COMMENTS
Metaphorically speaking, Chicken or Egg? Which comes first? This is by way of saying that the logic (of an argument) already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, is therefore fallacious (it's called a circular argument).
The article and the sources it cites use the terms "race" and "racial" in a circular argument way (i.e. assuming the meaning in defining the meaning).
The article seems reasonable on the surface (without thinking much about the terms it uses) but no where in the article (or, as far as I have read) in the articles cited or linked to is "RACE" ever succinctly, or dare I say, scientifically, defined.
If there exists a current, public, and widely accepted scientific DEFINITION of race (succinct would be nice, but scientific would do), please point us readers AT it (not just towards it or through the thicket of a thousand opinions about it).
That's just a present observation. Personal thought? It might be far more interesting (not necessarily useful other than socially, culturally and politically), to take the unabridged results (not institutionally, establishment, or otherwise filtered results) from the oft mentioned studies of population differences from genetic data, and then employ that evidence as part of an approach to coming up with an evidence-based definition of differences between people that someone would like to then, subsequently, label as "RACE".
There are of course several challenges (I won't label them 'problems') even in being so empirical in evidence first, label second rather than the present label first, evidence second circular approach to back up label). Amongst these challenges are (quite seriously even if funny) -
(a) Emerging scientific data: Recent studies have shown that humans have a large percentage of genes in common with bananas (~40+% depending on study - see program #6 at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gen...me/
program.html - , mice (~85%), Yeast (~46%), chimpanzees (~98+%), etc.
Not to mention the more accurate measurements of genetic differences between a variety of human populations has narrowed to the order of 0.1%.
Of course the account and descriptions of the account of biological and genetic differences are far more complex than just simply, straightforwardly, and wrongly comparing linear numbers and sorted "identities" (see http://www.thenakedscientists.co...s/question/919/
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/...-
NOT12apr02.htm )
Or take a look at http://www.wasdarwinright.com/ho.../homology-
f.htm which begins to show just how complex, interrelated, perspective bound, academically competitive (definitions, explanations, reputations), ignorant (what we don't yet know) etc the very question and whole area currently is ....and remains until ongoing progress provides better knowledge and understandings!
(b) That ever present crittur called "personal bias", "flavor of professional training", kid of "crit
Last part of previous comment..the (b) part!
(b) That ever present crittur called "personal bias", "flavor of professional training", kid of "critical thiking" etc: It's very difficult to remove bias from any perspective humans have (it is more practical and very powerful to recognize the bias (or/and influence) and factor that bias/influence in, as (to a significant degree) the mathematics of quantum mechanics presently does).
This blog is linked to from http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html (an article on "BIOLOGICAL RACE"). It contains a graphic ( http://racialreality.110mb.com/
r...ic_clusters.gif ). The graphic shows the geographical location of the 52 population samples studied by Rosenberg et al. (2002) [Genetic Structure of Human Populations. Science; 298:2381-2385]. The barriers in the graphic (shown as straight lines) which are numbered 1 to 4 correspond to the sequential partition of the sampled populations into genetic clusters.
What I find interesting in this graphic (and going back to some of the challenges in (preferably) gathering and using empirical evidence) before labeling it is that -
(a) Despite the article carrying a quote from or about Rosenberg's work that "...with a tendency to a dilution of these genes with distance from Africa," no mention is made of 'length of time associated with those distances from Africa'.
So, depending on who you are, one might read this piece with a humans "Out of Africa' perspective (the prevailing scientific view) or with a humans "Multi-Region Hypothesis" view (the idea that in evolution modern humans independently "originated" (what does that word 'originated' actually mean?) simultaneously (evolutionarily [or by some 'intervention']) in several different places around the world. The article doesn't actually say.
If you read the article from the 'Multiregion' point of view, the graphic appears to 'naturally' express why there are, in the 'Multiregion' view, 5 distinctive (not quite the same as distinct) population groups. If you read the article from the 'Out of Africa view', then a time comment / dimension / depiction is missing from both the comments and the graphic that would show just WHEN particular populations moving and also evolving out of Africa (as populations within Africa continued to do) underwent the changes that we see today in present-day populations (before the advent of cheap and frequent jet travel 
). In other words, in this view, the barriers must be time sequenced.
This is interesting to me because of how the regions are NUMBERED in the graphic. From the multiregion view it's possibly an arbitrary numbering scheme with Europe, North Africa, and West Asia 1st. From an Out-of-Africa perspective (the prevailing view at this time) it's a logically inconsistent (time-wise) numbering as the graphs region 2 should then be (time-wise) the graphs region 1.
Who knows why it's represented that way? No
Last bit from previous comment!
Who knows why it's represented that way? Not I. Carelessess? Hidden (unconscious) bias? Poor logical thinking? Take a guess or attempt to get a candid answer from the writer. Yet the implications (hidden freight) of such presentations, correct or not, is consumed and oft accepted, consciously or not, by those who read them.
Cheers!
First,
Jewish people are the most intelligent. They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize's and they have a small population of only 14 million. So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence. The other races having huge numbers and such small contributions.
Second,
IQ tests, test intellectual conformity, not creativity and originality. This would explain the Asian high IQ's. They as a people are the ultimate conformists.
In IQ tests there is typically only one answer to the problem. That problem being a social conformity to reason. But everyone knows that Genius's and all the greatest developments in the world are not the product of conformity. Conformity never breeds creativity. We can see this in the lack of influence the Asian population has had on Science. China used to be called the "sick man" of Asia. Their population is massive and their contribution to innovation is almost nil. We can see this lack of originality in their adoptation of European philosophies, I.e. Communism.
Friedrich Nietzsche and other Philosophers have critized Asians. Nietsche used the words "Pallid osification" to describe Orientals.
Pallid: lacking sparkle or liveliness, dull.
Osification: Process of becoming inflexible: the process of becoming set and inflexible in behavior, attitudes, and actions. Inflexible conformity: rigid, unthinking acceptance of social conventions.
The reality is Asian people have yet to understand that laws and rules are arbitrary. Europeans make the rules and Asian's follow them.
It also doesn't make sense that Asian's are considered smart because of the fact that they have destroyed their own countries. This is due to over-population and their basic lack of enviromental understanding.
It is also common scientific fact that women who have many children are ignorant, and those who have less children are more intelligent. This has already been proven in studies. So it seems strange to say that Asians are smart when the obviousness of their backwards countries, and medieval lifestyle makes them contrary to that premise.
Europeans have the most advanced civilizations and every other race has yet to meet these levels other than the Japanese. The Japanese only being good at copying other people's inventions and making them better. Other than that their original creativity is lacking as well. They took American cars and made them better. They took the German camera and made it better. And they took German steel and made it better. Otherwise the greatest advances still come from Europeans and Jews. Other than that the Orientals have yet to produce an Einstein or a Thomas Edison.
When it comes to Black people. It makes sense that they have low intellectual comformity, I.e. IQ tests. They are far too creative to be trapped in this unoriginal form of conditioning. You can tell their creative capacity in their athletics, music, dance, and the way th
Anyone who makes a blog and website delving on race is a racist.
You just made yourself look like an utter fool.
Race in itself is a made up word just like the word God, and if there is a God I am sure he did not condone "races" for his people.
What does it matter anyway? Do you have some sort of vendetta? Do something more constructive with your short life and get a life, fool.
Hey wo, while i agree there is no god, in the bible it openly supports race. And i'm sure your a troll, so i wont adress the rest of your shit.
Commenting by HaloScan
