Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:So it works this way Sebster(although the lower selection rate can be white males and the larger selection rate could beblack females), and you can say that I am wrong all you want... but I do have an entire field of psychology behind me on this one.

You were wrong in that a clear explanation for the process was given, and yet you continued to act as if it was a mystery. All you did above was repeat what Polonius said.

And you still left out the part where being outside the 0.8 doesn't invalidate the hiring practice, it just requires more testing to see if there is some bias in the hiring system that isn't actually part of the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

starhawks wrote:...buuut a vast majority of the time it is

That's far too subjective and diverse an issue to answer conclusively, and any answer given says a lot about the worldview of the speaker, but nothing about anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Physique certainly plays a role in fitness to a particular sport and position played, however to what degree does physique depend on "race"?

Perhaps aborigines tend to be smaller because they tend not to get steak and eggs for breakfast as often.

Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Spoiler:

It's you're.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally, KK and sebster - I remember reading something somewhere about black people and 'fast-twitch' muscles... like, more fibres or greater density.

Or something. I forget.

Sebster Wrote:
Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

This is the problem. People are so afraid of appearing racist they can't accept the idea that were aren't all the same. It is very likely that there are some groups who are better at certain activities. There isn't any point doing an scientific investigation into it because people won't except it, just like people ignore any studies highlighting the difference between males and females. Too many people ignore things that go against there beliefs- they don't wan't to hear it/

starhawks wrote:
...buuut a vast majority of the time it is

Nope.

Most of the time its people with no knowledge of race X pretending they have something to say, because they want to feel smart, instead of people actually paying attention to race X in order to form a reasoned opinion about race X.

It's come to my attention that I didn't make it obvious enough that I was being tongue-in-cheek in my last post. I'm posting this so there can be no doubt.


Still though, they ARE great dancers. THAT much is not a myth.






Again, kidding.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Spoiler:

It's you're.

Spoiler:

It's Albatross

...

Hell, I am not racist I just dont like anybody

Obama: Godless communist hippy
Mcain: sad old war veteran

Albatross wrote:It's come to my attention that I didn't make it obvious enough that I'm British.

Fix'd. This also comes to mind.

Blacks do sell good weed, unlike Mexicans.

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions.

Sickle Cell Anemia is higher in people of African descent due to genetics, people from Native American descent can suffer from certain diseases more easily than whites. There was also an inhaler medicine that had adverse reactions in blacks as opposed to whites.

Familial Mediterranean Fever is a common disease to carry(gene is present but person has no symptoms)... if you're of Sephardic Jewish, Armenian, Arab, or Turkish descent. If you were born in England to two parents outside of those gene pools you're never going to catch FMF.

Go Hereditary Medicine!

So when it comes to diseases certain races are genetically more prone to disease. It doesn't factor into most emergency medicine where the color spectrum is reduced dramatically, people are either pink or blue and in some cases people can be black, red, yellow, or green.

Well, the problem is that relying on race to test for genetic disorders, while a useful shortcut, runs into problems as interracial families become more common.

But yes, there are medical traits much more pronounced in various races.

That's why you find symptoms and narrow a cause down to a group of diseases and test those. If a series of symptoms matches a hereditary disease then you test for it.

The biggest issue comes from adopted children who may not know the hereditary of their birth parents or the adoptive parents don't know the heredity either.

Interacial families are an issue but they typically know where their lines go to, its hard to not know if you're a Sephardic Jew or not. But I guess that's the kicker, just like there are people who "don't know" how a banana got into their rectum.

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Like most aspects of human ability, to claim the difference is solely genetic is unsupportable, but to claim that the difference has no genetic component at all is to ignore evidence.

Of course, most genetic studies have focused on averages, which show that racial differences in nearly any measurable category are slim. It'd be interesting to see if races are more likely to produce "exceptional" talents.

*Imagines the gak hitting the fan if somebody comes out with proof that different ethnicities have different intellectual aptitudes based solely on genetics.*

I'm pretty sure this has been disproven and as KK said earlier is to do with upbringing and environment etc.

If not, i'd hope nobody would publish the findings. They would do more harm than good.

This is the problem. People are so afraid of appearing racist they can't accept the idea that were aren't all the same. It is very likely that there are some groups who are better at certain activities. There isn't any point doing an scientific investigation into it because people won't except it, just like people ignore any studies highlighting the difference between males and females. Too many people ignore things that go against there beliefs- they don't wan't to hear it/

Really? Is it so hard to believe that genetic differences that might cause one group to have more or less melanin in the skin might also cause them to be slightly more likely to have broader shoulders, or more developed leg musculature?

Incidentally, KK and sebster - I remember reading something somewhere about black people and 'fast-twitch' muscles... like, more fibres or greater density.

It's Jimmy the greek time. It's not just about pure natural racial evolution though, is it. I know it's controversial, but during slavery, slaves were breed like animals. I am in no way trying to degrade African American Athletes! There is a reason great horses come from breeding great bloodlines. For four hundred years they were breed to be physical work specimens. Some idiots used to think that Blacks had extra muscles "That's why they can jump higher". It's just Darwinism. I think it's funny (terrible) that slavery did for the slaves, what Hitler wanted to do to his own pure race, to breed the ubermench.

I am not trying to say that Whites are responsible for all great African American athletes, or any of them. I'm not saying that all African Americans are great athletes. Please don't read into this more than you have too. All I'm stating is the facts. I'm sure there would be plenty of great African American Athletes without slavery. I'm not saying breeding was good for them, or that they needed it.

My point is I guess, that racial differences are more than just the tone of your skin. There are social, cultural, and historic reasons that people are different, very few of those can be seen just by the color of someones skin. And they are different, we should celibate those differences instead of using them as excuses to hate each other. I'm a white mut, my children are going to be half white mut have indian. We will be joining the mocha world that everyone talks about. I just think that while the mocha world is good, the united colors of beniton are just as good. There really must have been a better way to put that, but I have to go to the store.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Wow, now that's a bit on the racist end KK. Although genetic history can help predict some behaviors, anglos didn't behave the same way blacks did in ancient history. Look at how they got food; in Africa being fleet of foot got you food and saved your life, in Europe there were more markets and you didn't have to worry about man-eating creatures as much. This means that over time the genetic ability to run quickly would be passed down more in the African gene pool, this is a basic evolutionary principle set forawrd by Darwin.

Although they don't hold true 100% of the time, its not like Darwin was wrong with evolution either. Its why Native Americans are more susceptible to diabetes and obesity, Native Americans were hunter/gatherers who burned a lot of calories hunting for their food. With the introduction of fast food and supermarkets the need to chase after food has been removed and their geneticaly derived metabolism can't handle the increase of food intake and decrease of energy expenditure.

Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

halonachos wrote:That's why you find symptoms and narrow a cause down to a group of diseases and test those. If a series of symptoms matches a hereditary disease then you test for it.

The biggest issue comes from adopted children who may not know the hereditary of their birth parents or the adoptive parents don't know the heredity either.

Interacial families are an issue but they typically know where their lines go to, its hard to not know if you're a Sephardic Jew or not. But I guess that's the kicker, just like there are people who "don't know" how a banana got into their rectum.

You watch too much House MD.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Actually in the medical field racism is rather accepted under genetic reasons for certain medical conditions. .

I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

Wow, now that's a bit on the racist end KK. Although genetic history can help predict some behaviors, anglos didn't behave the same way blacks did in ancient history. Look at how they got food; in Africa being fleet of foot got you food and saved your life, in Europe there were more markets and you didn't have to worry about man-eating creatures as much. This means that over time the genetic ability to run quickly would be passed down more in the African gene pool, this is a basic evolutionary principle set forawrd by Darwin.

Although they don't hold true 100% of the time, its not like Darwin was wrong with evolution either. Its why Native Americans are more susceptible to diabetes and obesity, Native Americans were hunter/gatherers who burned a lot of calories hunting for their food. With the introduction of fast food and supermarkets the need to chase after food has been removed and their geneticaly derived metabolism can't handle the increase of food intake and decrease of energy expenditure.

To begin with this bit... you referring to KK's explanation as "racist" is like the kettle calling the pot black... pun intended, but still a valid point. Throughout your posts you constantly refer to whites; blacks; anglos; etc. These terms in themselves are racist.

To address another point: Abilities are not passed through genetics. The trait of longer legs or a particular cardio-vascular network and larger lung capacity may enable stamina for athletics, but the athletics in itself is not a genetic trait.

Finally, if you truly understood susceptibility you would know that diabetes and obesity are more pronounced in sub-cultures or minority "races". However, this is not due to the reasons you have listed. To begin, obesity is a problem with life-choice; diet and exercise and while some genetic evidence is available. If you sit on the couch all day and eat incorrectly you will become obese. This will occur regardless of your "race". However, diabetes is a bit more complex.

Onto diabetes, the evidence available provides us with the knowledge that while the are genetic markers for susceptibility, the change in our diets - including a higher intake of processed foods full of sugar, salt and other additives - has been the main cause. This may be more pronounced in native peoples of the world who lead a hunter-gatherer lifestyle until more recently than the English. Your inferrence that the prevalence is due to how they acquire their food is incorrect on the part of diabetes. It is actually what is IN their food products which is the catalyst. Remembering, these cultures subsisted upon diets of lean meats; roughage and root vegetables, we can see that canned foodstuffs which are high in added processed sugars; salts; and other additives would more adversely affect their anatomies. While this remains true for all humans, there is evidence that minorities of pure heritage are clearly more susceptible.

Polonius wrote:Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

I don't know about that polonius. I played gradeschool and highschool football with and against some NFL hall of famers. It was pretty apparent that Genetics played a giant factor. Trying to tackle Eddie george in highschool was like getting hit by a fright train. The Golics are from my highschool. Let me tell you, nobody in that family ever had to do much more than push ups to get to that size, once they did really hit the weights in college they really turned into monsters.

Though I'm sure culture plays into to look at Clay Mathews and Clay Mathews JR. These athletes bring their kids up in the competitive culture.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Polonius wrote:Culture is still far more important than genes,though, otherwise we'd see more haitian sprinters and fewere jamaiicans.

The slavery theory also breaks down when you look at Kenyen long distance runners.

Also, you guys do realize that most of Africa was civilized (in terms of being primarily agricultural) before Europe, right?

I don't know about that polonius. I played gradeschool and highschool football with and against some NFL hall of famers. It was pretty apparent that Genetics played a giant factor. Trying to tackle Eddie george in highschool was like getting hit by a fright train. The Golics are from my highschool. Let me tell you, nobody in that family ever had to do much more than push ups to get to that size, once they did really hit the weights in college they really turned into monsters.

Though I'm sure culture plays into to look at Clay Mathews and Clay Mathews JR. These athletes bring their kids up in the competitive culture.

Oh, for individuals genetics is a massive factor, for health, intelligence, athelticism, etc. But for populations? Probably less so.

Oh yeah, you can't base your expectations on an entire race of people. Any race is going to necessarily have the standard variations.

I meant, Clay Mathews, Clay Mathews JR, and now Clay Mathews III. Three generations in the NFL.

Kilkrazy wrote:I expect it is possible, however I would need to see serious genetic studies done before I accept it as a proven fact.

I think we can consider it likely, a reasonable explanation of observed phenomena, and move on.

We already have a wealth of evidence that social conditions in childhood have many effects on health and education.

Absolutely. One major problem with assigning any kind of trait is that it is so often used as an excuse for social problems. It seems every impoverished minority quickly attaches a myth that they can't process alcohol as well as white folk, and that's why there's so much drunkeness in the community. Never mind that alcoholism becomes a probably in every poor community, no matter the ethnicity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I went to medical school and I know that.

Thalassaemia isn't evidence that black people have genes for high jumping, aborigines have genes for playing mid-field positions in Australian Football, orientals have genes for doing statistics, and white men have genes for being in charge of everything.

No, we don't have to take it that far. But you look at the list of finalists for the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and you have to ask yourself if you really believe that there's a cultural problem among white societies that makes them reject sprinting, or if maybe they just aren't genetically as good at it.

Social factors that explain most of our lives, but we'd just be kidding ourselves if we pretended there weren't basic genetic differences on some level.

I mean, look at height. Some groups, by pure genetics, have taller general populations. If height is a factor in being good at something, then surely that group is inherently just a little better at that task.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:*Imagines the gak hitting the fan if somebody comes out with proof that different ethnicities have different intellectual aptitudes based solely on genetics.*

I'm pretty sure this has been disproven and as KK said earlier is to do with upbringing and environment etc.

If not, i'd hope nobody would publish the findings. They would do more harm than good.

Well, the problem there is that there is no general intelligence. There's a diverse range of skills, and while there's a general relation between them (high performance in one generally predicts high performance in another) you'd have a bugger of a time determining someone's overall intelligence, as that would involve determining how important spatial awareness is compared to reasoning or memory or whatever.

The other problem is that intelligence is steadily growing, year by year. Every couple of years they have to reset IQ tests so that the average score of 100 is a little harder to get, because the population is getting smarter. Wind that growth back 100 years, and you see that the average intelligence is about 60 odd. By our standards today, the average person 100 years ago would be considered a simpleton. They weren't, of course, it's just that they didn't have 12 or more years of schooling which gives you one very important skill, abstract thought. It's the skill that lets you read a question, understand it as a purely hypothetical issue, and answer it on those grounds alone.

That skill for abstract reasoning is something that's developed immensely in the past 100 years, but that growth hasn't been universal. Cultures that don't teach abstract thought as heavily will perform worse on IQ tests as a result, even thought they may actually be equally capable in the various forms of intelligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

When does racism become acceptable? I mean you don't see the Irish freaking out over the fighting irish logo, a more sterotypical drunk irish figure would be hard to find, yet nobody gets offended by it. But chief whaoo and the redskins logo get crap all the time. I have never taken offense to being called whitebread or cracker, actually found it pretty amusing. I've also never felt that racism is a problem that I have to deal with on a daily bases though.

Andrew1975 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEyPoulhw9g

Why is racism so funny sometimes?

When does racism become acceptable? I mean you don't see the Irish freaking out over the fighting irish logo, a more sterotypical drunk irish figure would be hard to find, yet nobody gets offended by it. But chief whaoo and the redskins logo get crap all the time. I have never taken offense to being called whitebread or cracker, actually found it pretty amusing. I've also never felt that racism is a problem that I have to deal with on a daily bases though.

Well, you partially answered your own question: when people get offended by it. Nobody is offended by the fighting irish logo, at least partially because it was picked by, well... Irish people. Compare that to Chief Wahoo, who is a pretty grotesque stereotype that was not selected by any natives.

Slurs against whites suffer for lack of context. When you call a black person most good racial epithets, there's a lot bundled into it: insinuations of laziness, criminality, low intelligence, etc. What exactly does it mean to be called whitebread? Or cracker? "hey, you, guy whose race is in charge. You guys suck for being richer and of higher social status!"

Actually, the thing with the genes is that there's a specific gene responsible for resting metabolism, people with a mutated version of said gene are typically obese. Native Americans(Pima Indians to be exact) are four times more likely to have that mutation.

Universidad Europea de Madrid wrote:Heterozygosity for the ADRB3 Trp64Arg polymorphism seems to be associated with elite endurance performance, while other variants of the β-adrenergic receptors' genes do not seem to significantly influence top-level sports performance, at least in athletes of Spanish origin.

Ooh, and I have a study that says that those with the mutated gene tend to have better athletic endurance. The reason why they say 'in athletes of Spanish origin." is because the study included Spanish athletes and normal people only.(100 endurance athletes, 100 power athletes, and 100 non-athletic controls).

BTW: I use the term black because the term African American is another thing I don't believe in. You see a black person and they are automatically an African-American even if they trace back to the Caribbean(don't say that back in time they were brought over from Africa, because a longer time ago humans left Africa and took over the world), and a white person is always a Caucasian even if they were born in Africa. I don't like those PC terms because they're incredibly misleading.

Hispanics= Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Cubans. Hispanics are typically democrats despite the fact that Cubans tend to be republican.

So yeah, too many differences in my opinion to clump them all together.

@ Polonius, white people do have the terms 'honkey' and 'white trash'/'trailer trash' which are pretty negative.

halonachos wrote:Actually, the thing with the genes is that there's a specific gene responsible for resting metabolism, people with a mutated version of said gene are typically obese. Native Americans(Pima Indians to be exact) are four times more likely to have that mutation.

Universidad Europea de Madrid wrote:Heterozygosity for the ADRB3 Trp64Arg polymorphism seems to be associated with elite endurance performance, while other variants of the β-adrenergic receptors' genes do not seem to significantly influence top-level sports performance, at least in athletes of Spanish origin.

Ooh, and I have a study that says that those with the mutated gene tend to have better athletic endurance. The reason why they say 'in athletes of Spanish origin." is because the study included Spanish athletes and normal people only.(100 endurance athletes, 100 power athletes, and 100 non-athletic controls).

Spanish are not "normal people"?

BTW: I use the term black because the term African American is another thing I don't believe in. You see a black person and they are automatically an African-American even if they trace back to the Caribbean(don't say that back in time they were brought over from Africa, because a longer time ago humans left Africa and took over the world), and a white person is always a Caucasian even if they were born in Africa. I don't like those PC terms because they're incredibly misleading.

This rationale would mean that:

All Muslims = terrorists AND All terrorists = Muslims...?

That is some flawed rationale right there. What is an Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander were to cross your path? Would you automatically deem them African American? By your reckoning, they are.

Also, you may wish to check your historical facts.

Hispanics= Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Cubans. Hispanics are typically democrats despite the fact that Cubans tend to be republican.

So yeah, too many differences in my opinion to clump them all together.

@ Polonius, white people do have the terms 'honkey' and 'white trash'/'trailer trash' which are pretty negative.

Racism is racism, the origin does not make it less criminal.

If I simply choose not to believe in something does that automatically mean it no longer exists? Sure would be an easy way to get out of traffic tickets.

AvatarForm wrote:

Racism is racism, the origin does not make it less criminal.

so true. and this right here is all that matters at the end of the day.

Wait Avatar, WTF are you reading in my posts? Either I have some kind of uber subliminal messaging going on or your prescription glasses need some work.

I said that African American is a bad term because it clumps too many people together. I have no idea where you get that I would call an Aborigini an African American.

Secondly I have no idea where you're insinuating that I think Spaniards are not normal people. I said Spanish athletes and normal people meaning Spanish athletes and Spanish normal people(you know the people who aren't elite athletes).

You seriously need to put down your haterade so you can see past the bottom of the glass, it distorts the words actually written.