XPost: uk.philosophy.humanism, alt.society.conservatism, alt.society.liberalism
From: mlwi@swipnet.se
"- .. -- Tim .-." skrev i meddelandet
ews:XtudnfTe7eBwJaPRnZ2dnUVZ8nadnZ2d@bt.com...
>M Winther wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, if we avoid speaking about these matters, then we
>> let the extreme right wing monopolize the truth. This is very
>> dangerous. Society gets more and more polarized between airy-fairy
>> liberal-minded ideology and its opposite. It is never good, in the
>> long run, not to relate to truth.
>
> Biologically, we are one species. I remain rather dubious about this theory
(for that's what it is) that some peoples in some
> areas benefitted from inherited DNA from the Neanderthals. It just seems
unlikely, considering that Neanderthals were generally
> thought to be of *lower* intelligence than Homo Sapiens, and were definitely
less successful (for whatever reason) as they have
> not survived. I suppose it might be argued that it enabled some Homo
Sapiens to develop larger brain-cases, enabling improved
> brain development over time, but I am not likely to swallow this one
hook-line-and-sinker anytime soon, without further evidence.
>
> There is of course no doubt that humans from various areas have differing
characteristics, as a result of natural selection.
> However, other factors can cause differences than purely genetic ones. As
Lance and others have pointed out, prevalence of
> diseases, geographic barriers and so on can all have strong influences on
how successful a group of people might be.
>
>>
>> People swing between the opposites. Not long ago overblown Aryan
>> ideals dominated, but now people can cohabit with any lowlife, and are
>> completely oblivious of differences. How about taking a sane middle
>> position, and stop swinging between the opposites? I think a naive
>> unconsciousness only paves the way for a comeback of Nazi ideals.
>> Society becomes polarized.
>
> Well, it occurs to me that someone might think they are taking the middle
position, when actually they are closer to one of the
> poles than they acknowledge. It is possible to (perhaps subconsciously)
start with a biased view, and then fit the observations
> to that view (that is, see what one wants to see). For instance, if we
observe differences in IQ (and apparently, we do) between
> peoples of differing ethnic history, then we need to go beyond simplicity
and examine all avenues as to why that might be. Not
> just jump on the first crackpot theory that comes along. The first thing
is, when we measure IQ, exactly *what* are we measuring?
> Is the test a level playing-field, or do language and cultural barriers
affect results? Are we only measuring IQ through the lens
> of one particular culture's view of what intelligence is and how it
manifests? Those are just some of the considerations. If,
> after that, we decide there ARE intelligence differences, then what other
factors might have caused them? Diseases may be rife in
> some areas, that affect development of the foetus and infant. Nutrition may
be (and probably is) a key factor affecting
> development. Then there are education and early-learning issues, all of
which can be adversely affected by lack of resources.
> Impaired development as a result might also be passed on to offspring.
>
>>
>> Facts are that Blacks don't generally have the same zest for hard work
>> as Whites do,
>
> Do they have the same *access* to work? Were they disadvantaged in other
ways, such as in early development? Is this some form
> of learnt behaviour?
>
>> and they have statistically a lower IQ (around 85 in the
>> U.K.).
>
> See above. It may not be due to genetics and ethnic history at all.
>
>> In the 2005 statistics, a black man is almost 9 times more
>> likely to commit a rape than a white man. This figure is chockingly
>> over the top. There is no point anymore in hiding these facts. It is
>> better to confront reality.
>
> Assuming these are statistics relating to the UK (rather than world-wide)
and that they are correct, it does not follow that it is
> anything resulting from their genetics intrinsically. It may be a result of
many social and cultural factors, and one would need
> to submit it to much more scrutiny and lengthy study. Many factors could be
involved.
>
>>
>> I would never treat a black person badly simply because I know these
>> facts. Racialism and facts about race aren't that strongly connected
>> as people think.
>
> I endeavor to treat all people with fairness and consideration. Indeed, I
don't consider people with a lower IQ to be in any
> sense inferior (I work with people with learning difficulties), it is all a
part of the rich diversity of humanity. IMO if we
> identify certain groups of people as more likely to commit particular
crimes, then we need first of all to consider what social
> and cultural pressures might be causing that, rather than jump to the
conclusion that their genetic make up means it is
> inevitable.
>
> Tim.
>
>>
>> Mats
>
>
I think you have a very lax attitude to this issue. You don't want to
dirty your hands. This is merely the easy way out in order to
avoid dealing with this dirty issue. One can always cast suspicion on
any standpoint by questioning how certain the facts are. People have
questioned the truth in the Holocaust, and there is not enough
evidence for the greenhouse effect, Darwinian evolution hasn't been
proved, etc. If a comet was heading toward earth you would only sit
there, arms crossed, and say that there is not enough evidence that
this comet is going to do any significant damage.
Mats
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
