Page 1 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2012, 1:20 am

I really think the people that think they are combating racism, and at the same time cannot accept that levels of neurodiversity (and thus Neanderthal heritage) varies between populations / races, are making a big mistake.

I've seen all the arguments before: Rushton is an idiot, just like anybody else that has studied race and IQ during the last 100 years or so. However, people are not stupid, especially not white suprematists. All the millions of explanations for the IQ gap, for the low IQ in Africa and at other places with probable low Neanderthal DNA contribution, are the things that are stupid. What's more, these will sound even more stupid as research advances regarding what exactly Neanderthal contributed, which will happen in the next few years. We already know that DRD4 7R, which is linked to ADHD and risk-taking, is quite likely one piece of the Neanderthal DNA, even if nobody talks openly about it,

These racists will certainly use any new research on Neanderthal DNA contribution to advance their hypothesis that IQ tests measure real things contributed by Neanderthal, and that the African races are inferior. You can be sure they will, and the objections will become less and less credible.

So, why not "sacrifice" one "holy cow", that neurodiversity is NOT present at the same amount in every race in order to explain the results of IQ tests as differences in neurodiversity instead? That would increase the credibility of the antiracist camp considerably, as they would no longer outright deny facts that were proved 100s of years ago.

Since nerodiversity has both good and bad sides, and especially is correlated with social problems, and communication difficulties, it is not the "g" factor that determines general intelligence. Some neurodiversity traits are just favored splinter-skills that are measured by IQ tests, but does not make the bearer super-human. Rather, human society is so advanced because we have diverse traits. If everybody were neurodiverse, we'd probably not be trading and sharing inventions, so the social (extrovert) phenotype is needed just as much.

The way to argue with racists is to tell them that an African descent NT has identical traits and IQ to an Aryan NT like themselves. It is only people that pay the price of social and communication difficulties that have these splinter skills at various degrees that we got from Neanderthals. Some might be lucky to have overcome this, but many pay the price. And you don't have to outright deny scientific facts that have been established for centuries in order to defend your position.

So why don't we just change our tactics?



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

02 Feb 2012, 1:40 am

You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

02 Feb 2012, 2:21 am

This research is much more young and uncertain than you are making it sound.

Cultural differences are hugely influential. Most people are intellectually capable of achieving far more than they actually do, even when it comes to IQ tests. There are a million barriers to overcome before you run up against the IQ barrier. This is why the whole concept of IQ is dangerous. It gives people an "excuse" for not doing their best.

Einstein worked his butt off, and there are people smarter than Einstein who will never achieve anything.



Atomsk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,423

02 Feb 2012, 2:38 am

rdos wrote:
However, people are not stupid, especially not white suprematists.


That's where I stopped reading.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2012, 2:57 am

Callista wrote:
You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


That is really stupid. Especially coming from somebody that should know better.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

02 Feb 2012, 3:05 am

rdos wrote:
Callista wrote:
You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


That is really stupid. Especially coming from somebody that should know better.


IQ tests are flawed. This should be apparent by the amount of genius IQ level people who don't end up successful.

Intelligence means nothing if you lack the drive to use it.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2012, 3:10 am

Declension wrote:
This research is much more young and uncertain than you are making it sound.


It is at least 50 years old, probably a little older.

Declension wrote:
Cultural differences are hugely influential.


Of course. The content of IQ tests has changed as cultural values have changed. I'm not arguing that IQ tests are valid for measuring intelligence. In fact, that would go against the proposition I started in the thread. Instead, IQs test are created by selecting arbitrary neurodiversity traits that are currently highly valued in a culture. The validity of the concept, IOW, that IQ is inherited, and the g-factor, is then infered by factor analysis. However, this method is not valid when neurodiversity-traits are researched, as all neurodiversity traits are correlated because of a common origin (Neanderthal). They can even shift the content of IQ tests any way they wan't and still keep the g-factor. They can construct an IQ test that measures communication difficulties, and everything would seemingly be fine and consistent. Their claim that g-factor is natural to human populations, and measures intelligence, is simply false. What they have "discovered" is the neurodiversity factor, not the factor underlying intelligence.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2012, 3:12 am

abacacus wrote:
rdos wrote:
Callista wrote:
You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


That is really stupid. Especially coming from somebody that should know better.


IQ tests are flawed. This should be apparent by the amount of genius IQ level people who don't end up successful.

Intelligence means nothing if you lack the drive to use it.


The point was not if they are flawed or not, but that they "measure ability to do good on an IQ test", which is a stupid suggestion. Obviously, IQ tests must measure something.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

02 Feb 2012, 3:14 am

rdos wrote:
abacacus wrote:
rdos wrote:
Callista wrote:
You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


That is really stupid. Especially coming from somebody that should know better.


IQ tests are flawed. This should be apparent by the amount of genius IQ level people who don't end up successful.

Intelligence means nothing if you lack the drive to use it.


The point was not if they are flawed or not, but that they "measure ability to do good on an IQ test", which is a stupid suggestion. Obviously, IQ tests must measure something.


They do, the ability to do well on an IQ test.

In my experience that entails being logical, able to think around a problem to find the solution, being able to reverse engineer a solution to see the problem it fixes, and identify patterns.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

02 Feb 2012, 3:50 am

IQ tests give a general idea of a person's strengths, weaknesses, and overall abilities within the context of their own society, and frequently, relative to their "peers".

However, they have their weaknesses, and one can certainly come by a high score if they know how to study for them.

Concerning IQ's and Africa, first I pose to you all a question.

How long do you think you would survive in the African push if you were dropped off there in nothing but your underwear? Let's be a little more generous and say, in nothing but the shoes on your feet and clothes on your back.

The African bush is incredibly harsh and one should afford Africans some respect for being able to survive there off the land for the vast majority of human. They are a very sturdy people and it is from one particular group, the San, that all of humanity descends.

That being said, there are three reasons why IQ tests done on those in Africa repeatedly yield low scores.

1. Most tests are not designed to test the person within the context of their culture or society. In these instances, the tests do no accurately reflect the person's actual abilities.

2. Many sub-Saharan Africans have suffered with malnutrition at some point in their life, due to food shortages induced by drought, conflict, or disease. One under-reported problem currently facing many African countries is food shortages due to HIV, which leaves it's victims to ill to work their fields.

3. Social problems inherited from the effects of the slave trade on African society, which resulted in the breakdown of the nuclear family and the inheritance of certain virtues.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

02 Feb 2012, 4:05 am

rdos wrote:
I really think the people that think they are combating racism, and at the same time cannot accept that levels of neurodiversity (and thus Neanderthal heritage) varies between populations / races, are making a big mistake.

I've seen all the arguments before: Rushton is an idiot, just like anybody else that has studied race and IQ during the last 100 years or so. However, people are not stupid, especially not white suprematists. All the millions of explanations for the IQ gap, for the low IQ in Africa and at other places with probable low Neanderthal DNA contribution, are the things that are stupid. What's more, these will sound even more stupid as research advances regarding what exactly Neanderthal contributed, which will happen in the next few years. We already know that DRD4 7R, which is linked to ADHD and risk-taking, is quite likely one piece of the Neanderthal DNA, even if nobody talks openly about it,

These racists will certainly use any new research on Neanderthal DNA contribution to advance their hypothesis that IQ tests measure real things contributed by Neanderthal, and that the African races are inferior. You can be sure they will, and the objections will become less and less credible.

So, why not "sacrifice" one "holy cow", that neurodiversity is NOT present at the same amount in every race in order to explain the results of IQ tests as differences in neurodiversity instead? That would increase the credibility of the antiracist camp considerably, as they would no longer outright deny facts that were proved 100s of years ago.

Since nerodiversity has both good and bad sides, and especially is correlated with social problems, and communication difficulties, it is not the "g" factor that determines general intelligence. Some neurodiversity traits are just favored splinter-skills that are measured by IQ tests, but does not make the bearer super-human. Rather, human society is so advanced because we have diverse traits. If everybody were neurodiverse, we'd probably not be trading and sharing inventions, so the social (extrovert) phenotype is needed just as much.

The way to argue with racists is to tell them that an African descent NT has identical traits and IQ to an Aryan NT like themselves. It is only people that pay the price of social and communication difficulties that have these splinter skills at various degrees that we got from Neanderthals. Some might be lucky to have overcome this, but many pay the price. And you don't have to outright deny scientific facts that have been established for centuries in order to defend your position.

So why don't we just change our tactics?


The DRD4 7R, thrill seeking gene is obviously an example of neurodiversity, whether or not it is part of Neanderthal DNA, however most of the traits studied and associated with the gene are related to neurotypical traits on the Aspie Quiz.

And the racial aspect of the neanderthal theory suggests that indigenous Africans have higher levels of promiscuity and impulsivity, both traits studied as associated with the DRD4 7R gene, which you suggest is opposite from Aspie like traits, in your racial aspect section of the Neanderthal Theory.

Bill Gates might be considered to be likely Aspie if he took the quiz, but Bill clinton would not likely score anything close to "likely Aspie" on the Aspie quiz.

His IQ is at the same level of Bill Gates, along with his near perfect SAT score.

Your suggestion that the DRD4 7R gene is related to neanderthal DNA, would be evidence that Neanderthal DNA is evidence of those that score high on the neurotypical aspect of the Aspie Quiz, rather than likely aspie, but in reality. there is nothing neurotypical about the traits studied in these individuals that possess this gene.

Bill Clinton hasn't been tested for it, but Ozzie Ozbourne has been tested positive both for the thrill seeking gene and neanderthal DNA. If Bill Clinton doesn't own the gene, there are obviously other factors that weigh in just as strong as the DRD4 7R gene. Bill Clinton is as neurodiverse as any individual that has walked the earth. Obama is another good example of neurodiversity. One is an extreme extrovert, and Obama is clearly an introvert, at heart.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/12/03/hookinguprealities/your-cheatin-drd4-gene-mutation/

Quote:
No, you haven’t been redirected to the Onion, this is legit. The Body Odd blog at MSNBC highlights a just-released study confirming that some men and women have a mutation on the human dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4), making them prone to promiscuous behavior. DRD4 is a longer version of the dopamine receptor, the “thrill-seeking gene.” Dopamine is the body’s natural high, and certain individuals are more susceptible to chasing it. Previous studies have shown a link between DRD4 and the following:

■Gambling
■Alcoholism
■Drug use
■Overeating
■Political liberalism
■Passion for horror films
■ADHD
■Extreme extraversion
■Impulsiveness
Hey, I know a couple of those sound weird, but I’m just the messenger. Anyway, researchers have long suspected that DRD4 would strongly link to promiscuity, and the first study of its kind has just been published, suggesting it is so.


And there is the possibility that the DRD4 7R mutation that exists evenly in Europe, Africa and American populations at about 10 percent, with lower levels in Asia, came from indigenous homo sapiens that migrated out of Africa, and interbred with Neanderthals. There is not likely a compelling reason why this advantgeous gene would have diappeared from indigenous Africans that did not make the migration.

So some traits of neurodiversity could have orginated in the indigenous Africans whom migrated to Europe, and some could have orginated in Neanderthals.

However the racial aspect of your theory contradicts the reality that these traits associated with the DRD4 7R mutation, including higher levels of promiscuity and impusitivity in the indigenous peoples of Africa who possess this gene, do not have strong neurodiverse traits, shared in equal proportions in Europe and America; even in autistic individuals with the co-morbid of ADHD.

It is associated with 50% of ADHD cases, some of which have been identified in indigenous africans, whom have access to health care.

The DRD4 7R mutation is really the best evidence of a gene related to neurodiverse traits, to date, however that neurodiversity is associated with extreme extroversion, impulsivenes, and promiscuity; characteristics associated with neurotypical behavior in the Aspie Quiz.

This was my point in the last thread. Aspie like behavior in the Aspie quiz is associated with introverted behavior, and extroverted behavior is associated with neurotypical behavior. The DRD4 7R gene provides evidence there are no boundries for "neurodiverse behaviors". Neurotypical behavior is a moving target, that does not appear to be evidenced in the real world.

This gene makes a difference in neurology through dopamine and the reward system in the brain; it's the best evidence to date of an association of a neurodiverse trait, in 50 percent of individuals diagnosed with ADHD.

It's possible that neanderthals and their archaic homo sapien counterparts potentially had the same mutation, considering the gene has been measured in equal levels in and out of Africa. And it's also possible the indigenous african folks that migrated and interbred had it and Neanderthals didn't.

The IQ part of the racial aspect of your theory is no big deal, it's measured differently through out cultures and within cultures between all races, where there is economic and educational disadavantage. It's clearly understood as a cultural rather than an inherent issue.

Obama's father is an excellent example of a Luo indigenous African from kenya, that eventually obtained a degree from Harvard because of educational opportunities when he was young, not available to all indigenous Africans.

The real problem I see in the racial aspect of your theory, is the suggestion that the indigenous peoples of Africa without Neanderthal DNA are inherently less creative, more impulsive, more promiscuous, and less neurodiverse.

Impulsivity is a neurodiverse trait seen in ADHD, so that aspect of the suggestion contradicts a lack of neurodiversity among the indigenous Africans. And there is no relationship of lower creative talents among indigenous africans different than any other national population group. Their creative talents are expressed in their cultural traditions which are unique.

Culture makes a difference in different populations as far as how promiscuity is viewed as a cultural norm. The only specific genetic relationship suggested so far is the thrill gene. Obviously high levels of testosterone impact this factor as well. But these are issues common across all populations, not inherent to any one group of individuals.

African Americans males are measured as having the highest levels of self esteem, regardless of income or education at level, as opposed to any other demographic group in the US associated with race or gender. They report their self esteem in terms of reproductive confidence and the ability to defend themselves against threats from others. It is likely part of a sub-cultural advantage.

It's basic human nature, that doesn't require one to either be rich or have a harvard education. Apparently, some white supremicists have something to prove. It's a moot point evidenced in reality. The genetics for skin color are dominant for darker pigment.

As time goes on in the US, demographics are moving away from a caucasian majority. It is an inevitible result of a heterogenous culture, where there is no longer, nearly the taboo against inter-racial relationships, that was once a controlling factor in reproduction. Along, with the influx of hispanic immigrants, the caucasian majority is fading fast.

http://gunjansinha.com/popsci_caveman.html

Quote:
That's the spirit in which biologist Robert Moyzis and colleagues from the University of California at Irvine studied attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The ailment is linked to a variation of a gene called DRD4. This gene makes a receptor for dopamine, a biochemical that in addition to conveying feelings of pleasure, also helps people focus on specific tasks.

About 50 percent of kids diagnosed with ADHD have the gene variation, which is present in about 10 percent of the population worldwide. Moyzis wondered: How could a gene that makes it almost impossible for people to concentrate be so widespread? At some point during our evolution, he decided, the gene must have given its bearers a fantastic edge. But what could the advantage have been?

Moyzis and his team decided to look at the gene closely, and what they found surprised them. There are more than 10 different versions of the DRD4 gene, but by far the oddest is the one associated with ADHD. By analyzing its structure and comparing it with the other versions, they concluded that the variation must have occurred suddenly, rather than evolving over many years.

What's more, says Moyzis, "the genes adjacent to the variant DRD4 were almost exactly the same, whether in an individual from Africa, America, or Europe." Since genes constantly rearrange themselves and mutate at a certain rate, an ancient variation should have been surrounded by many different combinations of genes among different people. Consequently, he reasoned, the gene must have sprung up sometime in our recent history.

Moyzis then plugged this information into some equations and figured the gene variation likely arose and spread some 50,000 years ago right around the time that scientists estimate humans began migrating out of Africa. Could the gene have made its bearers so antsy they couldn't help but pick up and move to a new continent? Moyzis believes it's quite possible. The gene is active in the frontal lobes of the brain our emotional control centers and home to our personalities.

The frontal lobes are especially important in problem solving and learning from one's experience. This part of the brain is also responsible for traits like spontaneity. Scientists haven't yet figured out exactly how variations in the gene cause differences in a person's behavior. But they do know that people who have the version associated with ADHD have a penchant for thrill seeking.

What's more, the version is rare in Asians but common in South Americans evidence that it could have spread as people migrated into Europe and the New World


Neanderthal DNA in Asia has been suggested as not rare, whereas the thrill seeking gene is, so it doesn't appear that the thrill seeking gene may necessarily be specifically associated with Neanderthal DNA. As suggested in the article above, it could have been a gene propogated by our indigenous african ancestors, shared with Neanderthals, evidencing itself in hybrids, in the admixture event.

I think the two most important points here are that neurodiversity is evidenced as having no boundries in an introverted/extroverted world, and it is as likely that modern man inherited his neurodiverse traits from homo sapiens that migrated out of Africa, as it is that they were inherited from any other archaic admixture or common ancestor.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

02 Feb 2012, 5:31 am

aghogday wrote:
Your suggestion that the DRD4 7R gene is related to neanderthal DNA, would be evidence that Neanderthal DNA is evidence of those that score high on the neurotypical aspect of the Aspie Quiz, rather than likely aspie, but in reality. there is nothing neurotypical about the traits studied in these individuals that possess this gene.


That's not the reason. The DRD4 7R is possibly the only gene (rather repeat sequence), where it has been published that this variant is so unusual that they speculate it could have been introgressed from Neanderthals. This was published before the Neanderthal DNA genome project, so it was against much of the consensus at the time. Their argumentation about multiple repeat sequence differences, with no intermediate states, sound convincing. It can therefore pretty much be excluded that this variant originated in Africa with modern humans.

This is why I used this as a good example of something that white suprematists might very well want to refer to as evidence. To propose that "this CNV is just as common in Africa as anywhere else" is wrong. To propose that "ADHD is just as common in Africa as anywhere else" is wrong or it must be wrong that DRD4 7R is associated with ADHD. You will bury yourself into unsustainable claims that are not believable. Either ADHD and DRD4 7R are not related, or ADHD must be less common in Africa. That is the only defensible view.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

02 Feb 2012, 7:05 am

rdos wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Your suggestion that the DRD4 7R gene is related to neanderthal DNA, would be evidence that Neanderthal DNA is evidence of those that score high on the neurotypical aspect of the Aspie Quiz, rather than likely aspie, but in reality. there is nothing neurotypical about the traits studied in these individuals that possess this gene.


That's not the reason. The DRD4 7R is possibly the only gene (rather repeat sequence), where it has been published that this variant is so unusual that they speculate it could have been introgressed from Neanderthals. This was published before the Neanderthal DNA genome project, so it was against much of the consensus at the time. Their argumentation about multiple repeat sequence differences, with no intermediate states, sound convincing. It can therefore pretty much be excluded that this variant originated in Africa with modern humans.

This is why I used this as a good example of something that white suprematists might very well want to refer to as evidence. To propose that "this CNV is just as common in Africa as anywhere else" is wrong. To propose that "ADHD is just as common in Africa as anywhere else" is wrong or it must be wrong that DRD4 7R is associated with ADHD. You will bury yourself into unsustainable claims that are not believable. Either ADHD and DRD4 7R are not related, or ADHD must be less common in Africa. That is the only defensible view.


Per the research I already provided, the DRD4 7R gene has already been reported at levels in Africa equal to that of Europe and America. Aproximately ten percent of the population in each continent

ADHD is diagnosed in indigenous African countries, but the overall prevalence is not well understood just as many other health related conditions that are under diagnosed in these countries because of lack of access to health care and resources.

The DRD4 7R gene is associated in 50 percent of ADHD cases, so that in itself is pretty good evidence that prevalance of neurology relevant to ADHD in indigenous African countries is at least half of what it is in the US.

Of course the culture is completely different in indigenous African countries, lot of physical activity there to burn off excess energy without the exacerbating technological advantages in developed countries. Not likely that ADHD presents nearly the concern there as it does in developed countries.

In fact if the neurology behind it could be much more prevalent and go without diagnosis because of cultural differences. The same could apply to how the neurology behind Aspergers expresses itself in indigenous African Cultures.

And, of course all the other environmental pressures and byproducts not as prevalent in developed countries, that may not impact genetics in undeveloped countries the way genetics are impacted in developed countries by these novel epigenetic factors.

I don't dismiss the possibility that neanderthals possessed the gene, however since the DRD4 7R gene has already been reported in Africa at equal levels as other continents, if there is actually little to no neanderthal DNA in the indigenous people's of Africa, it came from somewhere other than neanderthals, for indigenous Africans.

Beyond this you suggest that impulsivity and promiscuity is greater in indigenous Africans, in your racial aspect section of the theory.

Prevalence of the DRD4 7R gene in these countries, provides some evidence of that in about 10 percent of the population. Regardless of the cause, impulsivity, is a neurodiverse trait that is part of ADHD, so that specific suggestion of greater impulsivity, is evidence for neurodiverse traits in the indigenous people's of Africa, not against it.

And it is also evidence that the reservation and caution seen as an aspie trait in the Aspie Quiz and also a common trait in introversion, is a neurodiverse trait as well as impulsivity, that one would normally associate with extroverted behavior, which appears to be associated with neurotypical traits in the Aspie Quiz.

Lots of extroverted people, with no introverted traits, or aspie traits, have the condition of ADHD; it exists out into ten percent of the population, some of whom are extremely extroverted.

It makes it difficult to determine from simply observing someone if they have Aspergers and ADHD. Probably explains some of the reported neurotypical results that you get from diagnosed Aspies on the Aspie Quiz. I remember reading a suggestion from research that Aspies with ADHD fair better in life.

It's really too complicated to pin all of neurodiversity on a 1 to 4 percent share of neanderthal DNA. If all Indigenous Africans were extremely socially adept and extroverted, that would be evidence of Neurodiversity, the same as it would be if all of the individuals there were significantly socially inept and introverted.

It's just different sections of the neurodiverse spectrum, of which studies have provided evidence of neurological differences among extroverts and introverts in the dopamine reward system of the brain.

The thirty percent of autistic traits that are suggested to go out into the population are analagous with similiar introverted traits that are suggested to go out into thirty percent of the population. The broader autism phenotype and introversion are inseparable descriptions of close to the same thing.

As well as extroversion, and what you suggest as neurotypical traits from the Aspie Quiz; which research suggests is part of an introversion/extroversion continuum, with underlying neurological differences



Callista
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

02 Feb 2012, 10:46 am

rdos wrote:
Callista wrote:
You're assuming that IQ tests measure something more than how good you are at IQ tests. They don't.


That is really stupid. Especially coming from somebody that should know better.
You just insulted most of my psychology professors, who happen to agree with me. Intelligence is not a simple concept. Lern2Research.


_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,875
Location: temperate zone

02 Feb 2012, 10:51 am

The first attempts at sequencing the neanderthal genome from bones in the russia in the early 2000's showed that neanderthals were geneticially far from all living people and that they "were no closer to any living race than any other". The website actually broke it down by race and the stats showed that neanderthal kinship to asians, africans, and whites, were practically the same.

Now the pendelulem is swinging towards saying that though Neanderthals were still our distant ( and only distant) cousins that "living people can have as much as one to four percent neanderthal genes" and the living people with higher amounts are north of the Sahara Eurasians- maybe with europeans ( who live in the former range of Neanderthals) being more so.


Okay- lets assume that this latest wisdom is more than just a scientic fad and holds up to future scrutiny.

How does a White Supremeist take comfort in the belief that White people are MORE Neanderthal than other races?

It would be a boon to reverse racist Blacks like Farakhan, I would think.

If I were a KKKer I wouldnt want to talk about White people being MORE Neanderthal than Africans!

But the OP has taken this vogue neanderthal theory of autism and put into his mental blender of poureed logic and is serving up the notion that a race thats MORE Neanderthal is surperior.

But ofcourse he refuses to state it in the clear straightforward way of " white people are superior because they are more neanderthal" because not only would he expose himself for being racist- he would also sound dumb to fellow White racists!

Saying any living group is superior because it is MORE Neanderthal than other living groups sounds ass-backward and - well- "Neanderthal"!


So:to the OP: we get it. Whites are superior because they have more Neanderthal genes. But what we dont get is HOW. How do the genes of an extinct failed species confer superiority on Whites rather than inferiority? Explain this counter intuitive theory of yours.

Drop the conveluted pretense - and just make your point please.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

02 Feb 2012, 11:53 am

Oh, do read his post, M(r/s). Fake Material. He never claimed white people were superior, and he certainly didn't claim such a thing on the basis of being hybrids - do bear in mind certain Asian populations are part Denisovan. You, unfortunately, seem to be under the idea that Neanderthal's were somehow less capable than other humans, which could itself be considered racist, if such a term has meaning when applied to a race that's been wiped out.

I really which people would accept that there *are* differences between the major racial groups of humanity. I don't mind accepting that Asians are generally prettier than Europeans, and that Africans are generally stronger physically than Europeans, as long as it's recognised that us Europeans lie between these two extremes and are well balanced generalists. Which is why the colonial powers were all European, and why Europeans ruled the world a century ago and still dominate international politics (just look at the UN security council...).

That last part was written with my tongue partly in my cheek, before someone rants.