We as humans aren't clones so we can't attribute every difference to environment and upbringing. For example nobody says that black people do well at 100m running because of their culture - it's their genetics. But when a negative trait is pointed out then it is deemed racist. Like it or not human races are analogous to closely related dog breeds. Dogs can be trained to behave in any way but the baseline behaviour of breeds have stereotypes e.g. docile, athletic, aggressive, yappy etc. I think the same is true for humans but a lot more subtle. To deny behavioral differences because of genetics is simply the emperor's new clothes.
I don't understand racism or homophobia
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
Can you point me in the direction of the science behind these statements?
When you say "black" people do well at the 100m are we talking aboriginal Australians, or the just the geographic population with the greatest genetic distance on the planet, Africa?
What is it that you believe Skin Pigmentation tells you about people and what evidence is that based on?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
I've heard similar things before, West Africans tend to have more fast twitch muscle fibres and pacific islanders have the highest bone density etc. Whether that is true or not I don't know. The question whether peoples's behaviour is more down to the culture they grow up or more genetic is a lot harder to answer, you will probably need somebody who actually knows what they are talking about to answer it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,053
Not sure its been said before in this thread (skipped thru) but "racisim" is a catchall thrown about all over the place today.
As an example - person a "i dont like that person" person b "why because hes black? Are you racist"
I lump the generilasation in with political correctness and ignore it.
As an example - person a "i dont like that person" person b "why because hes black? Are you racist"
I lump the generilasation in with political correctness and ignore it.
Whatever you would like to use as your ranking criteria
I think you're taking the word black a bit too literally here. It's more than just the amount of melanin in the skin. I'm talking about genetic lineage.
Here is some research looking into the success of black Jamaicans at running:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874308/
1. They're old and don't know any better.
2. The area they live in has little to no people of colour, so their only opinion is moulded by negative depictions usually found in the media. Luckily not much blatant racist publications, but even subtle ones can influence someones opinion.
3. Or they had one bad experience with a person of colour and painting that entire race negatively due to it.
4. They're stupid.
2. The area they live in has little to no people of colour, so their only opinion is moulded by negative depictions usually found in the media. Luckily not much blatant racist publications, but even subtle ones can influence someones opinion.
3. Or they had one bad experience with a person of colour and painting that entire race negatively due to it.
4. They're stupid.
We can only notice very small differences observed over fractions of seconds in elite athletic events when comparing different races - and we have to assume that difference is not caused by other factors (such as, perhaps, a higher take-up of such sport by black people).
Whilst that difference may be genuine and measurable, that doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that behavioural differences are going to follow. Would a similar marginal difference in behaviour be at all observable? I rather doubt it would be.
Whilst that difference may be genuine and measurable, that doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that behavioural differences are going to follow. Would a similar marginal difference in behaviour be at all observable? I rather doubt it would be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,818
see post 17
It makes more sense if you look at slavery as a form of selective breeding, no one wanted a slow weak slave and the weak didn't survive.
So in areas where large concentrations of people can trace their heritage back to people trafficked as slaves it would make sense that they have a natural affinity for being strong and fit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,130
Personally I would be amazed if tribal group identity doesn't have some genetic basis. There is extended genetic self interest to identifying with a wider group than your family unit. I think that basic trait has been reflected in culture as we have ascended. What we are seeing is the clash that comes from the modern World being at odds with our genetic/cultural bias. I would however suggest it is a weak bias because many people are more than capable of overcoming via rational thought or conditioning.
Ergo racism and other bigotry is probably a vestigial genetic predisposition that has been captured in our culture. But that's just my guess.
Ergo racism and other bigotry is probably a vestigial genetic predisposition that has been captured in our culture. But that's just my guess.
Whereas sickly, rich, white europeans bred with careless abandon and now we have all these gluten intolerants losers
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
If you are "sickened" by the thought that someone might be racist or homophobic, I'd suggest there's something wrong with you. This is not a rational reaction. Unless you were just being hyperbolic in your virtue signalling, in which case, who exactly do you think cares?
This and/or poor choice of friends/company.
No. Racism is not genetic. Lol
Since I think that "race" is a fictional concept with no sound basis in reality and therefore that it doesn't actually exist, I think your question is based on a false assumption (that "race" is real) and is therefore invalid.
If you want a list of broad strokes of achievements (an approach which has plenty of flaws of its own), off the top of my head mine would be (in rough chronological order):
Sumerian
Egyptian
Greek
Indian
Roman
Arabic
Chinese
Western European
Even with 8, it's missing a lot. They're connected, anyway, so it's not all that meaningful to treat them as completely seperate. For example, modern numerals (which are far more important than they might first seem to be) were invented by an Indian culture, initially spread by Arabic culture (although the key person in that was Persian, not Arabic) and then by western European culture from which most of modern maths (and everything that rests on it) comes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 9,130
My apologies if I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to say that group identification as a benefit was probably genetic and this has led to cultural racism.
The post you're "replying" to did not say that racism is genetic.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
Virtue signalling was my first thought.
Why would being disgusted by racism not be rational?