feels vs reals really summed it up

yes they can, from buildings.

IQ afaik is a standard set per country where 100 is always the index number, so it should be impossible to compare between countries using IQ? But I could be misinformed.
In any case, it wouldn't surprise me. Genetically, people have their strengths and weaknesses and the means of measuring IQ involves a lot of nurture on top of nature (which is a confounding factor in measuring one's IQ, I presume). Differences are bound to be found. That doesn't make a race necessarily less fit for life or something like that. In fact, I daresay the average African has a few genes that I'd envy if I knew them in detail. Oh, here's one I remember, there's practically zero chance of Parkinson's disease around the equator, I wouldn't mind having a bit of that immunity

Then you get somebody who does

Words do have meanings.

According to you my mutt dog, who is half border colley and half American hound, is a mix of two different species that created another species altogether. If phenotype can dictate species then blue eyes people are a different species than brown eyed people. Segregation based on a widow's peak could be a thing. Lol.

Phenotype fetishism.

This is why you people should abandon your 18th century sociological concept of race. Things have changed over the past three hundred years....your physiognomy is pseudoscience.



Right side is firmly in the feels category.



IQ isn't an objective measure of intelligence. It is the measure of a handful of traits. IQ science doesn't even make a meaningful distinction between fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc. It is sort of like phrenology run rampant.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2017 08:57am

There is no right wing side, only factually right side. Its a scientific debate. One side makes a scientific argument, the other side makes an emotional and political argument.

In the feels vs reals spectrum, right wing people seem to be on the "feels" side while left wing people seem to be on the "reals" side. At least I think that's what Skinned was trying to say.

If a research paper claims to have identified races within the human species and then applies characteristics to it such as "higher intelligence" or "lower intelligence", that research paper can be classified as "pseudoscience" because its premise is wrong.

Imagine terminology doesn't matter. You're a biologist and you submit a paper that seemingly has some errors in it, and other scientists burn your points to the ground by pointing out those errors. How idiotic will you look if you then say "Oh haha, when I said X I actually meant Y. You guys are just arguing terminology"?

This post was edited by Leevee on May 27 2017 05:01pm

There is nothing wrong with their premise. There is no scientific controversy or doubt over many racial biological and developmental disparities. That blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia as a result of genetics is well established.
Its only when it approaches politically controversial issues like intelligence that suddenly doubt is manufactured, doubt unable to stand on scientific grounds but presented as an emotional and political argument.



Except the 'other scientists' in this case aren't burning points to the ground by pointing out errors, they're just expressing moral outrage and political correctness.
Its not a debate over a scientific validity because if it was, the psychology is ironclad and the 'feels' side would lose if it tried to fight on 'reals'. So it fights on 'feels.'

I don't think you're getting it.

Bazi made a post that pointed out correlation between various skin colors and likelihood to have various medical conditions. Nobody has disagreed with that or gotten their panties in a bunch over it, because -- even though I have no idea whether any of his examples were correct -- it is very likely that such correlations indeed exist.

The only thing that makes his post incorrect is the fact that he uses the word "race" when he means "people with a certain skin color" or something of the like. That's not a big deal in most informal contexts, but it is a big deal when you see this mistake in a self-proclaimed scientific article, or in the very first post of a thread. For a source to have some type of scientific credibility, it shouldn't be getting such basic terminology wrong. For a topic to be somewhat discuss-able, its OP shouldn't be getting such basic terminology wrong.

"Race" is more than skin color. As we said very early on, "race" is an informal term that distinguishes categories of people into demographics based on different factors in different contexts.
There is nothing somehow implicitly wrong or compromising about using race as a metric in social sciences and there is nothing wrong in the use of terminology here.
There are plenty of accredited journals showing correlations between intelligence/medical conditions/early development/etc and race. How they define race is up to each study, but they're generally coherent, and skin color is one strong distinguishing factor.

This is all a red herring from the actual meat of the argument being made: That racial demographics can show human behavioral disparities rooted in both nature and nurture, not just the latter. And the science being used to demonstrate that hypothesis is valid.
Instead of counterarguments to this central controversial point, we get fallacies, emotional outrage and political witch hunting. Its enough to poison the discourse so scientists who do agree with the findings won't publicly acknowledge it out of their own self-preservation.