailer...

Many intellectuals pride themselves on how remote their theorizing is from mundane reality.

After all, if daily life could provide answers to lofty questions, we might not need so many intellectuals.

And that subversive thought must be suppressed at all costs!

Consider the topic of race. The trendiest idea among intellectuals is that Race Does Not Exist – what we at VDARE.COM call “Race Denial.” Last year, a three-night PBS documentary summed up this new orthodoxy under the title Race: The Power of an Illusion.

That this idea, no matter how trendy, strikes the vast majority of Americans as self-evidently stupid only heightens its appeal to those who view themselves as superior because of their ability to juggle esoterica.

Now Vincent Sarich, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Berkeley, and Frank Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine, have stepped in to this debate with a new book Race: The Reality of Human Differences. They document overwhelmingly that the weight of scientific knowledge is on the side of the man-in-the-street's commonsense view of race.

[ . . . ]

Complete article is at http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

Then you had better provide some for (1), since your entire argument hinges on it.

Linda S. Gottfredson

School of Education

College of Human Services, Education, and Public Policy

University of Delaware

Newark, Delaware 19716 USA

(302) 831-1650

FAX (302) 831-6058

gottfred@udel.edu

Gottfredson recently wrote "What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true?" see http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences.pdf In this article she writes:

In summary, Rushton and Jensen have presented a compelling case that their 50-50 hereditarian hypothesis is more plausible than the culture-only hypothesis. In fact, the evidence is so consistent and so quantitatively uniform that the truth may lie closer to 70-80% genetic, which is the within-race heritability for adults in the West."

Of course, this is just one study, and one study can't be decisive. But, many such studies exist, and extensive meta-analysis has been applied to come to the same conclusion regarding the high heritablity of intelligence. For example, much research has shown the actual biological correlates of IQ, such as brain size (esp. gray matter volume), average evoked potentials, glucose metabolism rate in the brain, the speed of nerve conduction, the thickness of the mylean sheath (did I spell that right?), reaction rate, etc. A thorough coverage of all the data available is archived at http://www.neoeugenics.com/

I have several questions

 

1. What is the brain like when a person is depressed' date=' scientifically?

2. How does the anti-depressant pills work? or other pills?

3. When having a talk-therapy, what is the brain like and how does it change?

4. What happened to a person's brain whose depressed without any reasons and what caused it in the brain?

 

If you could include anything else about depression that would be great.

In advance, thank you for answering[/quote']

 

One group of medications given for depression are the Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). These drugs include Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft. What SSRIs do is cause natural Serotonin to remain in the synapses longer by blocking the receptors (or something to that extent) from absorbing the molecule. This causes the Serotonin concentration to increase. It takes from 4 to 6 weeks for these drugs to take effect. Also, there are some unpleasant side-effects, such as anxiety/restlessness, complete lack of sexual desire and impotence in males, nausea, etc

Correct. It's all social. When you look at humans from the standpoint of population genetics, there are no races.

Here is an excerpt from "Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports and why we're afraid to talk about it," by Jon Entine (January, 2000):

Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.

 

For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.

 

Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.

 

From a scientific perspective, Lewontin and those that have relied on his work have reached beyond the data to some tenuous conclusions. In fact the percentage of differences is a far less important issue than which genes are different. Even minute differences in DNA can have profound effects on how an animal or human looks and acts while huge apparent variations between species may be almost insignificant in genetic terms. Consider the cichlid fish, which can be found in Africa's Lake Nyas. The cichlid, which has differentiated from one species to hundreds over a mere 11,500 years, "differ among themselves as much as do tigers and cows," Jared Diamond has noted. "Some graze on algae, others catch other fish, and still others variously crush snails, feed on plankton, catch insects, nibble the scales off other fish, or specialize in grabbing fish embryos from brooding mother fish." The kicker, these variations are the result of infinitesimal genetic differences--about 0.4 percent of their DNA studied.

 

In humans too, it is not the percentage of genes that is most critical, but whether and how the genes impact our physiology or behavior. Diamond mused that if an alien were to arrive on our planet and analyze our DNA, humans would appear, from a genetic perspective, as a third race of chimpanzees. Although it is believed they took a different evolutionary path from humans only five million years ago, chimps share fully 98.4 percent of our DNA. Just 50 out of 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess--or a minuscule 0.3 percent--may account for all of the cognitive differences between man and ape. For that matter, dogs share about 95 percent of our genome; even the tiny roundworm, barely visible to the naked eye, share about 74 percent of its genes with humans.

 

Most mammalian genes, as much as 70 percent, are "junk" that have accumulated over the course of evolution with absolutely no remaining function; whether they are similar or different is meaningless. But the key 1.4 percent of regulatory genes can and do have a huge impact on all aspects of our humanity. In other words, small genetic differences do not automatically translate into trivial bodily or behavioral variations. The critical factor is not which genes are passed along but how they are patterned and what traits they influence.

 

Lewontin did collate genetic variability from known genetic markers and find that most of it lay within and not between human populations. Numerous scientists since have generalized those findings to the entire human genome, yet no such study has been done. Now it is believed that such an inference is dicey at best. The trouble with genetic markers is that they display "junk" variability that sends a signal that variability within populations exceeds variability between populations. However, the "junk" DNA that has not been weeded out by natural selection accounts for a larger proportion of within-population variability. Genetic makers may therefore be sending an exaggerated and maybe false signal. In contrast, the harder-to-study regulatory genes (that circumscribe our physical and athletic abilities) signal that between-group variability is far larger than has been believed. In other words, human populations are genetically more different than Lewontin and others who have relied on his work realize.

A pedophile who has sex with a 12-year boy is no more a "homosexual" than you would call a male (a human being who would do this cannot be called a man) who rapes a 12-year old girl a "heterosexual".

I tend to disagree. I consider NAMBLA members to be homosexual, who prefer pre-pubescent males.

I've also seen statistics showing that most illegal sex with pre-teens involve homosexuals above the age of 18.

No, the mods here are [i'] nice [/i]

Okey, I've edited my first post of this thread and included some science forums that I like. You will have to go back and look at them.

Dude.

 

The admin of this forum are not book burners. Why would it matter if you made an index of other science forums?

Because owners of other forums often have policies about not posting links to competing forums. So, I was just being respectful. It has nothing to do with the legal issue of posting links.

When I was 14' date=' some senior boys began calling me at my house and my dad went ballistic. I wasn't allowed to date even at 16 let alone with a senior.

 

After politely turning them down, I was called a Lezbo (which I'm not) but that is the excuse they used for me not dating them.

 

Funny thing is that the freshman, sophomores or juniors, never called me, it was only the seniors. I will never forget how angry my dad was. Lucky, nobody came to the door.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Did you dress conservatively in school or sexually?

 

The trend today is for females to dress in ways that highlight and reveal their private parts, but these females don't like it when men have sexual thoughts about them for dressing like this. In other words, the needs of females are always placed above the needs of males, which is what our modern feminist culture dictates.

 

Regarding your father getting angry, I agree with you that it's a good thing the highschool males did not come to the door. It seems to me that your father would have assaulted them and then end up in jail for assault and battery charges against a minor.

One is an effort to tell you what happened, the other is an effort to tell you what to think about it.

Based on this, pretty much every mainstream news source would then be propaganda.

Please add to this list:

Attention Deficit Disorder: the individual can't focus on anything that requires attention to detail, he gets bored very easily, any does not have much motivation. He is only willing to engage in pure hedonism because anything else feels too much like a chore of painful proportions.

The causes for this is believed to be a deficiency of the neurotransmitters norpinprine and dopamine.

Medications for this include the latest non-stimulant drug Straterra. This is a norpinprine reuptake inhibitor which increases the concentration or norpinprine by blocking the receptors that uptake the norpinprine back into the neuron.

Another class of medications for this is amphetamines such as Ritalin, Concerto, and Aderol. These are Dopamine re-uptake inhibitors which increase dopamine levels. This can be experienced when intaking caffeine, which also increases dopamine levels, but caffeine is quickly metabolized and has a very short effect, while the prescription drugs have a much longer half-life.

There are no other medication types I am aware of for ADD.

Psychometric tests suck?

 

I know the history of Psychometric testing and have compared them to other ways of categorising people by nature.

 

You can pretty much make them come out what ever way you want by adjusting your mindset at the start of the test' date='

 

yet some Employers pay large fees to have them administered?

 

 

What do you folks think of the tests?[/quote']

 

The science behind psychometric testing is completely legit. The most accurate test we currently have are IQ tests, but other tests that are also good are ones that measure the Big 5 Personality traits:

 

introversion/extroversion

open to experience vs. conventionality

neuroticism

altruism vs. tough mindedness

conscientiousness

I think statutory rape laws indicate how arbitrary and relative moral systems are. Before 1900s, there were no statutory rape laws. In other words, for about the last 5,000 years of recorded human history, there were no age of consent laws. But now we have them. And the trend is towards higher and higher age of consent laws, from 15 to 16 to 17 to 18, and many even contemplate increasing the age to 21. And during each generation of morality, the followers claim moral absolutism, yet the next generation the morality changes.

Also, the American Psychological Association came to the conclusion that there was no emotional damage done to a teenager under the age of 18 who had a sexual relation with some someone 18 or over, as long as the relationship was mutual and consensual on both parts. They actually said the minor found the experience to be pleasurable. So in other words, statutory rape laws don't have any scientific backing, it's rather an emotional imperative. Much of it came from feminist ideology that views all men are "evil sexual predators." Women have to be protected from the "barbaric" males.

That is advertising you refer to and not a plea for donations to promote racial purity.

 

No further comments!

The bias and hypocracy in your posts are already showing, which proves my point that humans are all biased and irrational. Your last post is an emotional rant, not an objective analysis.

I actually went to your other links as well.

 

Let me put it this way: When a "news" source asks for a donation to a "cause" I tend to be a little skeptical. You are right that people are often subjective but I see no reason not aspire to objectivity.

And what news source does not ask for money? Bandwidth, research, and general operation costs money. Major media like CNN and Fox News don't operate for free, they get money from advertising as well as from cable and satellite monthly fees. Likewise, the sites I posted also cost money to operate, so they request donations.

But, it all comes down to who you trust. Do you trust the CEO of Fox News and CNN in producing unbiased and truthful information? Do you trust the owners of the sites I posted? Most of us don't have the time or money to actually verify everything we read, so an element of trust is required in the news source. I trust my sources a lot more than the major media, that is all I can say.

I like news that tries to tell both sides of an issue. It's a broader perspective. As a former journalist, I like the editorial comments kept strictly out of my news stories. I rarely read editorials. If I only sought "news" stories that only confirmed my preconceived opinion, I would feel I wasn't learning much.

Unbiased reporting that only posts pure raw unbiased data as opposed to saturating their media with subjective commentary does not exist. Humans are irrational by nature, and their behavior will refect that.

To be frank, I saw the link you posted in the immigration thread you started.

And the link did not confirm to your preconceived opinion, so you rejected it. Afterall, you are human.

Read Jared Diamond's [u']Guns, Germs and Steel[/u]

Jared Diamond debunked: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html Nothing personal, but I'm just not a fan of Left Wing ideology. I tend to be very Conservative.

Here are a few of my favorite science forums:

http://www.sciforums.com/

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/

http://www.christianforums.com/ (they have some science sections and I like debating the Christians)

http://www.frostcloud.com/

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/

http://www.philosophyforums.com/

There are other forums as well, but they have a censorship policy, so I don't wish to give them any promotion.

How do you distinguish between news and propaganda?

What's the difference?

"Race" is nothing but culture. There is no genetic basis for it, ergo it is a fiction of our minds. People "group together" by culture, because of similar ways of thinking and interacting. Doesn't matter if they're the same skin color or not. I'm more comfortable interacting with someone of a different skin color of the same culture as me than of the same skin color and different culture, simply because I don't understand them, their customs, what things mean, what I'm supposed to to etc.Mokele

So, you are saying that my Asian race does not exist, we are just an illusion. I guess I should go ahead and break the news to my fellow Asians.

And I guess that the NAACP should break up as well since Blacks don't exist also.

What about dog breeds/races, do they exist, or are they just a cultural illusion as well? Do collies, bulldogs, and doberman pinchers exist, or are they just social contructs based on dog racism of the dominant dog social grouping?

My favorite news sources:

Rense.com

Vdare.com

Amren.com

Amconmag.com

I don't care for mainstream news sources, too Liberal.

For instance, I don't even subtly consider myself "better" because of my race.

So I take it you are going to marry someone different from your race? Why is it that inter-racial marriages are very rare? Whites generally marry Whites, Blacks generally blacks, asians generally asians, and so on, even in multi-ethnic nations like America. People naturally have an affinity for their own kind, this is inborn ethnocentrism. As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock together." It is no accident that people evolved to form groups and oppose those that are different.

Consciousness is simply the subjective experience of synaptic algorithms in the brain. We humans are simply sophisticated computer programs or Turing machines, and consciousness was very advantageous for reproductive success.

Some book: "The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach," by Christof Koch: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974707708/ref=pd_sim_b_5/104-6764300-9144707?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

"What Is Thought?" By Eric B. Baum, 2004: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262025485/qid%3D1102458197/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fka%5Fb%5F2%5F1/104-6764300-9144707