gral
Well-known member
The bearded old man who takes things(like food) from children.
Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
The bearded old man who takes things(like food) from children.
How to annoy star trek fans, star wars fans, and democrats all at once.
The idea that there are genetic human average group differences on various important traits, such as IQ, criminality, et cetera should not be viewed as being an unreasonable hypothesis, frankly. After all, different human groups have had plenty of time to evolve differently over the centuries and millennia. There's no reason as to why exactly human evolution must stop at the neck or, alternatively, be completely equal for all human groups above the neck. If human families can differ in various traits, and these differences could have a significant genetic basis, why not human racial and ethnic groups as well, who can sometimes be thought of as being giant extended families?
Heck, it was even hypothetized that Ashkenazi Jews evolved a very high average IQ over just an 800-year time period, specifically between 800 and 1600 AD:
Has this hypothesis ever actually been debunked? And if not, could other similar hypotheses be plausible in regards to other human average group gaps on various important traits?
To elaborate on my point here: Let's say that two populations start out with the same average IQ. However, one population gains just 0.1 IQ points with each generation while the other population's average IQ remains the same. Also, neither of these populations' environments ever actually changes (for the sake of argument). Over 10 generations (250-300 years), Population A will be just 1 IQ point smarter than Population B on average. Not very noticeable! But over 20 generations (500-600 years), it will be a gap of 2 IQ poins. Still not too noticeable! But over 50 generations, it will be a gap of 5 IQ points. Now more noticeable! Over 100 generations, a gap of 10 IQ points! Over 150 generations, a gap of 15 IQ points! Over 300 generations, a gap of 30 IQ points! 30 IQ points are two standard deviations, and 300 generations is around 7,500 to 9,000 years. In other words, over less than 10,000 years, a 30-point average IQ difference between two human populations could emerge even if these two populations previously had the same average IQ less than 10,000 years ago. And this is with very small eugenic evolution in one of these populations. If the rate of eugenic evolution was more rapid, then the evolution itself would be more rapid as well.
It's similar to criminality: I heard a hypothesis, though I have no idea whether or not it's actually true, that Europeans nowadays aren't very violent because Europe has historically executed a lot of its criminals even for extremely minor offenses:
en.wikipedia.org
Did the same thing actually happen in other parts of the world, at least to the same extent as in Europe/England?
It's similar to criminality: I heard a hypothesis, though I have no idea whether or not it's actually true, that Europeans nowadays aren't very violent because Europe has historically executed a lot of its criminals even for extremely minor offenses:
Bloody Code - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Did the same thing actually happen in other parts of the world, at least to the same extent as in Europe/England?
bintananth
behind a desk
@WolfBear, please stop.
You're completely ingoring the fact that human populations do mix, are in constantant competition with each other, and rarely occur in complete isolation for any great length of time. We, as a species, also aren't particularly picky about who we'll partner with when there are no negative consequences for doing so or when the benefits outweigh the negatives.
EDIT: BTW: The Bronze Age started roughly 5,300 years ago and ended roughly 3,200 years ago. Your 10,000 year hypothesis is bunk.
You're completely ingoring the fact that human populations do mix, are in constantant competition with each other, and rarely occur in complete isolation for any great length of time. We, as a species, also aren't particularly picky about who we'll partner with when there are no negative consequences for doing so or when the benefits outweigh the negatives.
EDIT: BTW: The Bronze Age started roughly 5,300 years ago and ended roughly 3,200 years ago. Your 10,000 year hypothesis is bunk.
Last edited:
Sure, just like families mix with each other. But this doesn't necessarily mean that there are no differences between families.
I just want to clarify one thing to avoid being misunderstood: There is plenty of overlap between both different human families and different human groups. This is why traits such as IQ lie on a bell curve. It's not like there is zero overlap or whatever. The overlap is enormous.
Simonbob
Well-known member
I see you don't know your history.
There's been social penalties, and sometimes legal penalties, for having kids outside your "group" for much of history.
I know a lot of people don't understand this, but what we call racism was normal and universal, for almost all of human history. It's still a big thing, over much of the world, right now.
I, as an Australian, can't become Japanese or Chinese, or a bunch of other groups. Not legally, not cultuarly. There's people who's family moved to Japan from Korea over a hundred year ago, and they're still not citizens.
I'm not going to say whether it's right or not, but it's still real. Accept that, even if you don't like it, and don't want to do anything about it.
bintananth
behind a desk
The differences are mostly cultural and societal and have nothing to do with your status as a member of the human race.
I'm never going to know how to do what some Masai men in Africa sometimes do: casually walk up to a pride of lions and steal part of the kill. How to do that is knowledge I do not have in the same way that they don't know a fair number of things I take for granted.
Are you suggesting that there are no genetic difference between humans and other species? And if there can be between-species genetic average group differences (humans vs. chickens, for instance), why not within-species genetic average group differences as well (different human families, for instance)?
That said, you are more than welcome to have a cultural and societal explanation for these gaps. My own view is that I'd like this question adequately researched without fear of negative consequences for any researchers who might reach the wrong conclusions in regards to this. As James Flynn, a notable environmentalist researcher wrote, universities aren't eager to do race and IQ research for fear of what they might end up discovering.
bintananth
behind a desk
There are differences between species. You and I are not sea squirts even though you and I have more genetically in common with any sea squirt sitting on the seabed which sorta looks like a sponge than we do with all of the shrimp in the salad we just got from a fast food restaurant.
There are also ring species. Those consist of a group of subspecies which are only partially reproductively compatable. That is A and C can both produce viable offspring with B but can not produce viable offspring with each other.
We are not a ring species.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Actually, last hundred years or so was the first time that human populations started mixing on a large scale. Before then, people didn't really mix between different municipalities, let alone different populations. Genetic traits during Middle Ages were highly concentrated.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Mostly true.
Rome had some, as did all the trading empires of their day, but travel has never been as easy as it is right now.
This is the most mixing of ethnicities ever. By far.
%20Guideline-1080w.png)
%20Guideline-1080w.png)
Well because most of tue world countries were conquered for years with the US letting people in freely without needing to conquer changing hoe things are done
Happy Sulemani Kebab Day! (Today's the 2 year anniversary of the happy occasion).
