Anti-intellectualism in America.
I don't want to start this thread straight off the bat with a straw man. However, America is rife with an anti-intellectual attitude perhaps originating with American Transcendentalism/Romanticism and proceeding throughout the years under the guise of free speech and religious freedom, eventually even into the education system itself, as seen, in anti-evolutionist or creationist 'interpretations' of science.
But, that's not the point of this thread, as to whether anti-intellectualism exists or not in the US. The Wikipedia entry on Anti-intellectualism in America seems to support my notion on the matter, unfortunately. I leave it to more informed members of this forum to educate me in my prejudice or lack thereof in the matter, as to whether you believe this is a pertinent issue or just dribble on my part.
Now, assuming that anti-intellectualism is a de facto serious issue that plagues the US, what can be done about it, and is it getting worse or better, in your opinion?
But, that's not the point of this thread, as to whether anti-intellectualism exists or not in the US. The Wikipedia entry on Anti-intellectualism in America seems to support my notion on the matter, unfortunately. I leave it to more informed members of this forum to educate me in my prejudice or lack thereof in the matter, as to whether you believe this is a pertinent issue or just dribble on my part.
Now, assuming that anti-intellectualism is a de facto serious issue that plagues the US, what can be done about it, and is it getting worse or better, in your opinion?
Comments (91)
I don't know all of the sources, but I am sure fundamentalism (whether among pentecostals, Lutherans, or Catholics) is one cause. An inerrant Bible with an infallibly clear message doesn't require intellectual examination. If the Bible says God created the world in 6 days flat, well, that's that. Say no more about it. It wasn't the descendants of Ralph Waldo Emerson that brought the 1925 case against one Mr. Snopes for teaching evolution; Snopes was a high school biology teacher in Tennessee .
While the US has fostered a number of excellent educational institutions since Harvard was founded in 1636, but most Americans didn't need to go to college (or school at all) to make a living. There was land for the taking and most of the time an expanding economy. One could afford to have narrow intellectual horizons.
The United States, as much as most nations, harbors contradictions that do not bear close intellectual scrutiny--like, "All Men Are Created Equal". Many of our sacred beliefs are like pills that should not be chewed before swallowing. They are too bitter. Better to encourage the unexamined life.
The organs of public information, whether that be the local school system, the free press (including radio and television), or book publishers, et al have a vested interest in maintaining a common consent to the status quo. That what Chomsky references when he talks about "the manufacture of consent". Consenting the status quo is inherently anti-intellectual. That's why my English teacher told me not to take Thoreau's Civil Disobedience essay seriously. It undermines the common consent, and there's likely to be nothing but trouble in doing that.
After all what constitutes "anti-intellectualism" if it is not based some kind of ideology/morality in and of itself (which to me sounds likely), and if beliefs are based on ideology then arguments against "anti-intellectualism" will have the same issues that any other debate between one or more ideologies/religions/system of beliefs etc. I'm not saying that you are 'wrong' to go after "anti-intellectualism", I'm just saying that if it turns out to be a type ideology vs ideology conflict than be ready for whatever can of worms that opens up. If for whatever reason the people supporting this "anti-intellectualism" do it as a kind of spin doctor/propaganda type thing than maybe it might be best to point out that these people are doing just that than to go after them because they support " "anti-intellectualism".
I don't know much about what you are calling "anti-intellectualism" but I'm somewhat leery of someone who frames a debate between to groups as the "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" since doing so may immediately be a kind of poisoning the well type fallacy which would make it a contradiction for those who claim to be in support of "intellectualism" if they so easily allow such a fallacy to be part of their argument. Or perhaps a better way to put it, any debate between "intellectualism vs anti-intellectualism" should be framed in some other way in order to avoid the obvious bias of labeling someone as "anti-intellectualism" could bring.
Cause or result?
That is a problem.
One piece of it is a need for certainty. Now that need can lead one to intellectual pursuit or intellectual flight. I suppose it depends on how much ambiguity about the truth one can stand.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, yes, America was founded on a promise to never let authority get in the way of freedom. So, there are many ways in which anti-intellectualism can become systemic or structural. And, that's kind of the point. Intellectualism and authority don't mix well, at least politically in the US. Never has.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If you read the Wiki entry, then there is evidence to support the notion that being an "egghead" was not something that has ever been encouraged in the US. Nowadays, they're called geeks and nerds with zits on their face, while being socially awkward, while the jockey gets all the girls...
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/how-australia-became-the-dumb-country/news-story/eef010012e8879b0bcdf50192e4bfcb2
I may be wrong but some of the people who are labeled as supporting "anti-intellectualism" may be simply more against the beliefs and ways of the current establishment more than they are against things like "reason" and/or "logic" as the name anti-intellectualism may suggest. If the debate is actually between established vs contrarian views, then it is a fallacy of those who support the established view to try and paint the opposition as people who argue for "anti-intellectualism".
This is not much different to the tactics use to unfairly attack John Duns Scotus and his followers; which is where we get the word 'dunce' (as well as those stupid looking red caps) from. Since John Duns teachings where unpopular with many people during that time, it might have been easier to attack his character than to bother with attacking his ideas.
To be honest I don't know much about John Duns and what his ideas were (other than it was unlikely that he really was a 'dunce'), but I do know it is often easier to attack someone's character/use a poisoning fallacy to undermine someone's else argument as well as seemly strengthen their own.
More like an autopoÏetic structure, that creates and maintains a boundary against an appreciation for modern and postmodern (and soon hypermodern) intellectual enterprises.
The thing is, I don't think fundamentalism is the only basis for such a dynamic to emerge. Misplaced patriotism, a too exclusive concept of national identity, hell, even what Peterson does, by framing his enemy as neo-marxist postmodernism, these are all conducive to the developpment of a form of anti-intellectualism.
I believe it is both. Again, the wiki entry is filled to the brim with America being the prominent example of anti-intellectual sentiment, based on-most likely-structural 'deficits' of intellectualism in places of government. I mean, if trust in God is of higher value than scientific truths or facts, then there really isn't much more that can be said about the situation.
Quoting dclements
Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?
Quoting dclements
It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance.
Quoting dclements
Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across.
Quoting dclements
I'm not aware of people who are active, 'anti-intellectual's' (although Fox News comes awfully close to this label). It's more of a pathology that cannot be treated with reason alone.
Quoting dclements
Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'.
John Howard pretty much buggered all that in advocating me-first, selling the commonweal to bolster his electoral chances - and in so doing he followed the USA.
Despite that we continue to produce science and technology far above what one might expect for a small country.
— Posty McPostface
But "trust in God" has almost always been considered of higher value than scientific truths or facts in Western society. As a hedonist nihilist (who is somewhat partial to certain eastern religion/philosophical beliefs) I'm well aware of the some of the mass insanity by the perpetual myth of there being some big guy in the sky watching us as well as some of the dangers of the encouragement of the "magical" type thinking that such beliefs brings. However I'm leery of labeling Christianity and other Abrahamic religions as a form of "anti-intellectualism" since religion is form of ideology and one has to be careful to only go after the bad aspects of any particular type of ideology than risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
"Maybe the question is ill-phrased; but, intellectualism or more simply intelligence on the part of government officials is required to confront threats. What threats? Well, climate change for example, which Republicans simply dismiss as leftist science or science with an agenda or some Chinese conspiracy to weaken American manufacturing...?"
— Posty McPostface
As far as I know climate change deniers are supported by corporate interests that are already sick and tired of dealing with all the expenses and red tape that Washington and liberal groups put before them. I imagine if you have nearly endless amount of billions gain through corporate profit and it might be useful to use some of those billions to buy influence in Washington as well as hire spin doctors and mass media to peddle what you want people to think. While this may considered as a form of corruption by us plebs who don't have access to such money/resources it isn't necessarily a form of "anti-intellectualism" if the people doing this are doing it out of their own best interests. Instead such actions might more accurately called Machiavellianism/ruthless pragmatism, even if sometimes using such distinctions might seem moot by those of us who fell harmed/threaten by their actions.
While not always motivated by the same reasons as those who support climate change denying, much of the other people who use corporate lobbying, mass media/spin doctors, etc to get what they want are just another type of Machiavellianist/ruthless pragmatist who wish to push their own agenda even if some of the side effects are politicians who seem more stupid in Washington than those who might be there if they were not meddling in the affairs of this country.
"It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance."
— Posty McPostface
As a person who tries to study philosophy, I do my best to avoid labeling the actions and beliefs of those who think differently than me as either "stupid/'ignorant" and/or "evil" even if it seems a given that they are.
I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge human beings are guided by whatever ideology/ culture/ religion/ system of beliefs/ etc that they subscribe to and not out of ignorance;although fear is a major factor. While it may be a given that these beliefs that we get direction from often (and or very often) have short comings in them, such is a problem with the human condition and not merely that we are idiots per say.
"Well, if ignorance of simple scientific facts are dismissed based on said sentiment, then the problem is endemic, and potentially systemic, resulting in a pathology or distorted policy-making on the part of officials derived from the misguided beliefs of the ignorant. I'm sort of playing with words here; but, I hope I got the point across."
— Posty McPostface
Well the problems with the human condition could be said to be endemic, and potentially systemic but to say such things would be a gross understatement as to how bad things really are. In a nutshell you are fretting over certain issues while not exactly realizing what lays beneath the parts of the iceberg that which is a little bit harder to see.
"Well, I think we can agree that creationist or intelligent design interpretations of science are a symptom of 'anti-intellectualism', where authority is granted on neither side of the debate based on exploiting notions of 'free speech' or 'religous freedom'."
— Posty McPostface
I personally think it as much of it as fabrication as well as anything else that comes from Abrahamic beliefs; however when one questionsing other things and realize what else they believe in are merely fabrications, then things can get more complicated then they might expected them to be.
if you really start questioning all the so called "self evident truths" they hold dear, they may not find much left to hold on to.
I don't catch your drift here. Though I think the allusion is to some evil or darkness inherent in man, no?
Quoting dclements
Yes, governments can be Machiavellian. What can I add to that trite statement? However, governments can change behavior in a democracy, so the question is what kind of democracy do we want? One with ignorant buffoon at the helm? I hope not; but, the reality is that we have a dangerous buffoon at the helm as it stands.
I certainly expected someone like you to find Borat funny. :vomit:
That's because it is funny.
Intellectuals get kudos when they stand somewhat against the establishment, when they're a gadfly on the establishment, or at the very least are impartial and capable of standing aloof enough to render judgement. That's how Left-wing intellectuals got respect when the establishment was traditionalist and Right-wing.
Intellectuals today, on the other hand, are part of the "liberal," globalist, multiculturalist establishment, they support it blindly. Some of them even admit openly that their unquestioning support for the absolutism of equality of outcome is a leap of faith.
In effect, they are largely conformist shills for the PC cult, too terrified to say boo to a mouse. That deserves not respect, but contempt.
So anyone who has some axioms as a fundamental belief, admits that this is the case, and then makes rational scientific arguments extrapolating from those axioms logically, is deserving of contempt?
So who isn't?
That is correct, and anti-scientific attitude towards evolutionary psychology (all psychology should be evolutionary based), innate gender differences, IQ differences, racial differences, mental illness of transgenderism, climate change hysteria, bad-economics, bad history, genocide deniers, embracers of islamofascism (as Hitchens calls it), moral and cultural nihilism/relativism, rise of national socialistic tendencies of progressive leftists etcetera.
This is a prelude to national socialism enforced by progressives. Thought police is a clear sign of the decline of democracy.
What should be done? Uphold the first amendment. Free speech is necessary to any democratic society.
It is getting worse. Leftists seem to reduce their support for the first amendment. They hate free speech. They want control to implement their utopia, even if it means to destroy every human being in a holocaust ten times over.
The intellectuals are seen as responsible for the institutions, and the institutions are seen as fundamentally unrealistic. Let's arm the teachers! Huh? Maybe that suggestion won't pass into the realm of "institution", but it's amazing how much unrealistic stuff does get institutionalized. We cannot blame the institutions themselves, so we can only blame the so-called "intellectuals", for allowing the ridiculous to be institutionalized.
If they do it in the teeth of evidence contradicting their axioms, without any attempt to address the discrepancy, while attempting to silence opposition, yes.
Interesting. So this absolutely incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, care to elaborate?
Also, the attempts to silence to opposition intrigues me. What is this opposition that no one has heard?
People are not equal in their capacities, capabilities and inclinations.
Quoting Pseudonym
"Attempts."
In fact, I daresay, to turn the tables somewhat, that a failure to make proper distinctions, such as between various forms of anti-intellectualism, is itself a pretty anti-intellectual thing to do.
I wasn't up to the task last night, and I don't have time today (errands, anticipated heavy snow fall starting this afternoon, cleaning to do list, etc.) and I may never be up to the task, BUT...
...the Wikipedia article itself should be examined carefully, because the claim of anti-intellectualism may itself have ideological and other biases.
I loathe fundamentalism so it is quite convenient for me to call it anti-intellectual. Is someone entirely devoted to business and making money anti-intellectual? Well, maybe -- and maybe not. Can someone who pursues a narrow field of science (like particle physics and numerous other examples) be anti-intellectual? Are civil engineers who design sewers anti-intellectual? Sure - it's possible, and maybe not, depending how one defines "intellectual" and "anti-intellectual".
Quoting Youseeff
Some intellectuals, especially a lot of intellectuals in certain liberal arts fields, fit these descriptions. But a lot don't. Granted, the exudate of the screwy POMO and nouveau leftish intellectuals is draining out of academia and seeping into some parts of ordinary life.
I don't know about "a lot" - I think perhaps secretly there are definitely more than we think, but people (especially people with good positions and families to support) are so terrified of losing their jobs these days for stepping out of line with PC cult dogma, it's not as often vocalized, so the dogma is what's bruited abroad by default. To some extent obviously it's different in STEM, but these lunatics are even starting to encroach on maths and science now.
You have to have a fairly high level of achievement, or tenure or something like that, and a fairly good liberal "ant smell," like a Pinker or a Haidt, to get away with not toeing the party line, even to the fairly mild extent those guys do.
On the plus side, the PC cult isn't long for this world, because it's destroying the very respectability and power that made institutions like academia and business so attractive for them to take over. They're starting to cause financial problems too (e.g. universities losing customers, HR departments being more trouble than they're worth, etc.) - and that's really the bottom line, to a large extent. I think probably 20 years from now, there won't be a "gender studies" class in sight, and people will look back on this period of the past few decades like a kind of intellectual Tulipmania, shake their heads and wonder wtf people were thinking.
OK, so which prominent "Liberal intellectuals" have claimed that "People are equal in their capacities, capabilities or inclinations." I've not heard any myself. I've heard a lot of people claim that race, gender and sexual it are not determining factors in all those things, but not that all people in the world are equal in those properties.
Quoting gurugeorge
I see, what constitutes an attempt, in your view?
The position that people are equal in their capacities, capabilities and inclinations is implicit in any drive to equality of outcome. It's not actually often explicitly stated, because it's so obviously stupid.
For example, a big one today would be the gender pay gap; but any form of affirmative action, or move to proportionate representation in a field, presupposes that the sole cause of imbalance in group representation must necessarily be some sort of intrinsically wonky social structure or biased ("racist," "sexist") social circumstances ("white privilege"), even when no actual, verifiable racists or sexists or privileged white people can be found doing anything wrong or obstructive.
But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction, different reproductive strategies, different political preferences, different preferences for how they spend their time, different capacities for deferred gratification, different proclivities in relation to violence, etc., etc.
Quoting Pseudonym
Oh "you see" do you? :)
Start with, oh I don't know, the hullabaloo against the Bell Curve and Charles Murray, and work your way down to the contemporary kerfuffles on American campuses re. conservative speakers, Alt Right speakers, etc.. You're not living that sheltered a life are you? ;)
If you have perchance been living in an igloo at the North Pole without access to media or the internet for the past 30 years or so, a good starting point would be the work of Jonathan Haidt on the current horrendously biased state of the academy. Other thinkers who are also center-Left or independent, whose investigations have led them to similar conclusions would be Steven Pinker and Sam Harris. (The Right of course has been banging on about this for decades - a recent famous public figure who's center-Right who rails against what I'm talking about would be Jordan Peterson. Other starting points would be Thomas Sowell, and further to the Right Ben Shapiro, David Horowitz and others along similar lines.)
That book is demonstrably racist. See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/
Well-poisoning, ad hominem twaddle.
Right, so where's the incontrovertible evidence you talked about?
All you've done is listed books and thinkers who've commented on these abhorrently racists and sexist ideas, give me examples of where someone has attempted to "silence" them. Not 'disagree' with them, not say that they are not welcome on private property, not tell them that their language breaches rules of a private company who has every right to set whatever rules they like. Actually attempting to silence them.
As far as I can see,
'The Bell Curve' is freely available on Amazon.
Jonathan Haidt is frequently published, still holds his professional position and has several influential roles in academia.
Steven Pinker and Sam Harris are both tenured academics whose books are freely available and who are frequently published and cited in academic literature.
Jordan Peterson maintains his academic position, he's barely off the television these days and YouTube is littered with his obnoxious ranting.
Thomas Sowell is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, he writes columns for Forbes and has several published books and papers in free circulation.
The Ben Shapiro podcast is downloaded 10 million times each month. Ben Shapiro's ban from DePaul was the result of an incident with a previous incendiary speaker in which two people stormed the stage. If you're seriously suggesting that two people constitute a mass conspiracy, then you're more paranoid than I thought.
David Horowitz is editor of a publish, wide circulation magazine, author of several books still in print and his foundation still sponsors events on campuses across the US.
So where is all this silencing you're going on about?
Quoting gurugeorge
So, I'm not going to directly deny any of this because I think it is technically true. BUT, and this is a big caveat in the reading of any of this research, how can you say a difference in IQ isn't entirely an environment creation. Humans have not had the time nor show any anatomical differences in their brain to back up any of these supposed changes genetically. As far as I can tell the 5 human races show slight differences in outward appearance but would not have had the time to undergo speciation. My point is, Homo sapiens sapiens, is the classification humans have as a species. How are any of those differences relevant in a interconnected and constantly mixing world? It would be like observing North Koreans are on average shorter than South Koreans. Then concluding that there is something genetic that makes it so without looking at the evidence of the environment ( in this case malnutrition as children ).
Note: I did not actually find "The Bell Curve" to be racist. It is an observation, but that doesn't mean anything without context. The same way the height of Koreans only makes sense in context. Whites in Rural Areas have a lower IQ than Whites in Suburban Areas (taking into account the Flynn Effect). Why do you think that is? Would you say Rural Whites are less intelligent than Suburban Whites? Or is that environment? If yes, why isn't that also the case for all the other races?
Why are you sneaking "incontrovertible" in here? I didn't use the concept.
Quoting Pseudonym
https://www.thecollegefix.com/bulletin-board/professor-injured-charles-murray-melee-ignorant-colleagues-tried-shut-us/
https://www.thefire.org/cases/?limit=all
Because without it being incontrovertible, it is you who are attempting to shut down debate. If it's not incontrovertible, then it is just informed opinion. Why are people who have a different informed opinion to you deserving of "contempt" exactly?
And some minor college sub-rules and a handful of scuffles do not constitute an attempt to "silence" the thinkers you mention. In fact none of them were involved in any of the cases you cite, so I will ask again, where is your evidence that any of the thinkers you have listed have had any serious attempts made to "silence" them?
The consensus seems to be that variance has varying degrees of genetic vs. environmental causes - for example with political preferences, the variance is around 40-50% heritable, with intelligence something like 60-70% heritable. The usual source for these kinds of claims are twin studies and other types of behavioural genetics studies. Obviously environmental factors like nutrition and parental encouragement are extremely important, that's factored in to these kinds of studies.
Quoting yatagarasu
Races come from longish periods of relative isolation (usually by geography) - they were mostly formed in a span anywhere from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred thousands of years.
Now you're just being silly.
Quoting Pseudonym
They're pretty major and intimidating to the people who were subjected to them.
The thinkers I mentioned, I mentioned (as a hopefully educational response to your question "what constitutes an attempt?") as people who were starting to broach the subject in the public arena, not necessarily people who had themselves been subjected to attempts at silencing or harassment (although some of them have - for example Ben Shapiro has had recent troubles).
Know your fallacies; stating a book is clearly racist isn't an ad hominem or poisoning the well. If you would make a racist comment and I'd say "that's a racist comment" I'm not making an ad hominem attack or poisoning the well. In fact, the implied argument is still not a fallacy:
1. Racist people make racist comments and write racist books.
2. Charles Murray wrote a racist book.
3. Therefore, Charles Murray is a racist.
That's an entirely valid argument.
Now, an ad hominem looks like this:
1. Charles Murray argues that IQ score data shows that blacks have lower IQs.
2. He would say that because he's a racist.
3. Therefore IQ score data doesn't show that blacks have lower IQs.
Can you spot the differences?
Good, that was the intention I think. If you're going to spout some racist bullshit dressed up as some socio-political theory, then you'd best be prepared for some pretty intimidating displays of hatred. People do, quite fairly, hate that stuff. It's caused not only years of violent oppression in America, South Africa an India, but also the deaths of six million Jews. I think a few scuffles is an extremely polite response in the circumstances.
While that clearly isn't ad hominem, and it may also have some inductive validity, it is deductively invalid. Benkei may have meant the first premise to read something like "Only racist people make racist comments and write racist books." In that case, it would be deductively valid.
How does that make any sense? How would a brain that is anatomically no different and still classified as modern human be any less or more intelligent genetically? Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, and Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press both agreed that there are no genes identified with general intelligence, mainly socio-economic aspects. Also a heitability of 1 would not mean that it is 100% heritable as this picture illustrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#/media/File:Heritability_plants.jpeg
I'm mainly against it because it makes no sense over that short of a time. Humans are physically different but they have maintained similar brain structures. That should tell you all you need to know about the heritability vs environment argument. This doesn't mean that IQ is 100% environmental, which means we may find genes but the differences don't see to be that significant. (as many peer reviewed studies are have articulated)
Quoting gurugeorge
Yes. I am aware. First of all, the timetables don't seem to be large enough to explain the IQ differences for genotypic variation. Second, those barriers have been broken and are obsolete at this point. People are mating from all walks of life and races, so any genetic "differences" (if they exist) will be irrelevant in this globalized world.
Murray is one of the fake libertarians, like Ron Paul, and Stephen Molyneaux, who just want to reduce the protection of civil rights, so small enclaves of racists can get together and persecute non-whites in their little utopian paradise. So, it's not a coincidence that they all love racist ideals, while claiming to belong to an ideology that considers racism unjustified "collectivism." It's a scam.
Edit: also, we should all bone Jewish girls and get on with the creation of the ubermensch.
This is a strong argument to make. I don't think it's entirely true though. But, since IQ tests have little to no predictive power on anything else than education, then what's the point then? We already discriminate in the West based on the innate ability of some children who get into gifted programs or magnet schools.
Although, there is some merit to Murry's book. One standard deviation is equivalent to an increase in productivity by 1.5... So, as long as you guide the gifted child through the whole process of education, then your set.
But, I don't see the value in trying to produce more intelligent people, (yeah, eugenics existed in the US also) but rather focus on character traits which are more predictive and malleable on/of educational and economic success.
What on earth are you talking about?
Quoting yatagarasu
Similar but not identical, there are differences between individuals and average differences between racial/ethnic groups in terms of brain "build" that are subtle and slight, but make for relatively big differences in speed of problem solving, etc.
Our genes are "similar" to chimpanzees', but small differences at the genetic level make for big differences in body/brain structure. Same for intelligence. Depending on the "grain" of your investigation, you could truthfully say that the brain of Einstein and the brain of a moron are similar too. The similarity means they can both perform janitorial functions (for example), but the slight differences mean that only one of those two brains has the headroom to discover deep principles of physics.
Fine-grained investigation of the genetic basis for intelligence is proceeding apace in the current year.
Quoting yatagarasu
The world isn't "globalized" in any meaningful sense genetically - there's a bit of miscegenation at the fringes due to globalization obviously, but there always was mixing at the edges to some extent (cross-border. cross-race trade and mixing isn't something new), and indeed that's what keeps the larger racial/ethnic gene pools healthy.
The thing is there are no races, so Murray could not have possibly known how to arbitrarily divide people into some so-called racial groups for classification. And IQ tests have varied widely over time with respect to the same group of people taking them. Look at how well newly arriving Jews from southern Europe did on IQ tests, compared to how well they do today? There is no way genetics could account for the difference in test scores.
Quoting gurugeorge
I'm talking about that fact that there are no differences between the races. When I studied neuroscience I didn't have a section labeled "black brains", "white" brains, "asian" brains. Any minuscule differences do not matter as only populations evolve. Individuals do not. So if it was the case there would be something to see. There isn't.
There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. I've already given you links as to why genetic hertibility does not prove anything. The fact that you are still waiting for evidence of a genetic basis for intelligence should say enough. I'm linking peer reviewed studies to back up my claims. Where is your evidence? I am completely open to changing my mind given enough evidence. I do concede that there is most likely a genetic implication to intelligence but it is nowhere near enough to explain the IQ differences.
Quoting gurugeorge
It isn't? Could have fooled me! How do you explain the identical brains then? Speciation does not occur if boundaries are not significant. Did they trade or not? Did they have boundaries or not? Globalization just makes it even more impossible to maintain purity. Not to mention that the same humans that left Africa are the ones that made it Europe, Asia, and the Americas. We have genetic evidence that backs this up and nowhere enough time to see intelligence differentiate.
Take care. : )
Obviously people have varying degrees of innate intelligence, none of which would be identifiable by brain analysis. Even should I accept your conclusion regarding equality of intelligence among the races (a conclusion I'm not averse to), I can't see your implied argument holding that no two people (even of the same race) are congenitally smarter than others because no single intelligence gene nor specific brain structure has been identified to explain it.
My assumption is that we could not analyze muscular structure and determine the best tennis player, yet one person clearly will be superior. The question of tennis superiority is either innate or learned, but no amount of analysis of physical (including brain) structure will reveal it. That does not mean everyone is equal at tennis. It simply means that physical analysis of structure doesn't provide us the information we need.
I mean to say that it doesn't matter in the end. That these slightly difference between individuals is not significant enough to attribute to one race or another. In an ever connected world it serves no purpose but to divide us. The differences are not significant enough or important enough to discuss. I can take an Asian and put him in the ghetto, they will probably score less on average on the IQ. I can adopt a white person from that same ghetto and increase his "racial IQ" by putting him in an affluent environment. That is the only evidence we really have at this point and everything else is just speculation and hard to separate from those factors. There probably is a minute difference but I don't think it matters. Jamaicans have more muscle twitch fibers than the average person. This helps them in athletics. But even with that help they only finish slightly faster than other populations of runners. That's how small of the difference there might be. All of it changeable by environment.
Miniscule differences are what get weeded out by evolution. A fraction of a second's poor physics calculation avoiding a predator can mean the difference between life and death. A tiny error in abstract thinking can make the difference between winning a Nobel prize and cleaning the halls like a schlub. Repeat that across a relatively isolated populations coping with particular types of environment in given geographical regions, and you get average spreads of traits across races, which then get amplified in the cultures those races create.
Again, yes brains are largely similar, individuals brains are largely similar, all human brains are largely similar, but the tiny differences matter in given contexts, both for individuals and for races. Brains may be 99% similar, because they can all do the tremendously sophisticated calculations needed to walk, talk, chew gum, find food, eat it, etc., etc. - that vast iceberg is shared, true. But it's the differences at the tip that count, both for the natural environment, and for the social environment. There's no reason to expect an intelligent brain to look all that different from a dumb one (although size does matter a bit).
Quoting yatagarasu
I linked to an article about peer-reviewed studies to back up my claim too, and you are flatly wrong, science is starting to identify the genes that contribute to intelligence (about 40 of them according to that meta study). Obviously there is controversy in this field - mainly because there's still a hangover of influence from the early 20th century pseudo-science of Boasian anthropology in general, and the more recent influence of Marxist hacks like Gould, Lewontin, etc., as well as the chilling effect of the contemporary PC cult - but there are peer-reviewed studies on all sides, and science is far from settled in favour of your position.
The only people I am aware of who make the claim that races exist and there are differences among them regarding intelligence are non-scientists, like the journalist who authored the book, The Troubling Inheritance. His book was so full of errors that Scientific American thrashed it on its website, and Massimo Pigliucci, a man with two Ph.Ds in biology and one in philosophy also wrote a blog post shredding it. Basically, the racists have no hard-core science backing them up, but rely upon ignorance and prejudices people hold.
I don't think these are good examples of anti-intellectualism. The existence of nutters is regrettable, but those they follow and follow them are more anti-science.
Anti-intellectualism is not about nutters who over think things without regard to facts. Anti-intellectualism is more a response against thinking at all. Anti-intellectualists are those that fear the effort needed, the labour required to properly think things through, to argue, and consider another perspective.
Icke, and Carey are not guilty of not wanting to think. They are guilty of thinking too much.
Thank you for the link to the study. I thought it was just an article about the studies to be done, not that actual studies have been done already. Next time just link the study directly. : ) I think I missed it while reading the first link. XD This is all fairly new research and it's nice seeing work actually moving forward in this area.
Quoting gurugeorge
I wouldn't go as far as the second example but I would agree about the way populations would evolve over time. I just don't see where the particular selection and isolation comes from. Not many populations have been so separated as to create the conditions for population evolution (not individual evolution). I stand corrected with the idea of genes not being located. I wasn't really in the right mindset while writing my response. Sorry for that. I agree that there are probably genes that influence it but I don't think they are drastic enough to matter in the future. Globalization will do that. I don't see how it will stay relevant to be honest. Even if we find that half of your intelligence is linked to genetics or more. I also probably wouldn't support a future that focused that much on the genetic differences. Mainly because of the implications of eugenics and also partially for discrimination. I don't know, we'll see.
Again, sorry for the errors and thanks for the studies. I'll have to look them over tonight when I have more time. : )
Edit : reading more, scientists that discovered this last May say the effect of those 52 is minuscule and intelligence is ultimately genetically influenced by thousands of genes.
Feel for the switch? I didn't say it ruled out the effects of nurture, in fact, I think it is still the most important part of determining intelligence. I just wouldn't be surprised to find some genetic influences. It still doesn't matter imo. It's just a useless way to divide humans.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah. I would agree but that still means there maybe a genetic influence, even if it's minute.
[quote=]But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction[/quote]
He offered the research in support of that position, which is simply a racist position as the research doesn't support the position. By agreeing to the language of the Quartz article (which you appeared to do), which grossly exaggerates the influence of the 52 genes found, you might accidentally be agreeing to something more than you intended. Considering this is the same person that raised Charles Murray's book, we have ourselves a racist and you don't seem to agree with his ultimate position.
Tell that to Pope Francis and Ratzinger, both well known intellectuals.Quoting LD Saunders
Pooof!!!
LOL. Since there is no evidence of higher dimensional beings, a little thought will tell you that what you just said is nonsense.
Quoting LD Saunders
I think you might need a multidimensional venue to squeeze in "millions". People come to see him because they seem him as an intellectual.
As far as my proof about inter-dimensional beings being impossible in our dimensional spacetime, I don't need in any way to prove that any such beings actually exist. The math tells us that even if they did exist, they could not exist here, among us, as Icke claims. So, please stop personally insulting me while failing to grasp the basic math.
ROTFLMHO
As far as the math goes, any proof that I am wrong about the impossibility of traveling among interdimensions? Nope. And, as a matter of logic, please explain for everyone here why my mathematical argument would require me to first prove that any interdimensional beings actually exist, when my original argument required no such claim?
But, I'm pretty sure that since you are stumped, you'll merely make another childish response.
If you've seen Murray and Harris talk you'll see that there is a difference between bringing up the findings he found and being racist. I think the original poster does overexaggerate the findings and I don't agree when it comes to that, but there is a possibility that genetics has a role (albeit a tiny one, imo). I see no reason to take Murray's 40-80% correlation of heritability seriously, but I do see the research as important nonetheless.
As someone that went to a prominently black high school (~95%), I can tell you that there are no differences between the friends I had in my AP courses and my future university (more white) friends. The biggest commonality between them all was valuing education, which is a cultural thing, something I doubt has anything to do with genetics. Similarly, the friends I had in the AP courses did well on the SAT/ACT (we all scored well well above average) while the school in general struggled (not surprising as the school was in a lower income area), again pointing to cultural and socio-economic issues, not genetic.
Thank you for your comment though. : )
Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. 1966 [1963]. ISBN 978-0-8091-4610-9.[N 1]
Introduction to Christianity. London: Burns & Oats. 1968 [1968]. ISBN 978-0-223-97705-1.
Faith and Future. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1971 [1970]. ISBN 978-1-58617-219-0.
The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1978 [1977]. ISBN 978-1-58617-184-1.
Daughter Zion: Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1983 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-89870-026-8.
Dogma and Preaching. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1985 [1973]. ISBN 978-1-58617-327-2.
Principles of Christian Morality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1975]. ISBN 978-0-89870-086-2.
Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1981]. ISBN 978-0-89870-056-5.
The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-0-89870-080-0.
Seek That Which Is Above: Meditations through the Year. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-1-58617-187-2.
Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1984]. ISBN 978-0-89870-087-9.
The Blessing of Christmas: Meditations for the Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986. ISBN 978-1-58617-172-8.
Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1987 [1982]. ISBN 978-0-89870-215-6.
Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press. 1988 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology. New York: Crossroad. 1988 [1987]. ISBN 978-1-58617-217-6.
Ministers of Your Joy: Scriptural Meditations on Priestly Spirituality. Ann Arbor: Redeemer Books. 1989 [1988]. ISBN 978-0-89283-654-3.
The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1989 [1959]. ISBN 978-0-8199-0415-7.
To Look on Christ: Exercises in Faith, Hope, and Love. New York: Crossroad. 1991 [1989]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1064-0.
A Turning Point for Europe?. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1994 [1991]. ISBN 978-1-58617-349-4.
The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today's Debates. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1995 [1993]. ISBN 978-0-89870-538-6.
In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1995 [1986]. ISBN 978-0-8028-4106-3.
Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1996 [1991]. ISBN 978-0-89870-578-2.
A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ in Liturgy Today. New York: Crossroad. 1997 [1995]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1536-2.
Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1997 [1996]. ISBN 978-0-89870-640-6.
Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1998 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-702-1.
Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1999 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-753-3.
The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2000 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-784-7.
God and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2002 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-868-4.
God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2003 [2001]. ISBN 978-0-89870-962-9.
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [2003]. ISBN 978-1-58617-035-6.
Introduction to Christianity (revised edition). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [1968]. ISBN 978-1-58617-029-5.
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [2002]. ISBN 978-0-89870-963-6.
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2005. ISBN 978-1-57455-720-6.
Mary: The Church at the Source. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [1997]. ISBN 978-1-58617-018-9.
Way of the Cross. Boston: Pauline Books & Media. 2005. ISBN 978-0-8198-8308-7.
On the Way to Jesus Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005. ISBN 978-1-58617-124-7.
Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-142-1.
Handing on the Faith in an Age of Disbelief. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1983]. ISBN 978-1-58617-143-8.
Images of Hope: Meditations on Major Feasts. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-964-3.
God's Revolution: Pope Benedict XVI's Cologne Talks. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-145-2.
Values in a Time of Upheaval. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-0-8245-2373-2.
God Is Love: Deus Caritas Est. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-163-6.
What It Means to Be a Christian. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1965]. ISBN 978-1-58617-133-9.
Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. San Francisco: Basic Books. 2006. ISBN 978-0-465-00627-4.
On Conscience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [1984]. ISBN 978-1-58617-160-5.
Europe: Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-134-6.
New Outpourings of the Spirit. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-181-0.
Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday. 2007 [2007]. ISBN 978-0-385-52341-7.
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007. ISBN 978-1-58617-220-6.
God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-179-7.
Saved in Hope: Spe Salvi. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2007]. ISBN 978-1-58617-251-0.
The Fathers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59276-440-2.
Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008. ISBN 978-1-58617-245-9.
Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-280-0.
Saint Paul. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-367-8.
The Joy of Knowing Christ: Meditations on the Gospels. Frederick: Word Among Us Press. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59325-151-2.
Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2010. ISBN 978-1-58617-606-8.
The Fathers, Volume II. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-783-0.
The Apostles. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-799-1.
The Virtues. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-794-6.
Great Teachers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-59276-536-2.
Holiness Is Always in Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-444-6.
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-500-9.
Holy Women. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-510-3.
Doctors of the Church. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-576-9.
Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. Colorado Springs: Image Books. 2012. ISBN 978-0385346405.
The Faith. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612786674.
Prayer. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612787091.
oh PLEEEEEESE!
How are you differnt from Icke?
Hmmm I thought it was your finances which were supposed to be Empyrean :lol:
Why assume that racist would be logical?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Or both? Or neither?
Some periods in history are more intellectually buoyant, ebullient, and productive than others, just as some periods are more economically exuberant than at other times.
When society is enjoying a strong high-pressure front, to use a meteorological term, of fresh air and new scientific discoveries, new products, economic growth, etc. It is easy and sensible to be enthusiastic about intellectuals, inventive engineers, new modes of production, and so on. There have been various "high-pressure fronts" episodes in history.
But in society, as in weather, depressing low-pressure fronts tend to follow bracing high pressure fronts. Economic expansion is followed by contraction; fresh new ideas become de rigueur. Reaction follows, and the new ideas become old hat, or maybe anathema.
It's not quite as mechanical as I put it (for brevity's sake).
The last big high-pressure front, in my humble opinion, was in the late 19th-early 20th century, lasting until... 1945, to pick an arbitrary date. That is the period of time when the transformative scientific, electronic, technical, economic, and intellectual with which we live were laid out. Needless to say, not all of this innovation and novelty was welcome, good for us (think of the automobile assembly line), or desirable (like atomic bombs). Antibiotics are good, global warming isn't.
We are now in a low-pressure zone. There have not been any new transformative developments that weren't invented by 1945. (Sorry, cell phones are old technology. If it wasn't for the idea of computers and telephone wires running into just about every house, the internet wouldn't exist.) Science, engineering, and intellectual pursuits just aren't delivering much uplift these days to most people, and there is a consequential low-pressure zone lack of enthusiasm for this stuff.
Hence, an "anti-intellectual flavor" to things.
When people are economically trapped, they generally don't turn to highfalutin ideas. Rather they turn on highfalutin ideas, with a vengeance. It isn't so much that they become anti-intellectual, as they become despairing. What good are the rovers on Mars and all this ivory tower crap doing me when I'm losing what little I had?
Thus, intellectuals came to be associated with weak, impractical people, who can do no other work, and hence resort to being a mere intellectual. And in a certain sense this is true - many intellectuals have retreated into being gadflies and parasites unto the existing world-order which conferred them with a cozy place as a Professor or faculty member at some learning institution - and in exchange for this cozy position (neither too rich nor too poor), it has stripped them of any serious influence - intellectuals are not taken seriously anymore.
What can be done about it is that intellectuals must come out of their caves and show that they can practically lead the way, and they're not staying in their caves merely as an escape from reality - they need to show that they must be taken seriously again.
My highest ambition was to be a gad flying parasitical professor. I have managed to achieve Gadfly Parasite Level 17, but I didn't make it into a professorship. Too bad. It's a pretty cushy position, from what I've seen, especially once one makes tenure. Or, at least, it used to be.
You are no doubt right that anti-intellectualism is a global phenomenon, just as at times intellectualism is IN and know-nothingism is OUT. Clearly know-nothingism is more IN than OUT at this point.
It will be difficult or intellectuals (defined very, very broadly) to stand in good stead again, while the world is going to hell in a hand basket. But yes, they do need to come back out of the woodwork and apply their intellectual capacities to the most significant problems at hand:
Over population - in the context of
Global warming - in the context of
Declining resources - leading to
Declining Q.O.L. - (quality of life)
We really do need to start preparing for, among other things, a population die off. We can't stop it, so we need to prepare psychologically, morally, ethically, and practically. 3 billion people won't die tomorrow (barring an atomic war) but within 40 years... it could be well under way.
We need to devise ways of life that are much simpler technologically. Do we need to start practicing home canning today? Tomorrow? Do we need to start hoarding seeds? Learn how to keep bees? Learn how to spin wool into yarn, then weave it into cloth? Not today, but eventually we won't be making oil-based clothing (polyester, nylon, etc.), or producing huge crops of sugar and cotton, or flying blueberries from Chile to New York.
Right now we need to figure out how to force our governments and industries to cut CO2 emissions. control reproduction, learn to do without common resources (like petroleum) and so on.
It doesn't make sense to wait until national governments, world commerce, local societies, and educational systems collapse to start figuring out how we are going to go forward.
Why is it the intellectuals role to lead? I wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a person or a small cadre. Why isn't it a failure of society to listen, politicians to act based on fact instead of ideology, the reduction of people as a means for the economy as opposed to the economy being a means to have people flourish?
Intellectuals didn't stop thinking, didn't stop researching, didn't stop worrying and didn't stop explaining when people asked questions.
But they stopped having an influence. If people don't listen to you, that's your fault - you failed to find a way to communicate with them in a way through which your message got across.
Quoting Benkei
Who should lead then if not the intellectuals?
Quoting Benkei
Not in the sense of having no say in the matter, sure. But does that mean that you wouldn't want a small & capable leadership group?
Quoting Benkei
You can't have expectations out of a pig, but you can have expectations out of Socrates.
Quoting Benkei
That is a problem, and also that they act based on their own economic interests.
It may well be true that "jewish" people score higher (on average) on IQ tests. But you can't predict a person's IQ by their "ethnicity".
Race is a social category, not a real scientific one. Grouping characteristic are the result of a social process of history, and are not bourn out by genetics. Humans of all types are reproductively compatible and have been 'mixing' since the beginning of our species (if such a point can ever be truly said to have existed). However to sunder the appearance of human variety (and it is mosty by appearance) there are multiple individuals who can never conform to the type. These are rendered 'half breed', octeroon, 'mixed race' or some such insult. Yet for each of us, all mixed as we must be cannot perfectly conform to any set type. And those that are close to a type can easily confound the nomenclature by having a child with another 'type'.
I know black people, jews, asians who have more in common with me upon things that matter, than many so-called 'white people' I could name.
Ethnicity is a dangerous myth. A myth that is tearing the world apart. And is about as scientific as supporting a football team.
Whenever I answer a form with the ethnic question. I always cross out all the choice, and put other: And write "Homo Sapiens" into the box. That is my only ethnicity.
Nothing you say here is relevant. Being an intellectual, or being seen as intellectual (which is what the thread is actually about) does not entail maths, not even cuckoo maths.
You sound like a total idiot. For one I am not Catholic. Not even a Christian. I'm an atheist.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making.
You can't even master the quote system. I nearly missed your fascinating post.
Well, you only showcase your ignorance by refusing to call Karol J. Wojtyla an intellectual. And that's also coming from an atheist.
Well for example you'll get a different average attitude to deferred gratification, planning ahead, etc., where you have an environment that rewards it. That's one hypothesis why the relatively more intelligent races (Asians, Whites) evolved across the northern "band" of regions, which alternated between temperate and cold to temperate over hundreds of thousands of years.
(Just as an aside: I do think there's an intermediary factor though, which is family forms and structures. The full picture would be that environment (in the long run) shapes genes, which shape (in the medium-term) family forms, which (in recent historical terms) shape culture. It's absolutely true that race has some cultural aspects to it - it's just that the genetic aspect is also there, and it's silly to suppress it.)
Quoting yatagarasu
You're actually more likely to get eugenics from the Left (which is historically where you mainly got it from in the past) because they're much more concerned with remaking man into a more ideologically satisfactory being.
But anyway, I must emphasize that none of these racial differences affect the core liberal principle that when it comes to potentially doing violence to people, you judge people by their actions, not by their group membership. The group averages matter some for politics, policy, etc. (e.g. you can only "level the playing field" up to a point, though of course you should level it up to that point), but they don't affect the "negative" rights due to the individual qua individual (of whatever race) in any way. I think a lot of fear of race realism comes from a bit of a muddle over this point.
Quoting gurugeorge
I moreso doubted the time it would be necessary to create differences and that there were some form of mixing even in relatively isolated regions. But everything else you mentioned is on point. I remember seeing a study and graph that compared GDP to Distance from the Equator. It's very interesting. Basically that the lower temperatures in the colder regions necessitated invention compared to the more temperate regions. I think cultural values may be disconnected from the genes. They could have evolved separate from the genetic side. Some cultures just value education more and some languages involve more rote memorization, which could affect the way that same culture forms it's educational systems. Basically I don't think they influence each other directly, it's more of a combination of factors at each stage ( as you mentioned).
Quoting gurugeorge
Yes, but only slightly. Both sides have a flair for authoritarianism at the edges. And both sides would have their reasons to fight any form of "playing God".
The last part of your response is interesting. I think that is where the concern is. Many feel like any possible research in the field of genetics along these lines could lead to minority groups being classified and possibly "demoted" as humans. This confusion is probably because no one can listen apparently and it's not like there are any real discussions. All sides just assume the worst. : /
Well, really! A child rapist protector could certainly be an intellectual, even if he just happened to be neither a catholic priest nor a pope. Even an atheist child rapist could be an intellectual. Who one prefers to rape doesn't have much to do with how intellectual one is, after all.
Isn't "doubting the time" one of the main arguments from creationists? ;) Evolution doesn't have to take all that long. For the claimed effects on intelligence variance, you only need timespans similar to those for lactose tolerance and that kind of thing to develop (i.e. tens of thousands of years-ish).
Quoting yatagarasu
This would depend on whether there's such things as replicators in culture. I do like the idea of memes and memetic evolution as a cute idea in and of itself, but I'm not sure how much weight to put on it. At any rate, the convoluted avoidance so prevalent these days, of the slightest hint that genes might have an influence above the neckline strikes me as the modern-day equivalent of "epicycles."
Quoting yatagarasu
A few decades ago, I would have agreed that there's roughly equal blame on both sides, but these days the Left is much more to blame than the Right. (This shouldn't be such a surprise; the Left has had its time on the naughty step in the past.) Currently, the Left is chasing intersectional identity politics into the abyss, it's gone completely insane, and it's pulling the rest of society with it. It really has to stop.
Just a FYI, but the study you linked to had this to say:
Yeah, I would agree with that to some extent (though to some extent it's also obviously ass-saving boilerplate). But race realism isn't a prejudiced theory of generalized racial superiority. It's a demonstrable theory of specific racial rankings in specific areas. And while general intelligence is certainly an important human trait, it's not the be all and end all of being human.
IOW the average intelligence of Jews is obviously vastly superior to the average intelligence of Blacks, and quite a bit superior even to Asians and Whites; but that doesn't make Jews superior human beings to Blacks, Asians or Whites in any general sense.
Again, these are just averages across populations; it doesn't mean you can't find lots of dumb Jews, or lots of smart Blacks, etc., in absolute terms, it just means you'll find less of them proportionately, in each group.
The statistics matter for things like public policy, or what you can expect, on average, of given racial or ethnic groups; and the matter of the degree of genetic influence, in particular, sets ceilings and floors on what's achievable or desirable with public policy. But I emphasize: none of it touches the liberal principle that you must judge given individuals by their manifest qualities or revealed actions, and not by the average characteristics of the group (or socioeconomic class, for that matter) that they happen to belong to. It's the latter that is literally prejudice.
Quoting gurugeorge
I see what you did there. :wink:
Quoting gurugeorge
Yeah. Really interesting stuff to put it like lightly. And for the second part.... Fear can be a really powerful thing. Any evidence in that field could slightly shake the platform the left has. The right responds in the same way too. It's just a part of science unfortunately.
Quoting gurugeorge
As I mentioned above, any research that attacks the notion of "equality between races" is going to be attacked by the left more and elicit a response. Yes, they are. : / I'm sure it will eventually simmer down... I think. : l
Well there are lots of good people on all sides of the political spectrum waking up to the nonsense these days (there are even some old school Leftists who are pissed off with the PC cult, and who are realizing, rightly, that it's bringing the Left into disrepute - it may well even turn the Democrats into a rump third party in the US, for example).
Also, I think there's a quiet but growing movement of people withdrawing sanction, particularly economic sanction, from the ideologically-obsessed products of modern academia, the entertainment industry, sports, fake news, etc., etc. (This has the added salutary effect of making people realize they don't really need to spend their money on most of the crap they've habitually been spending it on anyway.)
There's a peculiar and wryly amusing irony about the entryism practiced by the goons of intersectional identity politics, feminism, etc.: they take over some area of endeavour hoping to capitalize on its cachet, respect or popularity, so they can spread their propaganda; but as soon as they get involved, the thing loses the very cachet, respect or popularity that made it attractive to take over in the first place. "Get woke, go broke" is now becoming a recognizable phenomenon.
So I do have some hope, but it's touch and go, and it could still be a rocky ride, since a lot of it is thoroughly institutionalized now and has some big law behind it. The termites have been dining long and hard and this insane ideology has been gradually creeping up on the world on since the end of WWII, slowly at first, then gathering speed in the 70s, again in the 90s and again, with more desperate intensity, in the last 5 years or so.