[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, culture and genes are not the same thing.

I don't see why you think it's noteworthy that similarity can be drawn between culture and genes, because both guide human behavior, and genes guide and provide the constraints for culture (and culture acts as a selective pressure itself). Let's say we have two hypothetical populations whose averages for certain traits are slightly offset owing to differences in the genetic influences for those traits. Do you really think that given the exact same environmental constraints, such as type of grain predominating in the area, climate, geographical layout, topography, arability, etc., that the two groups would develop culture of the exact same character?

Let's say instead of H. sapiens inhabiting the fertile crescent 10,000 years ago, that it was H. erectus, do you think they would have developed agriculture?

[rickster]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The only thing specific about Affirmative Action is that it is based on the premise that blacks are biologically inferior and cannot compete on an equal footing with any other race. The absurd notion that a government must force a society to give them special privleges like handicapped parking spaces for the disabled is an insult to the entire race. These moronic theories of outcome-based socialism would be laughable if they didn't do so much harm to society. It's very difficult to argue with the glassy-eyed, indoctrinated kool aid drinkers who support this idiocy because they are immune to common sense. My prediction is that the antidote for the kool aid is coming in November.

I suppose we can only hope November will deliver such a dose of this kind of Americana that decent Americans everywhere will one day rise up and rid their system - if not the American psyche - of this kind of hate-based filth.

I love America, I love Americans, I love my American education & I love the half of me that's American. When I see this aberrant way of thinking passed of as political ideals and social policy I'm just ashamed. No wonder the country's going down the crapper.

Thankfully, smarter people have said it better than I can:


Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877].

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi


"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer


"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" - Mahatma Gandhi

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In my opinion "social engineering" is outside the purview of the federal government.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously? What are laws if not social engineering?

Blueback is right, and I'd like to expand on that. Government is precisely the mechanism by which a society engineers itself. To say that "'social engineering is outside the purview of the federal government" is to commit an oxymoron.

The question is not whether the government will engage in social engineering. The questions are "How" and "On whose behalf."

A government which "does not engage in social engineering," i.e. provides no help or very little help to the poor and weak, is a government which is engineering that nation's society on behalf of the already-rich.

Those who say things like, "The government should not engage in social engineering," are not really advocating against social engineering per se. Rather, they are advocating for social engineering on behalf of the already-rich and already-privileged. They are trying to keep government in the hands of and at the service of the rich, against the poor. They like to portray this state of affairs as some kind of natural order. It's not. It's the result of actions taken and not taken by government. It's the result of simple human choices.

And, it does NOT lead to more opportunities for more people. Quite the opposite.

	Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I suppose we can only hope November will deliver such a dose of this kind of Americana that decent Americans everywhere will one day rise up and rid their system - if not the American psyche - of this kind of hate-based filth.

I agree.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see why you think it's noteworthy that similarity can be drawn between culture and genes,

I don't. I think it's noteworthy that a DISTINCTION can be drawn between culture and genes.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...genes guide and provide the constraints for culture...

The relationship between genes and culture is...tenuous, to say the least. Just because genes and cultures exist in the same places doesn't mean they have much to do with each other.

Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's say we have two hypothetical populations whose averages for certain traits are slightly offset owing to differences in the genetic influences for those traits. Do you really think that given the exact same environmental constraints, such as type of grain predominating in the area, climate, geographical layout, topography, arability, etc., that the two groups would develop culture of the exact same character?

I don't think, given two entirely identical situations, that two identical cultures would emerge; ever. The number of factors influencing culture is just too mind-bogglingly huge for you to ever control all of them.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's say instead of H. sapiens inhabiting the fertile crescent 10,000 years ago, that it was H. erectus, do you think they would have developed agriculture?

You want to know another thing that's not the same as culture? Okay, I'll tell you, it's technology.

Are you trying to find some way to back up this ridiculous argument and failing, or are you being serious right now?

Do you really think that what cultures, on the whole, do is guided by genes? Do you think the genes of Germans have "engineer" or "Holocaust" written in them? Do you think the genes of Japanes have "fencing" in them? Do you think the genes of Native Americans have "stick feathers on your head and dance around a fire" in them? What shape a culture takes has far more to do with the environment it happens to exist in than the genes of its constituents. That's precisely WHY Western civilization(s) control much of the globe (because the Mongols didn't manage to destroy them), why people near the equator are less inventive than people near the poles (because they don't have to deal with winter), and why America is the reigning superpower (because it has more resources per capita and is immune from attack). The cultures that have formed are direct results of the pressures placed on them.

The same thing applies to cultures within cultures. Blacks have only recently (in cultural evolution terms) been released from slavery and racism persists to this day. They've been left and/or kept in poverty that whole time. Poverty is a strong force for shaping cultures. The same thing applies on an individual or familial level. The research is solid: force a kid to grow up in poverty and the odds of them achieving any benchmark you care to set are significantly reduced.

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't. I think it's noteworthy that a DISTINCTION can be drawn between culture and genes.

That you can draw distinctions and similarities between the two is obvious. Blse drew a distinction with the word "and", and a similarity by pointing out that they both impose constraints on our efforts for equality.

	The relationship between genes and culture is...tenuous, to say the least. Just because genes and cultures exist in the same places doesn't mean they have much to do with each other.

Despite sharing 50% of our genes, bananas are shockingly primitive in their technological development and social regulations. Despite sharing 98% of our genes, chimpanzees will never be capable of maintaining an inter-tribal truce by convening, deliberating, then deciding to offer their females to another tribe when territorial disputes seem imminent. Genes enable and constrain culture.

	I don't think, given two entirely identical situations, that two identical cultures would emerge; ever. The number of factors influencing culture is just too mind-bogglingly huge for you to ever control all of them.

I know, stochastic events and all, but I didn't offer you a hypothetical comparison of two entirely identical situations, but one where the environmental constraints were identical and the genetic influences differed. If two groups differed in the strength and durability of the pair-bonding desire in their member males, wouldn't knowing that be useful for making predictions?

	You want to know another thing that's not the same as culture? Okay, I'll tell you, it's technology.

Technology falls under the purview of culture. Culture, in the form of collective knowledge, enables and constrains technological development, and genes enable and constrain the acquisition and utility of knowledge.

	are you being serious right now?

Yes. The difference between the genetic differences between the races and those between hominid species is one of scale.

Do you really think that what cultures, on the whole, do is guided by genes? Do you think the genes of Germans have "engineer" or "Holocaust" written in them? Do you think the genes of Japanese have "fencing" in them? Do you think the genes of Native Americans have "stick feathers on your head and dance around a fire" in them? What shape a culture takes has far more to do with the environment it happens to exist in than the genes of its constituents.

No blueback, genes do not dictate every single minutia and vagary of cultures. They enable and constrain.

	That's precisely WHY Western civilization(s) control much of the globe (because the Mongols didn't manage to destroy them),

Necessary, not sufficient.

	why people near the equator are less inventive than people near the poles (because they don't have to deal with winter),

That's also probably why they didn't evolve higher g.

	The cultures that have formed are direct results of the pressures placed on them.

And the genes of their members.

The same thing applies to cultures within cultures. Blacks have only recently (in cultural evolution terms) been released from slavery and racism persists to this day. They've been left and/or kept in poverty that whole time. Poverty is a strong force for shaping cultures. The same thing applies on an individual or familial level. The research is solid: force a kid to grow up in poverty and the odds of them achieving any benchmark you care to set are significantly reduced.

This explanation doesn't hold water anymore. And the fact that poverty limits potential says nothing about the genetic potential being limited.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Despite sharing 50% of our genes, bananas are shockingly primitive in their technological development and social regulations. Despite sharing 98% of our genes, chimpanzees will never be capable of maintaining an inter-tribal truce by convening, deliberating, then deciding to offer their females to another tribe when territorial disputes seem imminent. Genes enable and constrain culture.

First of all, I think that by "bananas" you mean "bonobos." On the other hand, it is true that bananas are shockingly primitive in their technological development
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And we probably do share 50% of our genes with bananas. After all, I think we share a dizzyingly high percentage of our genes with pretty much everything on earth...Ah here. Random example: we share 70% of our genes with sea sponges.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Which don't even have brains or vertebrae. Yet we overlap with them, genetically, 70%.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Culture, in the form of collective knowledge, enables and constrains technological development, and genes enable and constrain the acquisition and utility of knowledge.

But what about those exceptions everyone is always talking about? How the smartest person in any "other" ethnic group is liable to be smarter than at least half the people in whatever group is being presented as the "smartest"? Wouldn't every culture contain sufficient numbers of Gladwellian outliers to drive it as far as it could go...given the environment in which the culture found itself and the resources available to it?

Which brings up the next point: environment. Environment enables and constrains the acquisition and utility of knowledge...and environment enables and constrains the manifestation of genetic potential.

Genetically, my husband was born a lefty. The left side of his body has always been stronger than the right. Guess which hand he writes with? Yep. As a (then-ambidextrous) toddler, he had a meddling pediatrician who urged my MIL and FIL to train him to be right-handed, and they did. My genetically left-handed husband uses his right hand. His environment totally constrained the manifestation of his genetic blueprint. The only sign that he was ever destined for something different is that his left side is stronger.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. The difference between the genetic differences between the races and those between hominid species is one of scale.

And how do you assess mixed-race people? Do you think you can know which ethnic group's genes are manifesting in what areas of potential a mixed-race person has? Are you even thinking about mixed-race or multiracial people, or are you just categorizing people visually and assuming that the genes which control skin color and hair texture must also be the ones controlling intelligence? Are you going to declare the question irrelevant because you think mixed- and multi-racial people are outliers who have no bearing on populations as a whole, which you see as monolithic?

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No blueback, genes do not dictate every single minutia and vagary of cultures. They enable and constrain.

In that case, therefore, how do you know which cultural manifestations are a result of the genes of its people, and which are from another source of pressure, and which are just plain icing on the cake?

Also, how do you account for variations--sometimes significant--between the cultures of those who share an overall ethnic group?

Moreover, how do you account for similarities between the cultures of those who do not share an overall ethnic group? Take the Finns. The Finns have a freaky-ass genetic signature which differs in tiny but noticeable ways from those of other human ethnic groups. The Finnish language, in addition, is a major outlier--unable to be traced to a larger parent tongue. Yet....the Finnish culture is largely indistinguishable overall from other European cultures; no more or less different from, say, Icelandic, Irish and Welsh culture than the Icelandic, Irish and Welsh cultures are from each other.

If the scale of human genetic differences is significant enough to be noticeably responsible for the vast gulf between Papua New Guinea and Nunavut, why do the Finns not have a far more noticeably unique and bizarre culture commensurate with their unique and un-parented language and genetic differences?

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And the fact that poverty limits potential says nothing about the genetic potential being limited.

In another thread, I believe you discussed your deep and abiding animosity towards the culture of the American South, particularly the culture of the Southern poor. Many of the Southern poor are white. Indeed, the white Southern culture of poverty is so distinctive that it gave rise to the terms "redneck" and "white trash."

Do you see where I'm going with this?

If you believe that white people are genetically superior to at least some other populations, how do you account for the fact that white people living in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Southern lowlands have, over the past roughly three centuries, developed a subculture which the rest of America laughs at daily....while the white populations of more urban and northern locations did not?

And finally...

The ancient Incas never invented the wheel. Yet they nonetheless figured out a system whereby mail could be delivered anywhere in the Incan Empire about as fast as modern US postal service standard shipping.

Who's smarter? The culture which invents the wheel--or the culture which obviates the need for wheels?

[Ray9]

Originally Posted by rickster To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suppose we can only hope November will deliver such a dose of this kind of Americana that decent Americans everywhere will one day rise up and rid their system - if not the American psyche - of this kind of hate-based filth. I love America, I love Americans, I love my American education & I love the half of me that's American. When I see this aberrant way of thinking passed of as political ideals and social policy I'm just ashamed. No wonder the country's going down the crapper. Thankfully, smarter people have said it better than I can: Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954]. The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization. ~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, [1877]. "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest." ~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying," ~Pope John Paul II "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man" - Mahatma Gandhi

You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. - Abraham Lincoln


Threre's a sucker born every minute- PT Barnum.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. - Abraham Lincoln

And why do you assume that the only way to make a weak man strong is by making a strong man weak?

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Threre's a sucker born every minute- PT Barnum.

Yup...a sucker for the idea that it really is every man for himself. The American rich are laughing their way to the bank, Ray. You keep right on carrying water for them.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. - Abraham Lincoln Threre's a sucker born every minute- PT Barnum.

How smooth must be the language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong like right. --Black Hawk

[rickster]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak. - Abraham Lincoln

"Let them eat cake." - Marie Antoinette, en route to the guillotine.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That one word is indicative of something else you're doing: exaggerating to support your socialist agenda.

Come on, Blse. You literally just quoted a report by a conservative think tank. I said "slavery", to refer to slavery.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Come on, Blse. You literally just quoted a report by a conservative think tank. I said "slavery", to refer to slavery.

Yeah, and besides which, the conservative position is actually the one which would lead to massive (and massively expensive) paternalist intervention, if taken seriously.

Race-fixated conservatives keep saying that AA, welfare, Head Start, etc are useless because "those people" are too genetically backward to benefit from them. They imagine, in their mental fantasy world, that this means we can cut "those people" off and leave them to their fate.

I'm not sure why they think that. In fact, that reasoning leads to the exact opposite conclusion. As I said before--if the minorities in question really are genetically inferior, such that today's "helping hand" programs really are useless, then that means we are morally and ethically obligated as a society to DO MORE FOR these poor, helpless, deficient beings. And we must EXPECT LESS FROM them. After all, it would be cruel, wrong, and downright evil to put so many burdens on these victims of their own genes.

It is really the conservative viewpoint which, when considered in context of standard human ethical norms, leads to a "socialist agenda" in terms of resource redistribution. I'm not sure why they never seem to grasp that.

In my opinion, therefore, conservatives need to pick a WAY better excuse to achieve their fantasy of cutting off the poor from all help.

[Blse]

Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, and besides which, the conservative position is actually the one which would lead to massive (and massively expensive) paternalist intervention, if taken seriously. Race-fixated conservatives keep saying that AA, welfare, Head Start, etc are useless because "those people" are too genetically backward to benefit from them. They imagine, in their mental fantasy world, that this means we can cut "those people" off and leave them to their fate. I'm not sure why they think that. In fact, that reasoning leads to the exact opposite conclusion. As I said before--if the minorities in question really are genetically inferior, such that today's "helping hand" programs really are useless, then that means we are morally and ethically obligated as a society to DO MORE FOR these poor, helpless, deficient beings. And we must EXPECT LESS FROM them. After all, it would be cruel, wrong, and downright evil to put so many burdens on these victims of their own genes. It is really the conservative viewpoint which, when considered in context of standard human ethical norms, leads to a "socialist agenda" in terms of resource redistribution. I'm not sure why they never seem to grasp that. In my opinion, therefore, conservatives need to pick a WAY better excuse to achieve their fantasy of cutting off the poor from all help.

The point is that AA or massive welfare programs are exercises in futility. Thus, we're better of just providing minorities with the same resources for self-development as everyone else (no more, no less - to be fair). Perhaps minorities will never do as well as whites, because of their culture, because of their genes. As long they are not living in destitude (and few do, as the data show the poor in America are not that poor), giving them no more and no less help than anyone else is what's fair. Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. We are under no obligation to ensure a middle class standard of living for everyone. If some people end up poor, then that's life. If the poverty rate for minorities ends up being higher than for whites, then that's life as well.

FYI: I am not a conservative, I'm a moderate.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, and besides which, the conservative position is actually the one which would lead to massive (and massively expensive) paternalist intervention, if taken seriously. Race-fixated conservatives keep saying that AA, welfare, Head Start, etc are useless because "those people" are too genetically backward to benefit from them. They imagine, in their mental fantasy world, that this means we can cut "those people" off and leave them to their fate.

Let's make a quick distinction... this is NOT the conservative position.

Conservatives are opposed to many of these things because they don't work. Helping the poor is absolutely a priority for conservatives. Doing so in a way that helps them out of poverty is also a priority.

To be honest, I've been embarrassed to watch this attempt to drag genetics into this.

[Blse]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Come on, Blse. You literally just quoted a report by a conservative think tank.

So? The numbers are either accurate or not. Do you have any evidence to suggest that these numbers are not accurate? If not, you got no counter-argument.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I said "slavery", to refer to slavery.

You're confusing defacto and dejure.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously? What are laws if not social engineering?

In the first place I stipulated that I didn't believe "social engineering" was within the purview of the Federal government. In any event laws are passive.

---------- Post added 08-17-2010 at 12:14 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Blueback is right, and I'd like to expand on that. Government is precisely the mechanism by which a society engineers itself.

Society doesn't do anything. People do things.

	The question is not whether the government will engage in social engineering. The questions are "How" and "On whose behalf."

No, the question is whether it will be active or passive.

Those who say things like, "The government should not engage in social engineering," are not really advocating against social engineering per se. Rather, they are advocating for social engineering on behalf of the already-rich and already-privileged. They are trying to keep government in the hands of and at the service of the rich, against the poor. They like to portray this state of affairs as some kind of natural order. It's not. It's the result of actions taken and not taken by government. It's the result of simple human choices.

Actually, no. That is not what I'm advocating at all. I'm advocating that the government be neutral and that the Federal laws show no more respect to the rich than the poor.

Affirmative action provides an advantage to a person simply based on their race.........regardless of whether they are poor or not. You could have a wealthy minority getting a promotion instead of a poor white person. How's that policy helping the poor?

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First of all, I think that by "bananas" you mean "bonobos."

No, I mean bananas, as in this shit is? See blueback's post for context. He cited the banana while mentioned that suites of genes occuring in the absence of culture supported the observation that "culture and genes are not the same thing" because the fact that they're two different concepts denoted by two different words was too subtle. Bananas don't have culture because they don't have the genes that enable it, that was the point.

But what about those exceptions everyone is always talking about? How the smartest person in any "other" ethnic group is liable to be smarter than at least half the people in whatever group is being presented as the "smartest"? Wouldn't every culture contain sufficient numbers of Gladwellian outliers to drive it as far as it could go...given the environment in which the culture found itself and the resources available to it?

No, because the ideas and concepts that can be instantiated in their brains can't be instantiated in the brains of the average, and because the ideas and concepts that these Abbo geniuses use to generate new ideas derive from their average peers. The smart innovate, but if the rest of the members can't avail themselves of the innovations then they don't take off. If the feeder ideas that drive idea innovation are of low complexity, rate of innovation will be low. Culture is of populations.

	Which brings up the next point: environment. Environment enables and constrains the acquisition and utility of knowledge...and environment enables and constrains the manifestation of genetic potential.

Yes. Genes and environment work together.

	And how do you assess mixed-race people?...Are you going to declare the question irrelevant because you think mixed- and multi-racial people are outliers who have no bearing on populations as a whole...?

Not outliers by definition, but valuable data. Their traits should be averaged between the averages of their parent populations, which is what we see with polygenic traits. In fact, in the Minnesota Adoption Study, IQ was related to degree of African ancestry, with biracial adoptees scoring between the white average and the black American average. Those biracials who wrongly believed themselves to be fully black scored in line with the other biracials, and not with the fully blacks, ruling out stereotype threat.

	In that case, therefore, how do you know which cultural manifestations are a result of the genes of its people, and which are from another source of pressure, and which are just plain icing on the cake?

All are the result of both. Both intelligence genes and the right environmental conditions were necessary to start the Neolithic.

	Also, how do you account for variations--sometimes significant--between the cultures of those who share an overall ethnic group?

Environment, chance, positive feedback, sexual selection...

ETA: And how to account for cultural similarities between different ethnic groups? Environmental similarity and the fact that genetic similarity between groups vastly dwarfs genetic differences act as convergent forces on culture.

	In another thread, I believe you discussed your deep and abiding animosity towards the culture of the American South, particularly the culture of the Southern poor. Many of the Southern poor are white. Indeed, the white Southern culture of poverty is so distinctive that it gave rise to the terms "redneck" and "white trash."

No, my position was that fried food was contributing to their obesity incidence.

	Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes, you're framing your argument in binary terms, either/or.

	If you believe that white people are genetically superior to at least some other populations

I don't believe white people are genetically superior to any other human population.

	Who's smarter? The culture which invents the wheel--or the culture which obviates the need for wheels?

Insufficient information.

[nowt]

	Originally Posted by Blse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's see... Your daddy's report was published in 2004, yet the Institute for Public Accuracy lambasted it in... 1999. How is that possible?

Why, Rector's a dishonest fuck, using the same sad spin upon the stats, year after year. Everyone, act surprised.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ray9]

	Why, Rector's a dishonest fuck, using the same sad spin upon the stats, year after year. Everyone, act surprised.

I'm not surprised at all. In fact I'm quite impressed.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tito]

Um, what percentage of the U.S. population is White vs. non-White?

Judging by the ardent arguments by some people here, my guess is that Whites are a tiny, tiny minority and this is why many feel so threatened by the overwhelming majority of non-Whites, especially in white-collar jobs; but I could be wrong.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[yoginimama]

Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, because the ideas and concepts that can be instantiated in their brains can't be instantiated in the brains of the average, and because the ideas and concepts that these Abbo geniuses use to generate new ideas derive from their average peers. The smart innovate, but if the rest of the members can't avail themselves of the innovations then they don't take off. If the feeder ideas that drive idea innovation are of low complexity, rate of innovation will be low. Culture is of populations.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't believe white people are genetically superior to any other human population.

I have to admit, I'm having trouble reconciling the first quote with the second. In the first quote, you're explaining why "Abbo geniuses" failed to turn their societies into iPod-using technophiles, and it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that it's because (a) the quality of the 'feeder ideas' was too low, and (b) even if/when they did have a truly brilliant idea, it would be too far beyond the capacity of 'the average.'

Yet there is an ethnic group which did manage to invent a whole lot of stuff--industrialism, mass-production, airplanes, vaccines, nuclear weapons. According to your logic, these must have been invented because (a) the 'feeder ideas' were of a high enough quality, and (b) the capacity of 'the average' was sufficient to grasp and use the brilliant flashes of the outliers.

How is that not, by implication if nothing else, an argument for the superiority of one group (which happens to be white) over the others?

If I've misunderstood you, please explain.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, you're framing your argument in binary terms, either/or.

That's because I believe environment is more powerful than genes. Genes are the steel, but environment is the hammer. You are going to become what the hammer makes you. The steel itself doesn't change, but the shape it takes--its being in the world--does.

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Insufficient information.

Why? Both the wheel and the Incan system were immensely clever and functional adaptations to the environment. What I meant was, neither culture was 'smarter.' They were both equally clever and adaptive.

[phoboser]

Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I have to admit, I'm having trouble reconciling the first quote with the second. In the first quote, you're explaining why "Abbo geniuses" failed to turn their societies into iPod-using technophiles, and it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that it's because (a) the quality of the 'feeder ideas' was too low, and (b) even if/when they did have a truly brilliant idea, it would be too far beyond the capacity of 'the average.' Yet there is an ethnic group which did manage to invent a whole lot of stuff--industrialism, mass-production, airplanes, vaccines, nuclear weapons. According to your logic, these must have been invented because (a) the 'feeder ideas' were of a high enough quality, and (b) the capacity of 'the average' was sufficient to grasp and use the brilliant flashes of the outliers. How is that not, by implication if nothing else, an argument for the superiority of one group (which happens to be white) over the others? If I've misunderstood you, please explain.

No, I'm explaining why, given the same environmental conditions, two populations that differed substantially in average g would not be very likely to develop technology of similar complexity, despite there being a fraction of individuals above a certain ability threshold in both populations. Think of how slowly stone tool technology progressed in the lower and middle Paleolithic. There had to have been individuals who could innovate, and probably did innovate, but their innovations may have been too complex for enough members of the rest of the population to master, and so their innovations never gained a foothold. The genetics of g constrain group achievement like the genetics of gender constrain intragroup dynamics like the genetics of in-group/out-group bias constrain assimilation and alliance-building. Sure there are exceptions to the common theme, but exceptions are exceptions because they're less probable. There was no Australian Aboriginal Neolithic because there was no environmental impetus. Had there been, who knows.

Superiority of genetics is a nonsensical concept, as is superiority of one group over another because of differences in frequencies of advantageous mutations affecting g, as is superiority of smarter individuals over dumber individuals. Do you think the smarter members of your extended family are superior to the less smart?

	That's because I believe environment is more powerful than genes. Genes are the steel, but environment is the hammer. You are going to become what the hammer makes you. The steel itself doesn't change, but the shape it takes--its being in the world--does.

As I said, genes enable and constrain, they don't dictate to the tiniest detail and aren't responsible for chance whims that diverge and define unique cultures. They create a room that can be filled with infinite ideas in infinite variety, but some ideas are better fits given the dimensions of the room, and some can't fit at all. That the average dimensions would be exactly the same in every population is highly improbable.

	Why? Both the wheel and the Incan system were immensely clever and functional adaptations to the environment. What I meant was, neither culture was 'smarter.' They were both equally clever and adaptive.

Yes they both were perfectly adapted to their environments and, like all populations, possessed incredible intelligence and created awe-inspiring achievements. But there were no psychometricians back then.

[Zsych]

I think the only benefit is forcing work place acceptance of people they might otherwise not. If there is less discrimination then its wasteful hiring/having people who don't have greater skills or talent.

I think if discrimination isn't a problem, you might offer more scholarships to allow promising members of some groups to achieve more and perhaps give back, but not forcefully put them into places they shouldn't be at.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Superiority of genetics is a nonsensical concept, as is superiority of one group over another because of differences in frequencies of advantageous mutations affecting g, as is superiority of smarter individuals over dumber individuals. Do you think the smarter members of your extended family are superior to the less smart?

Oh, OK. I think I see what you're saying. Definitely I agree with you that "superiority of genetics is a nonsensical concept." Absolutely. The problem is, many people do not agree. To them, "differences in frequencies of advantageous mutations affecting g" = "the group with the bigger number of said mutations is better."

That's the main reason I'm really not interested in discussing genes too much. First, I do think their role in human society and achievement is really not that great. Second is the depressing spectacle of "genes" being so widely taken as shorthand for "superiority/inferiority." As I said, there are many people who would vigorously disagree with you that "differences in frequencies of advantageous mutations affecting g" does not imply superiority of the group with more.