|
|
Reply to F. Bryant Furlow. Re: Irrational Biological Classifications
Andre Miga (andre.miga@bigfoot.com)
23 Jan 1997 22:29:48 GMT
> Because extensive psychometric ("mental") testing has revealed no
> dramatic, discrete differences in mental properties between human
> populations.
I guess the methods you referring to may be not advanced enough.
Or, you are just telling obvious untruths. There is a book written by
social scientists Richard J. Herrnstein & Charles Murray "The Bell
Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life", where
authors try to find a scientific truth about differences. First half
of the book is about differences within a single race of whites.
The research suggests (I say "suggests" since sociology, psychology
etc. are not exact sciences. You know it and you say that a proof
does not exists, abusing the interpretation of data and analysis
of inexact, yet science) that the differences (in IQ and others)
are most probable of genetic nature. Adoptions at birth are studied,
switched babies just after birth and other cases. Environment of
course counts, but less than genetic background.
I suggest that the environment is a function of genetic
predisposition too.
> There seems to exist a different mean IQ score for people describing
> themselves as "black" and those describing themselves as "white," but
> the entire range of scores earned by whites is also occupied by blacks.
This proves that there are smart as well as dumb individuals in
every group. It still holds that you can expect a randomly met man
to be smarter or more dumb based on its race until you have a chance
to test the individual and classify him/her by means of IQ, or just by
assessing his "intelligence" after exchanging few sentences. But the
latter is unreliable since the individual may be or may be not
more intelligent than yourself, making your conclusion inaccurate.
Another thing I would like to stress is this observation:
Very few mixed-race individuals would identify themselves as "white".
But somebody with 5% of black race and 95% white would identify self
as "black". The reasons are complex. One certainly is the affirmative
action especially at educational institutions, that gives "blacks"
preferences.
I wonder what is the mean IQ of a pure black. I guess it also differs
among races within blacks, since there are many different races.
If you are an American with or without the prefix "Afro", you probably
do not realize how they differ in their native continent. Different
head and body sizes and shapes. Different mentalities.
They distinguish themselves very strongly. They fight each other for
thousands or millions of years in their native continent. Here
they arrived as slaves loosing identity. The instincts of tribal
war remained however in form of the culture of urban gangs.
> Not all studies identify this difference in group means, either. Black
> students have scored at the top of IQ study distributions in our
studies
> at UNM.
Is there an access to results of the studies?
If it is truth, you agree that it would be an exception.
Trying to prove something, presenting as evidence pointing at exceptions
is an invalid method and scientifically unacceptable.
It is well documented that races differ in IQ, SAT scores, number
of famous mathematicians, physicists, basketball, chess, hockey players
etc., etc..
Some scientists suggests that races differ on ways of thinking
but not necessary any one is inferior. The IQ and similar tests
favor specific way of thinking, probably usually associated with
whites. If this is truth, it should be possible to develop
tests where other "ways of thinking" would score better.
Do you know about such tests? Of course it must tests recognized
things like mathematical thinking (not knowledge) and verbal
qualities and not e.g., knowledge of an African witchcraft.
If you argue that a mathematical thinking is one of the racially
biased subjects, create or find a knowledge (not necessary science,
since the notion "science" may be culturally biased) that enables
you to set your foot on the moon or create global communication village.
Nobody (I mean: serious either liberal or conservative politicians or
social scientists) argues about the fact that differences exist.
(I guess you do).
The argument is only "What is the cause". Since a science(s) that
are useful to research this phenomenon are not exact sciences,
you can have reasonable arguments on each side. Since statistics
as a tool is more exact than the above sciences, lets determine
who should be promoted and who not. Lets get rid of stupid, extremely
ugly and mentally disturbed. We have brilliant, beautiful and healthy
among all races in the melting pot. We do not have to kill anybody.
We can employ humanitarian means.
> The different means, when they are found, may well be due to the
> compromised developmental environments faced by blacks because of
> attitudes about genetic predetermination and racial typology which you
> appear to advocate.
You are right. It appears only. I advocate that an individual should be
considered one by one. If that means that if a 99% of a given race would
be classified as imbecilic, I would promote the 1% and sterilize the 99%
including myself if I am bellow the line.
Even if the reason is cultural/environmental, we cannot afford promote
99%
and socially sterilize the 1%. By social sterilization I mean situation
in which my family is. We pursue a career since we are able to. We have
no
time and money for kids. Until we are old, we will adopt a kid(s) of
most likely poorer genetic quality as ourselves.
The (usually) welfare, low IQ individuals are multiplying, putting
additional burden on us. This process will lead to a genetic catastrophe,
yet it is hardly visible over a year or two, thus unnoticed or ignored.
It is decisive however over generations and leads to genetic degradation
of the nation.
If the reasons are really exclusively cultural/environmental, how many
generations we have to wait? We have waited many already and the problem
seems expanding. Whatever the reasons are. I doubt anybody would truly
count on reversing the trend in the nearest future.
I give you a sense of how a humanitarianism is abused by our
civilization:
If you have a herd of sheep. Some are healthy, resistant to disease and
predators, give a lot of goods. Others do not posses those qualities.
Do you:
1. eat the good ones and breed the disadvantaged.
2. eat the disadvantaged and promote the good.
If the same thing would relate to the human society. Would it reverse
your choices in the name of humanitarianism?
What is humanitarian, and what is not.
> One I doubt you'd be inclined to give due consideration.
|