I don't think it can be done. On Oct 29, 2007 8:58 AM, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> > > 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" <[email protected]> > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Enterprise web applications, build robust, secure scalable apps today - Try it now ColdFusion Today ColdFusion 8 beta - Build next generation apps Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245446 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
