Japan's New Prime Minister

[Meekly_Anna]

Darwin believed in survival of the fittest.

No, he didn't. Please read his works before trying to fuck with him.
Google Herbert Spencer...

 

[JohnEngelman]

I admire your persistence and find it different than the usual banter here.

Your idea of “race realism” gets tossed around as if it were grounded in science, but it’s really a modern coat of paint on an old belief system that genetics no longer supports...

Names like Charles Murray and J. Philippe Rushton are sometimes cited as proof, but both men’s work has been widely rejected within the scientific community...

What’s puzzling is when someone well-read in theology and history — someone clearly capable of critical thought — holds tight to views that the rest of modern science has already moved past. The evidence about race and DNA isn’t hidden; it’s been established for decades. At some point, continuing to ignore that consensus becomes less about science and more about belief.

In his September 2005 Commentary article "The Inequality Taboo" Charles Murray mentioned an interesting experiment in which 3,636 people were asked what their race was. Then they were asked to donate a tissue sample for DNA testing. The people doing the DNA testing did not know which race each doner claimed for himself or herself. Nevertheless, they agreed 99.9 percent of the time.

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-inequality-taboo/

This was a good experiment because it was double blind, and repeatable. Indeed, Charles Murray pointed out that it has been repeated, with the same results. In a double blind experiment, the experimenters do not know all of the important data of the people they are experimenting on.

Now, once we acknowledge that race is a classification that can be verified scientifically it becomes possible to see how the races differ in average ability levels and behavior. The differences have always been obvious to those with extensive experience with the three main racial groups. I emphasize that I am writing of average differences and tendencies, rather than absolute categories.

It cannot be said, for example, that members of one race have more basketball talent than members of another race. Those who watch professional basketball games know that there is racial diversity on the teams. They also know that one race predominates.

Scientific truth is not determined by consensus, and certainly not by coercion, but by repeated experiments and by careful measurements.

The appeal to authority fallacy is committed when one makes a claim because authority figures make the claim too, without supplying supporting evidence of one's own.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, he didn't. Please read his works before trying to fuck with him.
Google Herbert Spencer...

Charles Darwin asserted that what matters for evolution are not acquired differences, but genetic differences. If the environment favors one genetic difference over another, those with the favored genetic difference will populate future generations.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The idea that Ashkenazi Jews were “selected” for higher intelligence falls into the same trap — speculation dressed as science. Their achievements are better explained by a strong cultural emphasis on literacy and education, not genetic destiny.

People emphasize and practice what they are good at.

The Ashkenazim developed their high average IQs because for many centuries in Christian countries they were not allowed to practice most trades. They were allowed to be money lenders. Excellence in finance requires intelligence. Jewish men who could not learn the skills did not get married and had children, or they left the faith.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

People emphasize and practice what they are good at.

The Ashkenazim developed their high average IQs because for many centuries in Christian countries they were not allowed to practice most trades. They were allowed to be money lenders. Excellence in finance requires intelligence. Jewish men who could not learn the skills did not get married and had children, or they left the faith.

Quite apart from the fact that your racist ideas are silly because there is no such thing as human races, your approach is wrong: you assume that certain groups of people are superior to others because they are smarter or more willing to reproduce. Let's assume you're right (you're not), then, if we are to believe the average porn film, we should all be black gas and water installers.
My argument is, of course, completely ridiculous, and therefore just as intelligent as yours.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Quite apart from the fact that your racist ideas are silly because there is no such thing as human races, your approach is wrong: you assume that certain groups of people are superior to others because they are smarter or more willing to reproduce. Let's assume you're right (you're not), then, if we are to believe the average porn film, we should all be black gas and water installers.
My argument is, of course, completely ridiculous, and therefore just as intelligent as yours.

In my comment #102 I have already explained how Charles Murray refuted the dogma that "race is only a social comment." I explained it using my own words. I will explain it using his words:

Turning to race, we must begin with the fraught question of whether it even exists, or whether it is instead a social construct. The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”[25]

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26] Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-inequality-taboo/

The essay will clear up any misconceptions you may still have about this matter. I advise reading all of it.

I also advise reading my entire comment #102, if you think I am claiming "One race is superior to another." The truth is more complex than that.

 

[dmallord]

In his September 2005 Commentary article "The Inequality Taboo" Charles Murray mentioned an interesting experiment in which 3,636 people were asked what their race was. Then they were asked to donate a tissue sample for DNA testing. The people doing the DNA testing did not know which race each doner claimed for himself or herself. Nevertheless, they agreed 99.9 percent of the time.

https://www.aei.org/articles/the-inequality-taboo/

This was a good experiment because it was double blind, and repeatable. Indeed, Charles Murray pointed out that it has been repeated, with the same results. In a double blind experiment, the experimenters do not know all of the important data of the people they are experimenting on.

Now, once we acknowledge that race is a classification that can be verified scientifically it becomes possible to see how the races differ in average ability levels and behavior. The differences have always been obvious to those with extensive experience with the three main racial groups. I emphasize that I am writing of average differences and tendencies, rather than absolute categories.

It cannot be said, for example, that members of one race have more basketball talent than members of another race. Those who watch professional basketball games know that there is racial diversity on the teams. They also know that one race predominates.

Scientific truth is not determined by consensus, and certainly not by coercion, but by repeated experiments and by careful measurements.

The appeal to authority fallacy is committed when one makes a claim because authority figures make the claim too, without supplying supporting evidence of one's own.

I read Murray’s Inequality Taboo piece years ago, and it’s worth pointing out what that DNA study really demonstrated — and what it didn’t. The experiment simply showed that people’s self-identified ancestry usually matches their genetic ancestry markers. That’s not a surprise, since families tend to come from particular regions, and regional genetics leave detectable patterns.

But that doesn’t mean race is a clear-cut biological category like species or subspecies. Genetic clusters overlap broadly, and there’s no sharp boundary where one “race” ends and another begins. Even among those 3,636 participants, the markers used were selected because they highlight regional differences — not because they define innate divisions in ability or behavior. That’s why the scientists themselves never claimed the study proved anything about intelligence, morality, or capability.

When Murray or others take that data and jump straight to conclusions about “average ability levels,” they’re moving from genetics into ideology. The fact that genes can reveal where our ancestors came from does not mean those genes determine who is smarter, more athletic, or more civilized. Those traits arise from a mix of environment, opportunity, culture, and personal experience.

As for “scientific truth not being determined by consensus” — that’s true in principle, but in practice, consensus emerges because repeated, peer-reviewed research converges on the same results. In this case, the consensus of modern genetics, anthropology, and neuroscience is clear: racial categories are social shorthand, not biological destinies.

If someone is deeply read in both science and theology, it’s worth asking why they’re holding onto the 19th-century notion that humanity can be ranked by ancestry when the evidence points in a very different direction.

 

[OralAllOver]

People emphasize and practice what they are good at.

The Ashkenazim developed their high average IQs because for many centuries in Christian countries they were not allowed to practice most trades. They were allowed to be money lenders. Excellence in finance requires intelligence. Jewish men who could not learn the skills did not get married and had children, or they left the faith.

Feel free to run an experiment (or read about one run by a reliable person) before coming to any grand conclusion

Hint: you got NONE

Btw, the scientific revolution changed everything, and it's based on humility

But since you know everything ...

 

[JohnEngelman]

If someone is deeply read in both science and theology, it’s worth asking why they’re holding onto the 19th-century notion that humanity can be ranked by ancestry when the evidence points in a very different direction.

This is because they are convinced by recent findings of science, rather than politically correct fashions enforced by coercion. To see how the races differ in average ability and behavior one only needs to examine crime reports and test results. Then run Charles Murray's experiment on convicted felons and those who have taken mental aptitude tests. Those who do this will find that DNA is a better predictor than environment.

 

[dmallord]

This is because they are convinced by recent findings of science, rather than politically correct fashions enforced by coercion. To see how the races differ in average ability and behavior one only needs to examine crime reports and test results. Then run Charles Murray's experiment on convicted felons and those who have taken mental aptitude tests. Those who do this will find that DNA is a better predictor than environment.

... so far down that rabbit hole, you go.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Jewish Genius, By Charles Murray, Commentary, April 02, 2007​

As soon as Jewish children born under legal emancipation had time to grow to adulthood, they started appearing in the first ranks of the arts and sciences. During the four decades from 1830 to 1870, when the first Jews to live under emancipation reached their forties, 16 significant Jewish figures appear. In the next four decades, from 1870 to 1910, the number jumps to 40. During the next four decades, 1910–1950, despite the contemporaneous devastation of European Jewry, the number of significant figures almost triples, to 114.

To get a sense of the density of accomplishment these numbers represent, I will focus on 1870 onward, after legal emancipation had been achieved throughout Central and Western Europe. How does the actual number of significant figures compare to what would be expected given the Jewish proportion of the European and North American population? From 1870 to 1950, Jewish representation in literature was four times the number one would expect. In music, five times. In the visual arts, five times. In biology, eight times. In chemistry, six times. In physics, nine times. In mathematics, twelve times. In philosophy, fourteen times.

Disproportionate Jewish accomplishment in the arts and sciences continues to this day. My inventories end with 1950, but many other measures are available, of which the best known is the Nobel Prize. In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent. Jews constitute about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population. You do the math.

What accounts for this remarkable record? A full answer must call on many characteristics of Jewish culture, but intelligence has to be at the center of the answer. Jews have been found to have an unusually high mean intelligence as measured by IQ tests since the first Jewish samples were tested. (The widely repeated story that Jewish immigrants to this country in the early 20th century tested low on IQ is a canard.) Exactly how high has been difficult to pin down, because Jewish sub-samples in the available surveys are seldom perfectly representative. But it is currently accepted that the mean is somewhere in the range of 107 to 115, with 110 being a plausible compromise.

https://www.aei.org/articles/jewish-genius/

 

[OralAllOver]

This is because they are convinced by recent findings of science, rather than politically correct fashions enforced by coercion. To see how the races differ in average ability and behavior one only needs to examine crime reports and test results. Then run Charles Murray's experiment on convicted felons and those who have taken mental aptitude tests. Those who do this will find that DNA is a better predictor than environment.

Wow, you have the certainty of a Major Fool

Did you get advanced degree from Dunning Kruger?

 

[OralAllOver]

Two notes on evolution (if you please)
1) Large, stable populations evolve incredibly slowly or not at all. Animals that get trapped on an island do (their DNA is "washed" through millions of others). Perhaps you noticed: there are 8 billion humans who tend to fuck each other. Stop with human evolution. DNA is mixed like a Starbucks smoothie. My god, how many jewish women were raped? This stuff is complicated
2) The "out of Africa" theory provides the explanation for why there is SO LITTLE genetic variance among humans compared to other mammals.

Pro tip: A 2024 blue Ford 150 aint much different than a silver 2024 Ford 150. A mongol aint much different than a Swede