On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:56:15 +0100
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:45:51 +0100
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
> > Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was
> > > when Hitler used the term.
> > >
> > > I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
> > > another Hitler.
> >
> > Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
> > Stephen Hawking.
> >
> Prevented his degeneration do you mean? Or is gene therapy different?

Very different - eugenics is about cleaning the bad genes from the
pool by removing the carriers or preventing them from entering the pool. He
would either have been denied conception or destroyed as defective very
early on (before birth if possible). If he got to the point of reproducing
before being declared defective then it would be him and all the children
removed from the pool (killing or sterilisation either is fine by eugenics)
unless they could be proven not to be carriers.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:51:48 +0100
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The time in the 20th century that eugenics became unacceptable was when
>> Hitler used the term.
>>
>> I think it may be the future of mankind. But I don't know how to stop
>> another Hitler.
>
> Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
> Stephen Hawking.
>

OTOH, it might have prevented Trump, in which case I’d have been for it.
The original intent was to prevent “undesirables” from reproducing - black,
brown yellow, or just plain poor.

--
Pete

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:56:18 AM UTC-6, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:45:51 +0100
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> > Nobody does, but use of eugenics would probably have prevented
> > Stephen Hawking.

> Prevented his degeneration do you mean? Or is gene therapy different?

No, he meant preventing him like it would have prevented Beethoven -
likely to develop deafness later in life.

Gene therapy isn't eugenics - it isn't going around killing or sterilizing
people who don't measure up.

John Savard

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> The trouble with that is that right and wrong are moving targets.
> For most of history holding slaves was normal and therefore considered
> right by most people - including many of the slaves by all accounts! Up
> until some time in the early twentieth century eugenics was considered by
> many (famous and widely respected among them) people to be sound and correct
> science and the only real hope for the future of mankind. Putting capitals
> on them and holding them up as fixed points is false to fact and often seen
> as an attempt to impose a particular flavour of morality on people who
> disagree with some aspects of it.

You raise an important point.

However, I think it is possible to distinguish between what we know about
right and wrong, and current fashions.
Even when slavery was tolerated in the United States - as a pragmatic
compromise so that the country could include the South, and thus be
large enough to fight Britain - people knew the Truth, as it was written in
the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal".

> The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
> level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
> differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
> idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
> That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
> colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".

I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
other reasons.
It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one _is_ better for
avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
from being out in the sun.
But that isn't where the problem lies.
If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
horses aren't as smart as people.
The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
of them as _less human_.
The _good_ news is that there _isn't_ a "real difference" of _this sort_ between
the races.
Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
because of observed fact.
- Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
the U.S. is _easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
- Observed fact 2: To examine the hypothesis that intelligence differences
exist between the races, one should look for a case where it will be the easiest
to measure. Of the various human races, the smallest brain weight is found in
the Bushmen/Hottentots/Pygmies of Africa, and the Australian Aborigine. But
it's a general law that intelligence is also determined by brain size relative to
body size, and the Pygmies are short.
So if there were any intellectually inferior humans about, the Australian Aborigine
would be the most obvious case.
And I recall reading of how an explorer who lived among the Aborigines for a
while was impressed at their incredible feats of the intellect in remembering and
recognizing an immense catalogue of varieties of the local fauna and flora, thus
enabling them to survive in their harsh environment.
So they're geniuses, not dummies.
- Observed fact 3: All humans everywhere have spoken language. Indigenous
languages show as much grammatical sophistication as any other languages.
- Observed fact 4: In the case of the racial groups that appear to be *superior*
to the baseline of white Europeans, cultural reasons appear to exist that are
sufficient to account for their superiority from environmental causes: the
_bar mitzvah_ in the case of Jews, and the Imperial Civil Service Examinations
in the case of East Asians.

I'll grant you that this is a very limited amount of evidence, but it's what I've
managed to find out _for myself_, given that usually the books and essays
that argue for racial equality *don't* take seriously the concept that the
(intellectual, rather than moral) equality of all races is something that
actually needs to be tested and proved, because possibly it could be the
other way.

Stephen Jay Gould at least _mentioned_ the existence of this issue.

So what I'd _like_ to see is someone show that all the races are equal in
intelligence in a book packed with meticulous examination of vast amounts
of evidence gathered from all over the world, like _The Origin of Species_.
I'm not holding my breath, but based on the evidence above, I think that
racial equality is extremely likely. There may be slight differences, but the
overlap between the bell curves for each race would make them invisible.

But there are "real differences" between ethnic groups deriving from genetics.
But they have to do with _details_, not the essence of what makes us human.
However, details on their own can be troublesome.
So, it might indeed be the case, once we finally eradicate the vast amounts
of economic and social inequality between the races that now exist, that
people of some minority groups are still under-represented in some fields.
Particularly in the STEM fields, which are likely to be the ones so highly
valued for this to be a concern.
Black people may be over-represented in music for cultural reasons, since
for so long it was the only field in which they were _allowed_ to be
successful.
Some indigenous peoples may be more likely to be dyslexic, since dyslexia
wouldn't be selected against for people *without a written language*.

I can, therefore, see how real differences between the races could
come into conflict with our ideals of racial equality - but I think that's
a problem we will have to face in the far future, not today.

John Savard

On 21/04/2022 21:25, Quadibloc wrote:
> I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
> other reasons.
> It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
> avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
> from being out in the sun.

There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
poor farming techniques.

> But that isn't where the problem lies.
> If there_were_ a real difference in IQ due to race,_that_ would be a big
> problem, not because being smarter is_assumed_ to be better - it_is_
> better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
> horses aren't as smart as people.
> The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
> is the*reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
> with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
> of them as_less human_.
> The_good_ news is that there_isn't_ a "real difference" of_this sort_ between
> the races.
> Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
> because of observed fact.
> - Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
> the U.S. is_easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
> in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.

<snip>

I find myself between two camps here.

I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
the races.

I _know_ there is prejudice and inequality of opportunity.

But when somebody walks in to my office for an interview none of that
matters. I can't afford a genius, and I don't want an idiot. And it's
immaterial whether a single person meets my criteria by being unusual
for their race and gender, or just because there's no difference between
the races and genders.

Andy

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
> the races.

There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
think it lucky.

The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> However, I think it is possible to distinguish between what we know about
> right and wrong, and current fashions.
> Even when slavery was tolerated in the United States - as a pragmatic
> compromise so that the country could include the South, and thus be
> large enough to fight Britain - people knew the Truth, as it was written in
> the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal".

By the mid 1700s, certainly, but up until a century or so before slavery
was accepted with few questions.

>
>> The current preoccupation with political correctness raised to the
>> level of moral imperative does sometimes make it difficult to discuss real
>> differences of racial origin because somewhere there's this deep seated
>> idea that if two things are not the same one must be better than the other.
>> That is cultural and starts in early education with "What's your favourite
>> colour" and less formally with "Who do you support".
>
> I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
> other reasons.
> It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one _is_ better for
> avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
> from being out in the sun.
> But that isn't where the problem lies.
> If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
> problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
> better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
> horses aren't as smart as people.

Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic. The
intelligence of a group is spread out on a curve. Are you looking at the
“average” (mean, median, mode?) IQ of one group being higher than another?
Are you looking at the outliers?
Most people don’t use all the intelligence they have; what if members of
one group use more of possibly lesser brainpower than members of another?
Of course it’s impossible to measure intelligence in the abstract, isolated
from cultural factors.

> The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
> is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
> with rights.

This is changing. Apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, and octopi are
probably about as intelligent as many people, or at least as intelligent as
people on the right of the curve. This doesn’t mean that we give them the
franchise, but it does, of at least should, give them rights.

>
> John Savard
>

--
Pete

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 21:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
>> other reasons.
>> It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
>> avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
>> from being out in the sun.
>
> There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
> dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
> preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
> that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
> poor farming techniques.
>
>> But that isn't where the problem lies.
>> If there_were_ a real difference in IQ due to race,_that_ would be a big
>> problem, not because being smarter is_assumed_ to be better - it_is_
>> better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
>> horses aren't as smart as people.
>> The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
>> is the*reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
>> with rights. So if blacks had less of that, it would be an easy jump to thinking
>> of them as_less human_.
>> The_good_ news is that there_isn't_ a "real difference" of_this sort_ between
>> the races.
>> Not because there shouldn't be, according to liberal political dogma. But
>> because of observed fact.
>> - Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
>> the U.S. is_easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
>> in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.
>
> <snip>
>
> I find myself between two camps here.
>
> I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
> the races.
>
> I _know_ there is prejudice and inequality of opportunity.
>
> But when somebody walks in to my office for an interview none of that
> matters. I can't afford a genius, and I don't want an idiot. And it's
> immaterial whether a single person meets my criteria by being unusual
> for their race and gender, or just because there's no difference between
> the races and genders.
>

Right on, but in addition there’s more to being able to do a job than
intelligence. A genius who can’t get along with cow-orkers would probably
be a bad fit for most jobs. Being a hard worker will usually trump higher
intelligence, etc.

--
Pete

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
>> the races.
>
> There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
> there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
> I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
> needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
> Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
> think it lucky.
>
> The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
> different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
> brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>

Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example. People
with a higher inherited level of body fat survive better in cold climates
than very lean people. You can probably go on and on with genetic physical
differences, why not also intellectual differences?

--
Pete

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
>>> the races.
>>
>> There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
>> there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
>> I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
>> needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
>> Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
>> think it lucky.
>>
>> The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
>> different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
>> brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>>
>
>Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
>and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.

Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
Curry.

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100
>>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll be surprised if there _isn't_ a real, but small difference between
>>>> the races.
>>>
>>> There are many real and not small differences between the races, if
>>> there weren't we wouldn't be able to tell them apart so easily. Here's one
>>> I rather envied - an old friend of mine had maintenance free hair, it never
>>> needed cutting and it never grew to more than a skullcap of tight curls.
>>> Only some races are lucky enough to have that - but then some might not
>>> think it lucky.
>>>
>>> The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
>>> different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
>>> brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
>> and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.
>
> Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
> and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
> Curry.
>

Not entirely, but short basketball players have a disadvantage vs. tall
ones. Natural talent and hard work can overcome some of it, but given two
players of equal talent I’d put my money on the taller one. Likewise given
two football players of roughly equal talent, I’d put my money on the
300-pounder and not the 200-pounder.

--
Pete

On Do 21 Apr 2022 at 22:39, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
> different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
> brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.

Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).

'Andreas

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:26:24 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
> and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example. People
> with a higher inherited level of body fat survive better in cold climates
> than very lean people. You can probably go on and on with genetic physical
> differences, why not also intellectual differences?

Mainly because there is no evidence for any racially linked
intellectual differences but there is clear evidence for racially linked
physical differences.

But my real point is that there are differences of all kinds
between people and the racial differences are no different to any of the
other differences.

They don't change the simple fact that we're all people and we all
deserve the same baseline consideration and respect from others until as
individuals we change that.

Now to speculation - if there are any racially linked intellectual
differences they won't be so crude as "these people are incredibly
intelligent and these ones are stupid" they will be more along the lines of
"these people tend to have better than average spatial awareness because
they ..." or even more subtle and specific.

In an environment without meaningless bias these kinds of
differences would lead to some professions being biased towards some races
simply because the required skills/talents/physique are more common in those
races. This is where political correctness (must match the population
distribution, everybody is the same under the skin ...) and the obsession
with better (that comes from the obsession with best) as an absolute
interfere with even thinking clearly about it.

Sadly we do not live in an environment without meaningless bias and
there are people who look upon anyone different to themselves as being
inferior and undesirable without actually seeing the person. The next step
is the classic dehumanising of the different in exactly the same way as the
enemy is dehumanised in time of war (with insulting nicknames like tommy,
frog, bosch, gook, chink, kike, nigger ...).

To really make a difference we need to train a generation to resist
this sort of thing no matter what the driving force is (war, racism,
greed ...). To see every attempt at dehumanising any group of people as
wrong and evil. We seem to be going that way - I hope we survive long
enough.

IQ tests are culturally biased and the idea of reducing
intellectual capability to a single number is false to fact, yet another
part of this obsession with better and worse that makes no sense at all when
looked at closely.

I have a higher measured IQ than pretty much everyone around
me but that doesn't make be better except at solving some kinds of puzzles -
for example I'm poor at languages while I recall a school friend with a much
lower measured IQ who was fluent in nine languages at the age of sixteen.

Which of us has the better brain ? Are either of us better than the
school dropout who is now an expert car mechanic, or the woman who uses a
calculator to multiply by ten and plays hauntingly beautiful music ? Right
the questions are meaningless, stupid and divisive - and I haven't even
mentioned race!

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:

> On Do 21 Apr 2022 at 22:39, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
> > different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
> > brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>
> Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
> They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).

Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
ordered, and I think that's taught!

"What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took many
years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't understand
why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I sometimes suspect that it
does stump everybody but they pick something at random that doesn't get
laughed at and stick with it so that it eventually becomes true and they're
becoming indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Fr 22 Apr 2022 at 08:43, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
> Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>
>> On Do 21 Apr 2022 at 22:39, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>> > The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
>> > different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
>> > brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>>
>> Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
>> They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).
>
> Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
> ordered, and I think that's taught!
>
> "What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
> stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took many
> years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't understand
> why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I sometimes suspect that it
> does stump everybody but they pick something at random that doesn't get
> laughed at and stick with it so that it eventually becomes true and they're
> becoming indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...

You are right.
In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many maximal elements (the
best).
And I certainly perceive colours as a partial order - so there is no
single best one.

'Andreas

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:16:53 +0200
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:

> You are right.
> In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many maximal elements (the
> best).
> And I certainly perceive colours as a partial order - so there is no
> single best one.

Yet every infant school child winds up getting asked what their
favourite colour is. I had forgotten about it until my daughter came home
asking me the question and didn't like my answer that I didn't have a
favourite colour. She thought I *must* have a favourite and was convinced
for years that I was just refusing to tell her what it was and got quite
angry about it.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

>>>
>>> Maybe better for one thing than another. Groups that are genetically tall
>>> and long-legged are better at basketball and running, for example.
>>
>> Is that really true? Or are you only looking at the exceptional "tall
>> and long-legged"? I sucked at basketball, and I'm taller than Steph
>> Curry.
>>
>
>Not entirely, but short basketball players have a disadvantage vs. tall
>ones. Natural talent and hard work can overcome some of it, but given two
>players of equal talent I’d put my money on the taller one.

I dunno - Steph (6'3") and Jordan Poole (6'4") make most of those
taller players look silly quite often. Jokic vs Curry and I'd take
Curry every time.

> Likewise given
>two football players of roughly equal talent, I’d put my money on the
>300-pounder and not the 200-pounder.

Quarterbacks, place kickers and punters?

Generalities often aren't.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:26:24 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> > If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
> > problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
> > better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
> > horses aren't as smart as people.

> Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
> have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic.

I should have clarified. Obviously, there are no differences in IQ between the
races large enough to justify treating the members of any race as if they were
just animals. That, in itself, doesn't mean slight differences can't exist.

But if they did exist, and were proven to do so, it would still cause a problem
because then it would make it harder to argue that bigotry isn't valid. (Unless
the differences are in the "wrong" direction, of course.)

John Savard

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:44:31 +0100, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/04/2022 21:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I think that it's difficult to discuss "real differences of racial origin" for
>> other reasons.
>> It's true that of two skin colors that are not the same, one_is_ better for
>> avoiding sunburn. But the other is better for getting vitamin D naturally
>> from being out in the sun.
>
>There's quite a lot of evidence now that early farmers suffered from
>dietary problems. They were shorter than the hunter gatherers that
>preceded them. And there's also evidence from people like Cheddar Man
>that the hunter-gatherers were quite dark. Whiteness is a response to
>poor farming techniques.

And the further north a person lives, the skin lightens over
generations so Vitamin D can be produced via sunlight.
--
Jim

On 2022-04-22, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:26:24 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> > If there _were_ a real difference in IQ due to race, _that_ would be a big
>> > problem, not because being smarter is _assumed_ to be better - it _is_
>> > better - but because the reason horses aren't allowed to vote is because
>> > horses aren't as smart as people.
>
>> Whether or not there are any real genetic differences in IQ (and people who
>> have tried to find out have been crucified) this is too simplistic.
>
> I should have clarified. Obviously, there are no differences in IQ between the
> races large enough to justify treating the members of any race as if they were
> just animals. That, in itself, doesn't mean slight differences can't exist.

I would think that there are massive differences in social conditions
between peoples, for instance, Jewish social groups have an affinity to
learning that aids them in life, where Hottentots ( Khoikhoi),do not, which
impairs them. That is something that can be repaired easily.

The idea of Eugenics, arose with the rise in Racism after the 1880's or
so. It is stupid and cruel.

BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
which logically actually showed that you were stupider.

>
> But if they did exist, and were proven to do so, it would still cause a problem
> because then it would make it harder to argue that bigotry isn't valid. (Unless
> the differences are in the "wrong" direction, of course.)
>
> John Savard

--
greymausg@mail.com
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,

On 2022-04-22, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> I would think that there are massive differences in social conditions
> between peoples, for instance, Jewish social groups have an affinity to
> learning that aids them in life, where Hottentots ( Khoikhoi),do not,
> which impairs them. That is something that can be repaired easily.

Are you sure? Given the modern trend toward "de-skilling",
we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

> BTW, when I was younger, I was mislead on the idea of IQ, and attempted
> to join Mensa, and succeeded. Then I realised that I had joined a group
> that would take money to tell you you were smarter than most others,
> which logically actually showed that you were stupider.

I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
-- Groucho Marx

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-04-21, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> The fact that humans have higher intelligence than other species of animals
>> is the *reason why* humans, and only humans, are recognized as persons
>> with rights.
>
> This is changing. Apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, and octopi are
> probably about as intelligent as many people, or at least as intelligent as
> people on the right of the curve. This doesn’t mean that we give them the
> franchise, but it does, of at least should, give them rights.

I read an article about this yesterday. Maybe someday the list of species to
which we give these rights will someday be expanded to include _Homo sapiens_.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-04-21, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> - Observed fact 1: The pervasiveness of inequality faced by black people in
> the U.S. is _easily_ enough to account for the measured 15 points difference
> in I.Q. between blacks and whites found by one study.

It all comes back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
Those who argue it's all one and none of the other are
missing the point.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-04-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> Now to speculation - if there are any racially linked intellectual
> differences they won't be so crude as "these people are incredibly
> intelligent and these ones are stupid" they will be more along the lines of
> "these people tend to have better than average spatial awareness because
> they ..." or even more subtle and specific.

And even there we come back to the nature vs. nurture argument.
With the spread of GPS, people's spatial awareness is atrophying.
I think I read of a study that suggested the area in our brains
that deals with spatial relationships is actually shrinking.

> I have a higher measured IQ than pretty much everyone around
> me but that doesn't make be better except at solving some kinds of puzzles -
> for example I'm poor at languages while I recall a school friend with a much
> lower measured IQ who was fluent in nine languages at the age of sixteen.

I do really well with numbers, music, and many spatial problems -
but I'm totally stumped by politics (and happy to be so).

If you want an excuse to discriminate against a group, there
all sorts of criteria you can pick to back up your arguments.
(There are just as many criteria that will refute those arguments,
though, and if you want to win you just have to shout them down.)

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> writes:

> On Fr 22 Apr 2022 at 08:43, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:49:47 +0200
>> Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Do 21 Apr 2022 at 22:39, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The core problem is the common idea that if two things are
>>>> different then one must necessarily be better than the other - which is
>>>> brain dead stupid and nearly universal at a gut level.
>>>
>>> Somehow most people do not grok partial orders.
>>> They think, if there is an order, it is always total (linear).
>>
>> Added to that they tend to think that all differences must be
>> ordered, and I think that's taught!
>>
>> "What's your favorite colour ?" - I was five when that question
>> stumped me (so I picked black at random at got laughed at). It took
>> many years to fully understand why it stumped me and I still don't
>> understand why it doesn't stump *everybody* the same way. I
>> sometimes suspect that it does stump everybody but they pick
>> something at random that doesn't get laughed at and stick with it
>> so that it eventually becomes true and they're becoming
>> indoctrinated to the idea that there is always a best/favourite/...
>
> You are right. In a partial order you can have arbitrarily many
> maximal elements (the best). And I certainly perceive colours as a
> partial order - so there is no single best one.

Is this the place to mention Warren McCulloch's "A Heterarchy of Values
Determined by the Topology of Nervous Nets"?

https://vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada