On May 26, 3:29 pm, israeliteknight <israelitekni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 25, 11:43 pm,RichAsianKid<richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 4:31 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 24 May 2008 06:41:52 +0800,RichAsianKidwrote
> > > (in article
> > > <2efae530-2326-4e9f-a2d8-8d075cd16...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
> > > > On May 22, 1:17 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > >> 4. Suppose "Chinese" means dark hair, brown eyes, and so on. I
know lots of
> > > >> Native Americans who could pass for a Chinese, but I will never
be able to.
>
> > > > You got that right for once. In fact, in your Cavalli-Sforza
citation
> > > > that you so proudly trumpet, you know that native Americans are
> > > > actually close cousins to Asians (aside from lower IQ of course),
> > > > phylogenetically. Again, that's based on your sources. Evidence
once
> > > > again that ancestry matters, and populations are not equal.
>
> > > Your claim that ancestry matters and your snide remark about IQ are
> > > inconsistent.
>
> > > If IQ depended on ancestry (race), the Native Americans and Chinese
Americans
> > > would have identical scores.
>
> > Identical scores? "IDENTICAL"? Looks like our innumerate Jim Walsh
> > doesn't understand correlation either, wow.
>
> > > --
> > > Love, Jim
> > > (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove
excessive
> > > crossposts.)
>
> > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe#1Newsgroup
Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =----- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> <<<Identical scores? "IDENTICAL"? Looks like our innumerate Jim Walsh
> doesn't understand correlation either, wow. >>>
>
> No, of course he does NOT.
>
> If he can't grasp the simple concept of race, something every race
> from the beginning of time, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY the African
> races, even the ones with IQs lower than 59, has been able to grasp,
> then correlation is not even an abstract concept to him.
>
> Ironic that he DOES admit that he believes in race when he tries to
> argue that Asians and Indians should have "equal" IQs because [he
> believes] they are of the same "race", eh?
>
> No race has higher IQ's than Asians, and only blacks have lower IQs
> than Indians, proof enough that, even IF they share a common [ONE
> common] ancestor, the ancestors that they DO NOT share are more
> significant than the ones they DO share.
>
> Your data about what happens when Asians marry blacks is abundant
> proof of what happened: the IQ of the offspring of that marriage is
> only slightly higher than the IQ of the black parent and MUCH lower
> than the IQ of the Asian parent. And that's precisely where Indians
> fall on that scale, plus DNA shows that many Indians have a
> significant amount of Negroid ancestry which obviously Asians [and
> most other races] DO NOT.
>
> When ****tugal was 100% Caucasoid, it was a world sea power. When it
> reached 10% Negroid, it completely collapsed, never to recover [now
> with an average IQ 5 points lower than Spain, which also miscegenated
> with Moors, jews and blacks--but at least came to its senses and
> kicked them all out in 1492].
After the discussion with Jim Walsh and yourself I think family,
patriotism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, and racism is part of the
human condition. As such, it is neither right nor wrong, it just is.
And it is likely part of our recognition of our own genetic
connectedness. And all this desperation and hysteria against
'ethnocentrism' or 'racism' is just hype -- ultimately 'racism' is
merely a code word for group conflict and a level of concentric
loyalty that is not quite socially acceptable.
Recall Cavalli-Sforza and look at the DNA evidence. At the same time,
recall the Linnaeus classification system - kingdom, phylum, class,
order, family, genus, species. Of course there are many many other
"new" subdivisions no possible just a couple decades ago, e.g.
infrakingdom, supercohort (as in botany), parvclass (as under
infraclass), Nanorder/Hypoorder/Minorder(zoology), and yes,
subspecies. So where does this all end? You can subdivide these into
infinity and it ends at the level of the individual, but it's the
classic lumper and splitter problem. The number of divisions is not
the point here; the point is the data can be classified based on
genetic continuity and with increasingly sophisticated techniques we
now have the ability to genetically trace our ancestors, and some are
more closely linked with this rather than others.
That is, humans are not a mishmash where everyone's somehow the same
children. We're only the same if we compare ourselves
to......chimpanzees or gorillas! But compared to ourselves, based on
DNA evidence, the very very first division of Homo Sapiens is between
AFricans and non-Africans, or if you prefer, blacks and non-blacks, is
shown here.
http://i27.tinypic.com/30jrwom.jpg
There's simply no way to get around this. If there is a race, that
very first division after Homo Sapiens, then that 'race' or a very
large inbreeding population or a 'subspecies' that very large
inbreeding family is between blacks and non-blacks; Africans and non-
Africans. Perhaps that's why blacks are always seen as the 'other' in
virtually every society. It is a reflection of a lesser bond, that we
are not all equally related to each other.
Of course, you can divide this further:
http://i32.tinypic.com/xvq74.jpg
If there are only Japanese and Koreans in the world, these two will be
fighting over each other. But in the grand scheme of things, they are
brothers and sisters. Me against my brother, me and my brother against
my cousins, me and my cousin against the world.
Here's a good article on Race:
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/071216_race_faq.htm
The bottom line I think is that some groups are *more* related to
others, and not everyone is equidistant. That's a very very powerful
indictment against egalitarianism - and while most of us feel this
almost instinctually I now finally see this at an intellectual level -
from there on that's where our overlapping and concentric loyalties
play a role in ingroup and outgroup bonding. To put it in concrete
terms: I love my people more than I love strangers or those far
removed simply because these people are mine because generations ago
we were more related. And I make no apologies for that. And that's not
necessarily because they're richer, or smarter, or more athletic, or
better looking. I love them simply because they're connected to me,
because they're distant extended family in a way that others aren't.
And that's all there is to it.
To repeat, think about this: many humans implicitly value a mammal
(classified under the class Mammalia) such as a dog more than a fish
(previously classified under the class Pisces, but which now have been
classified more refinedly). This shows two things: (1) the extant
taxonomic classification system is undergoing changes all the time as
scientific techniques advance, and just because we cannot agree on the
precise classification at some point in time (or how many subdivisions
there are) does not mean that fishes or mammals do not exist (duh!!)
(2) It shows that even at the Linnaeus class level, we almost
instinctually see 'dogs' or other mammals as closer to us, as "more
like us", as 'higher animals', perhaps even more 'worthy' to us,
perhaps just more 'us'. There are so-called compromised vegetarians
who eat fish but who will not eat beef (but if you're mainland Chinese
you'll surely eat dogs haha, side point). But even at this macro level
we already make this assumption.
Now, let's look at the other side of the spectrum, the micro-level.
Most parents value their own biological children more than their
biological third nephews. Perhaps not coincidentally, the degree of
genetic connectedness is way more 'concentrated' in the parent-child
tie, that parental-offspring bond. All things equal, parents are
prepared to make sacrifices for their own biological children but not
for children of strangers in part because they're a part of them
versus those who are part of nothing.
All that we take for granted. Which brings us back to classification
within Homo Sapiens.
Cavalli-Sforza himself conceded in an on-line interview that "Lewontin
probably hoped, for ***political*** reasons, that [population fraction
of variance] is TRIVIALLY small, and he has never shown to [his]
knowledge any interest for evolutionary trees, at least of humans, so
he did not care about their reconstruction." He further said that "in
essence, Edwards [author of the paper of Lewontin's fallacy] has
objected that it is NOT trivially small, because it is enough for
reconstructing the tree of human evolution, as we did, and he is
obviously right."
But once again, what's that very first subdivision after Homo
Sapiens?
http://i27.tinypic.com/30jrwom.jpg
Africans versus non-Africans.
Looks like that rap "adage" is right: "once you go black you won't go
back."
Whether it's at the macro level (our preference for mammals over fish,
or perhaps animals over plants if you will) or at the micro level (our
preference for our own family) we see this element of concentric
loyalty once again, based on our genetic connectedness. It's never
total *100%* correlation needless to say, but no matter how you wring
the data NOT all humans are equidistant or equally related to each
other. And it's from there on everything else follows.
I bet Lewontin's a smart guy, and he deep deep deep in his bones knows
how threatening the above must be to his fragile worldview and that's
why Cavalli-Sforza admitted that Lewontin oh-so-conveniently "showed
no interest in the human phylogenetic tree". For once you show it,
some are just more "family" than others. And that by the way is why
the left is so hysterically against the family. Homo***ualism is so OK
(remember Jim Walsh again?) but the nuclear or extend family? Well.
That's not quite kosher (not a pun). As Hillary used to say, "It takes
a village."
I now see this point.
And last, to revisit Lewontin's fallacy. If it were so true that
between-group variations is trivial, scientists would NOT have been
able to use genetic markers to cluster humans together. Here:
http://i32.tinypic.com/262br4j.jpg
Those who deny that there are races by citing how a single trait
defines is like an example I recall where putting Jesus Christ, cigar,
and *** and classifying them in the same category on account that
these are all 'round'. (Christ has a round halo, cigar is round, man
encircles a woman when he has ***). I didn't make up that example btw.
It was used as an example from a TV program on how the schizophrenic
mind works and I still remember how interesting that is. The idea that
anyone can be classifed as 'any' race is that same level of argument
that you can classify a table with four leg with a cat as the same
category because both stand on all fours.
|
