So you're saying that if definitions were applied to these metrics, you would be fine with it? I don't buy it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:38 AM Subject: Re: AYFKM? > Matt > > No because "race" is not a single trait. It covers skin tone, > eyecolor, eye shape, hair texture and probably more. Intelligence is > also probably not a single trait, even if we limit ourselves to the > type of intelligence that is measured on IQ tests. > > that said, I feel like I am starting to repeat myself and I probably > won't have time to debate this any more now that we are into the work > week. I'll probably read eventually though if anyone else cares to get > into this. > > On 10/29/07, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Wait a second... >> >> I'm saying it's true or it ain't. But with the number of evolution >> arguments I've seen on this list (in regards to ID), I just don't see how >> a >> person could believe in evolution and then turn around and discredit the >> notion that subspecies might be able to be classified by intelligence. >> It's >> done with dogs and cats, why not humans? African-Americans get >> sickle-cell >> anemia more than other groups, due to biological differences. You're >> saying >> that the same can't be done with intelligence? According to evolutionary >> theory, we are all just animals with different abilities, strengths and >> weaknesses. Calling this notion racism is in fact political correctness >> run >> amok. >> >> - Matt >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Judah McAuley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "CF-Community" <cf-community@houseoffusion.com> >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:56 AM >> Subject: Re: AYFKM? >> >> >> > Gruss Gott wrote: >> >> Nevertheless, you make many good points, however none of them explain >> >> why it is not possible that intelligence is correlated with skin >> >> color, which was Dr. Watson point. >> >> >> >> I'm just saying it's possible. That's all. To call it racist seems >> >> to reject logic in favor of political correctness. >> > >> > I don't think that anyone has categorically rejected the idea that it >> > is >> > possible that there is some factor that could link in some fashion >> > skin tone and some measure of intelligence. >> > >> > But you are asking us to try and prove a negative. Why should I prove >> > that intelligence couldn't be correlated with skin tone? The null >> > hypothesis is that there would be no difference between "races" in >> > intelligence measures. You've provided no good reason to believe that >> > the null hypothesis is not true. We call it racist because the primary >> > reason that people want to believe the null hypothesis is not true >> > without a decent theory and evidence is because they are racists. >> > >> > Why would increased intelligence not be selected for in any culture? >> > What mechanisms would limit the development in certain cultures? What >> > genetic components of intelligence would be linked to skin tone? >> > >> > I'm willing to believe that there may exist some answers to these >> > questions and some of them may indicate something like a higher >> > frequency of a mutation in a gene that helps out with, say, spatial >> > recognition within a group that historically represents an >> > interbreeding >> > population. >> > >> > As far as I am aware though, there is not any research that currently >> > shows anything of the sort. And even that result would be far short of >> > anything you could link to a broader measure of "intelligence" which >> > encompasses many aspects that you'd be hard pressed to link to any >> > small >> > concrete set of genetic markers. >> > >> > You claim political correctness run amok because people don't want to >> > admit the possibility of a link between race and intelligence. But you >> > don't have a good definition of race or intelligence (at the genetic >> > level) nor do you offer any plausible reason why there *should* be a >> > difference. And hypothesizing, as Dr Watson does, that one racial group >> > has less native intelligence than another without any evidence other >> > than personal prejudice is, in fact, racism. >> > >> > Judah >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Check out the new features and enhancements in the latest product release - download the "What's New PDF" now http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/coldfusion/cf8_beta_whatsnew_052907.pdf Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245397 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
