PDA

View Full Version : [split] Is There Proof that Race and Mental Faculties Are Related?



Amorsite
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 07:44 PM
I can't talk about sub-racial taxonomy with the anthropologist in my family without being told that I'm being racist.

Thats interesting, what does this anthropologist think of Coon, has he ever read anything about him? Does he just say you are a racist or tries some rational refutation?


. I find this odd in that I don't have a dislike for other races, because I feel the differences are quantitative not qualitative.

What do you mean by quantitative? I think a lot of differences in races and individuals are merely the ammount of rationality they present. For instance they say alpines are close-minded and lemming-like, but the same is true for women and really the masses as a whole.

Sciz
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Thats interesting, what does this anthropologist think of Coon, has he ever read anything about him? Does he just say you are a racist or tries some rational refutation?
Well, as Coon's work was done prior to the 50's, they feel it is somehow backward and racist. Anything that argues that there are differences in people is seen as a threat. There's no rational thinking about it. In fact I would suggest that, since it's a reaction based on fear of some nebulous misuse of science, it would be counter to rational thought.



What do you mean by quantitative? I think a lot of differences in races and individuals are merely the ammount of rationality they present. For instance they say alpines are close-minded and lemming-like, but the same is true for women and really the masses as a whole.
What I mean by quantitative is that the differences are purely physical adaptations to the environment. I haven't seen any real proof that shows a measurable difference in the mental faculties of individuals based on racial or sub-racial classification. To me, the intellectual/mental differences stem from the cultures and subsequent cultural expectations involved. To me, a med is no more innately prone to violence than someone who is tronder, though the culture the med comes from may be more accepting of violence and even promote such a response.

Amorsite
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 08:18 PM
What I mean by quantitative is that the differences are purely physical adaptations to the environment. I haven't seen any real proof that shows a measurable difference in the mental faculties of individuals based on racial or sub-racial classification. To me, the intellectual/mental differences stem from the cultures and subsequent cultural expectations involved. To me, a med is no more innately prone to violence than someone who is tronder, though the culture the med comes from may be more accepting of violence and even promote such a response.

I disagree, if a dog and a cat have different skull shapes and thus different behaviours, the same applies to races and subraces.

Also who is this anthropologists favorite about race, Stephen Jay Gould, or perhaps Boaz?

Sciz
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 08:32 PM
I disagree, if a dog and a cat have different skull shapes and thus different behaviours, the same applies to races and subraces.

Also who is this anthropologists favorite about race, Stephen Jay Gould, or perhaps Boaz?
Well, as I said, I have just not seen any reliable proof. This doesn't mean that said differences do not exist, just that my exposure to such proof has been limited or of an inferior quality. I am always open to further study if you have any suggestions.

I understand your point, though the cat and dog analogy doesn't work, as they are two separate evolutionary branches. A better analogy would be between different breeds of dogs. Still, to argue so, one has to provide verification that the mental difference between a poodle and a scottie are due to their respective forms and not to highly selective breeding programs to induce specific traits.

As for their favorite, I am not sure. I will have a chance to speak with them tonight and give you an update tomorrow.

Amorsite
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 08:54 PM
I understand your point, though the cat and dog analogy doesn't work, as they are two separate evolutionary branches. .

Why wouldnt it work? The exception would be a cat whose head shape is the same as some dogs and yet has different brain-organization, but such a thing does not exist.
A certain skull shape will mean different parts of the brain being of different proportions and possibly different structure- I think it is hard to find a more drastic variation and with behavioural implications.


Still, to argue so, one has to provide verification that the mental difference between a poodle and a scottie are due to their respective forms and not to highly selective breeding programs to induce specific traits.

It is irrealistic to think that different head proportions will have no notable implications, much more so when different types of say, dogs, characterized by a particular form, always are better at certain functions but others arent. Your proposition, that it is because all individuals of different head shapes somehow all muted for better performance at some tasks (and only those of a certain race being good at it) is beyond the reach of common sense.



As for their favorite, I am not sure. I will have a chance to speak with them tonight and give you an update tomorrow.

Well dont worry if you dont, I was just asking, no big deal. people who dont reason dont interest me :D .

Jeune Libertine
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 09:12 PM
Well, as I said, I have just not seen any reliable proof. This doesn't mean that said differences do not exist, just that my exposure to such proof has been limited or of an inferior quality. I am always open to further study if you have any suggestions.


Well, I for one have never seen any convincing evidence for a "cultural" determination of such properties, and furthermore, this begs the question of what accounts for "cultural" differences. To me, placing "culture" before biology is an hideous inversion of reality.


I understand your point, though the cat and dog analogy doesn't work, as they are two separate evolutionary branches. A better analogy would be between different breeds of dogs.

So, for instance, negroids and caucasoids are not "two separate evolutionary branches", whatever is meant by that?



Still, to argue so, one has to provide verification that the mental difference between a poodle and a scottie are due to their respective forms and not to highly selective breeding programs to induce specific traits.

No one is claiming behavioural differences are due to different form, but that different form is due to different genes , and different genes account for behavioural differences of populations at various taxonomical levels. Since this is the rule in nature, I find that the burden of proof is upon the "anthropologists" to prove that environment (at a short-term, non-evolutionary level) and "culture" account for the differences between "human races", rather than biology.

Consider this:
Why would I be led to believe that a "primitive" hominid was genetically different to Homo Sapiens? Could this perhaps have something to do with a different form?
Why would I think that he was less intelligent? Could this perhaps have something to do with a smaller brain, and an utter lack of intellectual achievement.
Why was he less intelligent? Could this perhaps have had something to do with biology, rather than environment?
Well, why does this change when speaking of, say, the modern sub-Saharan hominid?

Sciz
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Why wouldnt it work? The exception would be a cat whose head shape is the same as some dogs and yet has different brain-organization, but such a thing does not exist. There's a good bit more that differentiates a dog from a cat besides skull shape. My point was that keeping the discussion within a specific species would be more relavent.



A certain skull shape will mean different parts of the brain being of different proportions and possibly different structure- I think it is hard to find a more drastic variation and with behavioural implications. It's not only brain shape, but also brain volume that dictates the mental characteristics. Correlation does not eqaul causation. Can you prove that, say, all borrebies have different brain volumes and structures than gracile meds and are thus prone to different mental states? Are women less intelligent than men because their brains are smaller on average than those of men? They have the same volume and are therefore just as intelligent and capable as their male counterparts. Tell me, how many brains have you personally studied or how long have you been a neurologist to be experienced enough as to be able to generalize about the mental capabilities of an entire group based on secondary and external evidence? Just because the external features are different does not mean the internal ones are.



It is irrealistic to think that different head proportions will have no notable implications, much more so when different types of say, dogs, characterized by a particular form, always are better at certain functions but others arent. It is irrealistic to assume that the shape of the skull is the key feature which determines the mental capabilities of a individual, much more so for those of an entire group. Genetic predispositions, however, are accurate qualifiers; though these manifest themselves in ways which are not externally visible.



Your proposition, that it is because all individuals of different head shapes somehow all muted for better performance at some tasks (and only those of a certain race being good at it) is beyond the reach of common sense.
You seem to be the one who is saying this, not me. You claim that an individual's skull shape drastically changes the composition of their brain as to effect a change on their mental characteristics, but haven't proven so beyond speculation. If you can find conclusive and peer-reviewed evidence of which skull shapes affect certain parts of the brain, and of these, how they change the functionaily of the different components so one can generalize mental characteristics based on sub-race, then you're on your way to changing my mind. Otherwise, my point still stands.

Sciz
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 10:09 PM
No one is claiming behavioural differences are due to different form, but that different form is due to different genes , and different genes account for behavioural differences of populations at various taxonomical levels.
I agree that it is due to the genetics, but on what ground are we to assume that it has a real effect on taxonomy?

Let me reiterate. I have never said that these characteristics don't exist, just that I have yet to see real proof. Until someone can isolate the specific genes and prove that they play out both on negatiove or positive mental characteristics and taxonomy, it's all just speculation. Speculation and educated guesses can go a long way, but they can't be used as proof.

Jeune Libertine
Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 11:17 PM
I agree that it is due to the genetics, but on what ground are we to assume that it has a real effect on taxonomy?

Let me reiterate. I have never said that these characteristics don't exist, just that I have yet to see real proof. Until someone can isolate the specific genes and prove that they play out both on negatiove or positive mental characteristics and taxonomy, it's all just speculation. Speculation and educated guesses can go a long way, but they can't be used as proof.

Nothing is ever proved in the realm of science, but hypotheses are falsified. Every hypothesis apart from the genetic one is, in my opinion, untenable bunk. I accept it not simply as the best explanation and predictor we have, but as the only one even worth my time. :thumbup

RedJack
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 12:45 AM
I haven't seen any real proof that shows a measurable difference in the mental faculties of individuals based on racial or sub-racial classification.

Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and John R. Baker have all written books that contain the proof you are looking for. :D

Sciz
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 05:14 PM
Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and John R. Baker have all written books that contain the proof you are looking for. :D

Thanks, RedJack. In the end, I'm not denying the theory, just trying to get verifiable proof before I accept it for myself. I've been burned in the past by just blindly accepting something and don't want it to happen again. I think inquirery is the more intelligent course of action. If a theory can stand up to my questions, or my questions are shown to be insufficient, then I generally accept it.

Any suggested book selections from these authors which would be helpful as a kind of intro course?

Sciz
Thursday, August 10th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Nothing is ever proved in the realm of science, but hypotheses are falsified. Every hypothesis apart from the genetic one is, in my opinion, untenable bunk. I accept it not simply as the best explanation and predictor we have, but as the only one even worth my time. :thumbup

Indeed, I agree. I'm just trying to follow the scientific method and look at both sides of the issue. I will accept which ever theory posits the most reliable evidence. I admitted that the evidence I had seen was possibly inferior, but in leau of good evidence to the contrary, I was not able to accept it. I also stated that I would be more than willing to study any good evidence that members had and change my oppinion accordingly. I am not so rigid as to be dogmatic.

Q.
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 07:41 PM
Yes, initially stick to Rushton-:)


Race Differences in Sexual Behavior: Testing an Evolutionary Hypothesis

J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON AND ANTHONY F BOGAERT
University of Western Ontario
Population differences exist in personality and sexual behavior such that, in terms of restraint, Orientals > whites > blacks. This ordering is predicted from an evolutionary theory of r/K reproductive strategies in which a tradeoff occurs between gamete production and parental care. Literature is reviewed on differences between the three groups in rate of ovulation. intercourse frequencies. sexual attitudes. developmental precocity, size of genitalia, secondary sexual characteristics, and biologic control of behavior that accord with this formulation. Novei analyses of data from the Institute for Sex Research are also carried out, indicating that American blacks, compared to American whites, are more precocious and less restrained. Their parents were younger when they were born, had more children, and had an earlier mortality. Blacks left home earlier, experienced a variety of premarital, marital. and extramarital sexual events earlier, had a greater number of premarital and extramarital partners, had a greater frequency of marital intercourse, used fewer contraceptives, and bad a greater incidence of pregnancy, at a faster rate. The men had larger penises, at a different angle of erection, and maintained intromission longer, while the women had shorter menstrual cvcles. more periodicity of sexual response. and a greater number of orgasms per act of coitus. Whites varied their sexual activity more, both with spouses and with prostitutes, although blacks consorted with prostitutes more frequently. Finally, blacks had a shorter duration of marriage and more permissive sexuzti attitudes.
Differences in sexual behavior have long been oserved and related to personality. Freud (1930) noted a positive correlation between inhibited sexuality and the production of culture. Eysenck (1976) and Barnes, Malamuth, and Check (1984) showed that. compared to introverts, ex traverts manl 'fest a stronger sex drive, tend toward liberalism and mortal permissiveness, andhave intercourse earlier, more frequently, and with more different partners. Snyder, Simpson, and Gangestead (1986) found that high self-monitorers (who are more responsive to situational cues) compared to low self-monitorers (who are more responsive to internal cues), adopt an "unrestricted" orientation to sexuality and report both a greater enjoyment of and a greater frequency of casual sex. Several studies have reported that those high in sex guilt are more limited in their sexual behavior (Abramson & Mosher, 1975; Mosher & Cross, 1971), recall less birth control information (Schwartz, 1973), and spend less time reading erotica (Schill & Chapin, 1972). Similarly, erotophobiaerotophilia, the inclination to like or dislike sexuality, was found to predict the number of sexual partners, the use of birth control, the enjoyment of erotica, and the ease of fantasizing or talking about sex (Fisher, Byme, White, & Kelley, in press). Finally, Malamuth (1986) oserved that sexually experienced, aggressive and dominant men, with permissive attitudes toward violence, were more likely to engage in sexual aggression on dates, while Mosher and Anderson (1986) found that those willing to use aggression in sexual relationships were also more generally aggressive and demonstrated a lack of distaste, fear, or guilt while imagining committing a rape.
Common to these findings is the notion of sexual restraint, with some individuals (introverts, erotophobes, low self-monitorers, low aggressors) acting in the more reticent manner across a variety of attitudinal and behavioral phenomena. As to etiology, Freud explained restraint in terms of the psychodynamics of repression and sublimation. Most researchers have proposed models based on socialization and the conditioning of negative affect to sexually linked stimuli, showing, for example, that a disdain for sexuality occurs more often in family backgrounds that emphasize conservative values and frequent church attendance (Fisher et al., in press). Both Eysenck (1976) and Snyder et al. (1986; see also Snyder, 1987) reported twin studies showing that genetic factors also underlie the oserved individual differences, and conjectured whether the sexual strategies they had oserved existed across a diversity of cultures and were related to evolutionary processes..

for full text:
Source (http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushtonsxev.html?embedded=yes&cumulative_category_title=J.+Phillipe+Ru shton&cumulative_category_id=Rushton)

RedJack
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Any suggested book selections from these authors which would be helpful as a kind of intro course?

John R. Baker's "Race" would be a good start since that was his intention in writing it. The American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/) website has a lot of information on and discussion of the various books on the subject.

nätdeutsch
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 10:32 PM
sorry, but the picture in my head of Alpines running off cliffs if told to is a very funny one indeed.

Moonglade
Wednesday, August 30th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Thanks, RedJack. In the end, I'm not denying the theory, just trying to get verifiable proof before I accept it for myself. I've been burned in the past by just blindly accepting something and don't want it to happen again. I think inquirery is the more intelligent course of action. If a theory can stand up to my questions, or my questions are shown to be insufficient, then I generally accept it.

Any suggested book selections from these authors which would be helpful as a kind of intro course?




http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf#search=%22jensen%2030%20years% 22