race differences (from McDonald's thread)

[Funkyterrance]

Ethnic Tibetans living in Tibet are known to have high levels of nitric oxide, increased blood flow, and easier metabolization in high altitudes than a foreigner who moves to Tibet.

Incidentally, this makes them excellent airline pilots.

[pancakemix]

Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?

No, but at this point I don't think there is a single ethnicity that hasn't been demeaned by American culture ("whites" included). It's part of our heritage, for better or worse. We need someone to make "the bad guy", and usually that falls on racial lines.

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?

On this, I can only suggest a few things. One is that skin tone can be used as a physical descriptor. For example, if an author writes a character and that character is black, he should probably mention that that character is black in some way. On a more immediate level, it narrows down people in a semi-large group (Ex. "the black guy over there"), even though there are probably better descriptors available (EX. "the guy in the red shirt over there"). Another is in the realm of physical attractiveness. Considering that the discussion earlier revolved around selected traits, one should consider that skin tone itself is one of them.

[Phatscotty]

Moved, because it deserves its own thread.

^ well said......

.....

Wait, why would not you include whatever comment your thread starts off with John saying "well said'?"

what was well said?

[Phatscotty]

^ well said

i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.

we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.

just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.

Sounds like someone needs to get re-educated and make a Progressive transition

[BigBallinStalin]

I always figured a "black" person was someone whose DNA is mainly of African descent.

So descendants of Somalians are black? Some are Caucasian ("white"), and yet some Caucasians look Indian or even darker in skin...
What about African Jews, who ancestors hail from modern day Israel (and around that country)?
And what of the American Tunisians? Are they "black"?
And what about the "white" Europeans whose ancestors have been living in sub-saharan Africa for centuries? Are they "black"?

How far must the DNA lineage be in order to conclude that one is of African descent? And what constitutes as "mainly"? (>50%? 75%?)

Well you have to make an imaginary line in the sand I suppose(no pun intended) in order to believe that black people exist at all. For the sake of argument I have to admit that they do and thus have to conform a little. So yes, I suppose your examples(at least the ones I recognize) would be black by my definition. I think I need more information to answer your question with any real conviction though, BBS.
I suppose you have raised a really good question though, BBS: what makes a "black person"? I do have to say though that the color of someone's skin doesn't enter into it in my mind.

Yeah, that line is imaginary, yet it differs across individuals, so there's no clear consensus. Brazilians have IIRC about at least 13 distinct words to describe 13 distinct skin colors. Most Americans probably have 2: black and white. All non-black-or-white are "Asian," "Indian," "Italian" (for some), "Arab" (which may include Persians), or the famous "uhhh errr hmm."

'Do black people exist'? They exist as much as one imagines them to be.

Your last sentences I've got questions for! (see previous post ITT).

[BigBallinStalin]

Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?

Shit, that would be great!(to the last statement)
I'm a little bummed that you used my "line in the sand" example though since I thought I made it clear that skin color had nothing to do with my definition. "Black" is just a throwback of a name that unfortunately is still widely used. I plead When in Rome.

As it is said in the Bible:

Let the first man who has no skin color draw the first line.

[BigBallinStalin]

It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.

Are you relying on circular reasoning? (sincerely, I'm not sure)

In other words, let's 'use race in order to narrow down genetic traits among certain people' (But how did we single out this group of certain people? By a priori calling them race X)?

....

Either way, let's move beyond that, and 'compile a list of people along physical and physiological characteristics such as A, B, C, D, and E.' Group A would have rank highly in A, B, C; Group B would rank highly in C, D, E; Group C would rank highly in A, C, E; etc. So, we have groups that are similar in some respects, but differ in others--and this could be the case for 80% of the sample whose skin color = "black," yet of that 80%, they can differ extraordinarily in other characteristics.

For most who adhere to stereotypes, I don't think the other characteristics really matter to them. They'll simply continue "calling a spade a spade" but only because they don't know any better; it's simply cheaper for them to categorize people on one simple common characteristic, "black."---regardless of the facts.

The same goes for cultural characteristics, but I'd expect most to rely on cognitive bias (confirmation bias), thus perpetuating this concept of race, of "black," etc.

I'm sorry, I'm not very coherent today, by "stereotypically cultured" I was trying to get across that people of certain lineages have an average standard of tradition that most in that culture adhere to, for example, the “Stereotypical Tibetan” person is genetically diverse from the Han Chinese, lives in high altitudes common to the region, follows traditions and teachings common to their region such as Tibetan Buddhism, and eats cuisine heavy in barley, dairy, and mustard seed.
Ethnic Tibetans living in Tibet are known to have high levels of nitric oxide, increased blood flow, and easier metabolization in high altitudes than a foreigner who moves to Tibet. Whether this is caused solely by environment, or if it includes genetics and other factors as well is being researched, but whatever the cause; it would be a factual statement to say the average Tibetan is more suited to a high altitude than the average person globally.

Okay, I see.

And the average human being has one testicle.

[john9blue]

i haven't read much of the thread but i'd like to address part of the OP...

Another bias is when men create the tests and just innately consider "male" type thinking to be superior. This is far more subtle and complicated. It has been well studied. The impact is changing because girls and boys now have more equal education than they did in the past, but at the highest assessement levels there is apparently still a bias that has to do with those tests heavily targeting a kind of specific linear thinking.

if you knew anything about IQ distribution, you'd know that the mean IQ's of males and females is the same. IQ variance, however, is higher among males. that is why most geniuses are male. most profoundly retarded people are also male, but you never hear about them.

[Army of GOD]

Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?

I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.


(1)
So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?
If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)?
(Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)

If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:

I stopped here just because I need to make it clear that I am skeptical of my own hypothesis. Like I said, I'm only saying what I'm saying in this thread as if someone put a gun to my head and demanded an answer. I have no scientific backing for my opinion, just pure observation.

I probably didn't make that incredibly clear in my first few posts, but I know my argument is very fallible. I'd go deeper, but I'm in a bus full of rugby players on our way to Buffalo so titties

[/]

Okay, I see.

And the average human being has one testicle.

yes, I suppose so, is that your criticism of categorizations based on common lines of characteristics?
The fact is that many divergences we call "Races" have been genetically isolated for literally tens of thousands of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_gene ... n_genetics
Do you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong?
Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

[Funkyterrance]

Let the first man who has no skin color draw the first line.

Aye.

[Funkyterrance]

Do you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong?
Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

These breeds are as such because they were over bred to gain certain characteristics and therefore have a significantly high chance of certain health problems, arguably more significant than any person of a certain background. You can also get a Bulldog who doesn't doesn't ever develop hip dysplasia, as your data points out. Should you treat it like it will get hip displasia before it does or should you treat it like any other dog until the vet finds a problem?

[/]

Do you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong?
Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

These breeds are as such because they were over bred to gain certain characteristics and therefore have a significantly high chance of certain health problems, arguably more significant than any person of a certain background. You can also get a Bulldog who doesn't doesn't ever develop hip dysplasia, as your data points out. Should you treat it like it will get hip displasia before it does or should you treat it like any other dog until the vet finds a problem?

True, I was using it as a comparison to the many testable and preventable genetic diseases in humans that should not be ignored.
Also hip dysplasia can be prevented with a proper diet, so yes, if one has a bulldog I would recommend paying stricter attention to its weight than normal.

[Funkyterrance]

Also hip dysplasia can be prevented with a proper diet, so yes, if one has a bulldog I would recommend paying stricter attention to its weight than normal.

Very solid point, "/". It should be noted, however, that any overweight dog is more susceptible to health problems than one that isn't. Does that bring us back to where we started in regards to treating the bulldog like any other dog?

[/]

Very solid point, "/". It should be noted, however, that any overweight dog is more susceptible to health problems than one that isn't. Does that bring us back to where we started in regards to treating the bulldog like any other dog?

To an extent, but having identified a likely problem limits it slightly more than general dog fitness, muscle strengthening exercises such as running and swimming are recommended, while activities that could strain joints such as Frisbee or jumping should not be undertaken with such breeds.