slug.com slug.com

4 1

Does anyone in the scientific community know if this piece on genetics (and those cited) holds up?

Hi guys, I believe on the whole this article is true,though obviously individually we all have differences in our genes and I’m not sure how the IQ differences marry into this piece either as surely that’s genetic, I really just wanted to make sure the page and sources cited are legit and not a far leftist (wish & feel) piece? I don’t want to be spoating nonsense, however nice it makes me feel!
(What a world where you can’t trust anything anymore!)

[bigthink.com]

Trevorjary 3 Apr 12
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

The best hypothesis I've heard IMO, is the genetic disposition of Homo Sapiens Sapiens to fall into two main categories of DNA distribution.

  1. those with a large DNA component from Cromagnon Man (large brain), and
  2. those races with a large DNA component of Homo Erectus.
    Statistically, there can be outliers in any modern racial group. However, mean I.Q of racial groups and its correlation with DNA percentiles related to the two hominid groups mentioned, is conclusive and makes a lot of sense about the state of world affairs. Not only that, it's pretty bloody interesting!
0

So many forms of "group-think" are dangerous. Obviously, white supremacists formulate part of their narrative around race, but they use other poorly formulated arguements as well. What I didn't like about the article is that many people use race to formulate narratives that serve their own purposes. To use the article only to focus on white supremacists limits its effectiveness and makes the author look like he/she has a specific agenda. This article also ignores the fact that race is just one of many social constructs that can encourage dangerous forms of "group-think" that can pull a society apart.

Well white supremacy nut jobs are no better than Far Left ones, both will use any nugget of information and distort it to fit their ramblings!
Your findings is why I wanted to pass it by the IDW community before taking this completely on face value, it did seem to have a slant but not so much as to Appear obviously blinded in ideology!

@Trevorjary I am not sure what "findings" you are referring to. My comments were mostly opinion based.

@CraiginChrist you are correct, your observations not findings. I’m juggling 4 young kids atm so I’m not as fully engaged on what I’m writing as I should be.

2

Oh, yes, this is absolutely true. I'm not a scientist but I'm educated enough to know that there is no such thing as "racial purity" and that even the concept "race" is not considered scientifically valid.

1

I think it's indisputable that there are racial markers that are observable (just as there are observable markers between men and women - generally). I agree that there are few "pure" races (isolated rain forest dwellers may come close). This debate misses the point. On a normal distribution there is more variability along most measurable dimensions within any identifiable group than there are between groups. Race is not a social construct but our assigning certain types of characteristics to a group is. We must be much more vigilant in our thinking to discern the difference between what the science is vs what we want it to say about some particular issue.

Does this relate to how emphasizing the differentiation of people based on race and/or gender leads to more conflict?

@CrimsonFox conflict is inevatable. We are hard wired for it in so many situations. I think the goal is to take the time, effort, and love to give everyone you encounter a chance to demonstrate they are something more.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:30014
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.