Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (96725)	1/25/2005 1:51:36 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793706

I have no trouble with trying to find out what the truth is. Very good, you are on the path of enlightenment! I would argue with the "truth" part. In science its mostly about more accurate understanding as opposed to truth. I have much worse problems with "truth" than you have with "race" <g>. If you can scientifically find out if one race is more intelligent than another - I wouldn't have any trouble with it. I doubt this is accurate. What may prove to be the case is that certain races excel in particular areas. Over a distance of 7M years, it is clearly the case regarding us and our cousins the great apes. Between all living humans, the temporal distance is MUCH shorter, so how much we find remains a question. But when you can't define intelligence, and you design some (relative speaking) simple test for it, and then test according to race - which you can't define - and based on those results people make a lot more assumptions on it and even try to make policy based on it - I have a problem with it. I agree, but still see the root problem elsewhere. Some time ago, UPS hired only male drivers. The argument was females are physically smaller on average, and can't handle the large boxes without a high injury rate. Fine, look at the problem from the following POV: If we have female drivers, what should be changed to make the workplace save? Similar thinking could be applied to many areas of employment were issues are seen. The problem comes back to people wanting to adhere to a strict merit based competitive system while hoping for an equitable outcome without racial fallout. A casual look around should hint that this is not the case. Blacks excel in sports in general, and dominant certain aspects. While cultural issues surely help channel talent into the field, physiology has an undeniable component. This is racial in any sense of the word. Pointing to a rare Chinese counter example is beside the point, science is about means and std deviations. That is what you must explain, not the rare blips in the distribution tails. I'm very happy that the USA forsook the old racist ways that blocked blacks from pro sports. And I'm glad that lots of whites (and other races) can and do play at the same level. But I also can be honest that blacks are racially blessed in this regards. Blacks are also very well represented in entertainment. I have no idea whether there is any genetic basis for that or not. I suspect that individual personality has a genetic basis, so again, group or racial personality traits might be genetic. It really does not matter to me. If I like the entertainment they produce, I buy it, if not, I don't. Us humans are much more honest in this regards with animal species. Dog and cat breeds are well known not only for their appearance, but also personality traits. If we are willing to admit personality is genetically linked in dog and cat breeds, then what is the scientific basis for denying ALL such links in humans? Could you comment on this last issue? I'd be very interested in your take on it! TIA!