Well then, there's no sense to talking to you. You're a closed system; mustn't confuse you with the facts. If you think science is about political correctness, you've got plenty of company in the anti-science party of which you're probably a member. It's certainly true that a child can develop his/her prejudices based on generalizing from limited experiences, but they're prejudices neverthelss. Your own personal individual experiences don't mean a thing either--as far as reality is concerned.
i think that from a social psychological point of view we tend to stereotype and/or prejudice because we are lazy. We usually group our acquaintances into categories called schemas. Because there may be unknowns about different races, ethnicities, or cultures we assign things that we've heard, what we think we know, and as Cloud points out what we learn or observe. The stereotype probably comes into play before we've readily established what we learned or observed. There are a multitude of social factors that can inhibit learning about new cultures, and let me tell you... I'm no exception. My girlfriend is from Kyrgyzstan, and it's vastly and entirely different than here. I'm terrified of going there, not knowing anything more than what I've read in a children's culture book from the library, and being rejected/not fitting in, or being ostracized because I look, or act dramatically different than the population. That said, the Kyrgyz people are hospitable and that goes a long way toward understanding and getting to know each other. And I have a pretty good foot in the door with my girlfriend around. People group their thoughts very quickly. They're not really giving it much thought most of the time, and this allows many mistakes to be made: you might think Asians are smart, or African-Americans are athletic. You might think that poor people are more oriented to blue collar jobs, or that doctors don't make mistakes. In many ways, the stereotypes are not true.
Interesting news story related to the current topic of discussion. 7 men arrested after allegedly harassing Black family on Oregon beach Police in Lincoln City, Ore., said this weekend that they arrested seven men on various charges after a group of white people they were a part of allegedly harassed a Black family on Independence Day by using racial slurs and Nazi salutes. The department said the seven men, between the ages of 22 and 45, were arrested and charged with "Riot, Interfering with Police, Disorderly Conduct II, Harassment, Possession of Illegal Fireworks, and Offensive Littering."
What about it? Bigotry develops along similar lines in a variety of cultures. It doesn't mean it necessarily has a biological basis. One of the worst genocides of the twentieth century occurred in Rwanda--black on black, one side calling the other "cockroaches". Neither would have been allowed in most country clubs in the U.S. back then, but they thought of themselves as different species cuz the Watutsis were tall and slender and the Bahutu were medium build. What brought this on? Biology? No. Colonialism and politics. The Belgians cultivated the Tutsi and used them to control the territory under colonialism. The Hutu naturally resented this and developed a racial hatred for their overlords. Or we could go to Nigeria, where the Hausa-Fulani and the Ibo were similar in build but different in culture--the Hausa-Fulani being hierarchical traditonalists, favored by the British; the Ibo being western-educated near anarchists. The result was the Nigerian Civil War, in which the poor Ibo had their fingers chopped off to remove their competitive advantage as typists in the bureaucracy. Or closer to home, we could consider the Chickasaws (my tribe) and the Choctaws. The Chickasaws and the Choctaws were once one people, but the former broke away from the latter (Chikasha means rebel in Choctaw). We share a similar language and culture, but when the British gave us guns, we enslaved the Choctaws. Then the French came along and gave them guns and we fought on opposite sides in the French and Indian wars and were almost constantly at war thereafter until the Shawnee chief Tecumseh brought us together in an alliance. Both tribes were moved across the Mississippi to Oklahoma and fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War. We get along well enough today. In other words: (1) people are nasty; (2) they need to co-operate to survive, but this is often by uniting against some common enemies; (3) outward appearances, linguistic, cultural or linguistic differences, or whatever can be used as a basis for distinguishing "us" from "them": (4) "race" is a matter of subjective perception instead of something genetic. As such, it is real, but can be overcome as culture changes or people learn to get over it. (5) Historically, commerce, conquest and universal religions played a key part in persuading people who had previously thought of themselves as "other" to be one--against the others outside the empire. As for Kamala Harris, she'd be my first choice as V.P. You seem to think she won't be accepted by whites or blacks. I think that's only true of the die-hard racists, on both sides.
I agree Sen. Kamala Harris would make a fine running mate for Biden, followed by former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, and then Sen. Elizabeth Warren from my home state of Massachusetts.
I think that's very perceptive. I think racism is often a product of the tendency to categorize and overgeneralize: Jew are such and such, Blacks are such and such, Italians are such and such, etc. These stereotypes perform psychological functions for us ingiving us a simplifed but rough and ready map of reality. They make us feel secure in navigating a complex world, and there may be some basis of truth to them. Snap judgments or rapid intuitive cognition, can be functional in dealing with a world where time sometimes doesn't allow conscious, reflective decision making. Jews’ outsider sensibilities as a minority community throughout most of their history have given them an advantage as scientific and cultural innovatorscolm Galdwell addresses this in his book Blink. Our unconscious mind finds patterns based on thin slices of reality. Shermer sees the tendency toward "patternicity" --to find patterns where none may actually be there--as a source of religious belief. It tends to be associated with the neurotransmitter dopamine, an excess of which is often found in paranoid schizophrenics. Such quick, unconscious judgments allow quick, decisive action. However, Galdwell acknowledeges that, especially when it comes to racial stereotyping, snap judgements have their dark side. Growing up, people experience bigoted or stereotypical representations of other people from trusted relatives, neighbors, friends, or media sources, e.g., , films and TV shows that portray African Americans as thugs, Jews as unscrupulous businessmen, or Italians as mobsters, and these stereotypes may be internalized in the adaptive unconscious. For example, Galdwell shows that people are more inclined to associate dangerous objects with black people. Actually, the basis for these stereotypes may be highly selective and biased. Is the black university professor and his physician wife really likely to fit the stereotype of a violent ghetto resident. Often, these stereotypes have some basis in fact, but reflect things like social class rather than race.
Gloomy Cloud thinks he has developed accurate racial knowledge, apart from parental teaching, on the basis of his personal experience. I think what he's developed are a set of stereotypes based on over-generalizations from limited encounters. reinforced by peer, media, and other influence. For example, he tells us: "I think that all races have certain unique traits to them and it is or was beneficial to them at one point in time." These are evolutionary traits "that may have helped them survive in the past and genetically lives on." If so, we'd expect differences in DNA reflecting such behavioral differences. Have any been found? No behavioral differences based on race have been found at all. Haga, S.B. & Venter, J.C. Science 301, 466 (2003). Why Race Is Not a Thing, According to Genetics Gloomy tells us "Jews are very good when it comes to handling money and the like." This happens to correspond to a broad cultural stereotype that's as old as Shakespeare and the Merchant of Venice. This stereotype may have a grain of validity, but is probably based on history and culture instead of genetics. In the Middle Ages, Jews were excluded from many guilds and were not permitted to own land, which traditionally had been the basis for Jewish economic subsistence. So they had to turn to commerce, and the Christian taboo against charging interest or engaging in banking left that avenue open to them. An alternative explanation holds that the Jewish emphasis on learning and literacy was responsible for their commercial edge. M. Botticini and Z. Eckstein, The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492.
Your stating that everything you're saying "is opinion or personal belief based on your own research". What does that mean? Your opinions on controversial matters like the link between genetics and behavior aren't worth much unless supported by substantial evidence. You haven't presented us with your own research, unless your counting your own personal perceptions as such.
Does this apply to genetic research? Are you putting forward a thesis that because science can be "wrong" we can dismiss all of it, or the parts we don't like, or the parts that don't agree with our biases. Science is inherently tentative, but it's the best tool we have for getting reliable information. Your inferences from the articles you link are ridiculous. What are you substituting in its place?
You're generalizations about racial differences are based on stereotypes. Your statements about evolution and race imply a genetic connection which neither your "research" nor anybody else's has established. The differences which you are mention are more likely a result of social and cultural factors than genetics, and in any case are overgenralizations. Your concept of research is laughable, apparently consisting of your own subjective impressions rather than systematic empirical study. I think I've discussed this at enough length in posts to you and soulcompromise that I won't waste further time on you. I agree that people, when given freedom to do so, they tend to congregate with people they feel something in common with. If that's all you're saying, you're stating the obvious, and you put it very badly, in racial terms.
Stereotypes as I have said before exist due to there being observable evidence that a certain racial group generally exhibits certain behaviors more than another. {/QUOTE] There is often a basis for a stereotype, but they are often overgeneralizations that, when used as a basis for making inferences about individuals, can lead to incorrect and damaging inferences: dumb blonds and "Polacks", Italian mobsters, etc. Yes they can. If it's a cultural expectation that the kid get into basketball or boxing early as a means of advancement up the social ladder, the kid is likely to do just that. I said your equating personal impressions with research is laughable, and it really is--not because I said it, but because it's so. And what many scholars have noticed through experimental study ans systematic observation is that these untrained observations are often wrong, because they don't sufficiently allow for such factors as confirmation bias.Systematic empirical study? I don't think you've shown that at all. At best you've shown there's some disagreement on certain matters in the scientific community, and that scientific knowledege is always to some extent tentative. That may be true, but until the study is done we have no basis for believing them. People left to their own devices prefer to be with people they consider compatible with them. That may mean race, ethnicity, language, education, etc. But they can also be put in situations where that isn't possible. e.g., public schools can be integrated. They're resilient. They can adjust. Some races are indeed more prone to certain diseased than others. Sickle cell anemia is typical of African communities. But some of these diseases may stem from diet. Diabetes, for example, is associated with diets high in fat, choleserol, and calories-- often the food of choice in high poverty neighborhoods.
Do they all excel at sports? Are they all generally less intelligent than whites, and inclined to steal? If you're in the emergency room and an African-American is the physician on-call, do you say to yourself "Oh, no. I'm screwed. Physical endowment sets limits on what we can do with our bodies, but women and disabled people have shown that determination can overcome barriers nature puts in our way. Trust me, there are lots of African-Americans who are way smarter than you. I think it's laughable that you think biological endowments are distributed by race. There isn't such a thing as a "pure" race anymore. Too much intermarriage. Australian Aboriginees, African Pygmies , and the Laps of Finland and Scandinavia are the closest we come are Every human is mixed and carry DNA from ancient human migrations. You might find statistically greater stature among one race, for example, but others who are usually identified with the same race are short and squat. For every Michael Jordan there is probably at least one Fat Albert. The big problem comes when you ascribe criminal tendencies to blacks as part of the stereotype. People who grow up in high crime neighborhoods in broken homes may be vulnerable to such activities, as the Irish once were generations ago. The Irish could more easily move out of such neighborhoods because they looked more like the dominant WASP population and didn't have a legacy of slavery and segregation holding them back. No, it doesn't. You can't always get what you want. But before Brown v. Bord of Education the "separate but equal" schools for blacks were inferior, and the act of segregation itself was deemed stigmatizing by the courts. Oh, I think we should. We should force them to fasten seat belts, stop at stop signs, wear masks, be quarantined if they have serious communicable diseases, and attend public schools with people of different races, because it advances the common good of society--the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Yes, but I think the differences are predominantly cultural Yes, but it's bad for society if carried too far, statistically, to some extent, but those may be a matter of diet and cultural habits. Yes it is. Race is a Social Construction: Race, Genetics, Anthropology Race Is A Social Construct What We Mean When We Say 'Race Is a Social Construct' Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue Race May Be a Social Construct, But Racism is Very Real - For Harriet | Celebrating the Fullness of Black Womanhood https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/Western States - Construction of Race.pdf[/QUOTE]
Another set of links you didn't read The last one contradicts what you are trying to convey "But species that are capable of supporting complex co-operative socialities benefit from the efficiencies that these permit. Selection acts at the level of the group..." Yet such group-level co-operation can flourish only in so far as it passes the ultimate Darwinian test of helping the individuals within the group survive and reproduce. It is within this context, Dunbar argued, that "we seem to have evolved a whole suite of mechanisms for keeping free riders at bay. One of these mechanisms, I suggest, has been religion. If you look at the forms of religion that you find in traditional societies, they are very much built around social bonding. In the classic case of Bushman trance dances, they are very much designed to bond everybody to the common project of the group. They are very experiential, there is no grand theology - it's very much a religion of 'doing' and 'being'. And it's this ecstatic element that I think cues us in to what's going on, because something seems to happen when you engage in these ecstatic activities that makes you feel more part of the community. The rituals of religion seem to be especially good at triggering a cascade of neuro-endocrines, and it is these that are responsible for that 'kapow' effect we get in ecstatic experiences... In my view, this has played an extremely important role in the process of human evolution, by allowing us to create the kinds of integrated communities that work together."
When a person tells me that their personal impressionistic observations are superior to science, what can one say. There are several people on HF I think are a waste of time to argue with, you being a prime example, but for a different reason. In your case, it's because you're a troll and treat these forums as a kind of sport or computer game. I think there is ample reason for drawing that conclusion. I don't really expect an open-minded exchange of ideas with you, so I deal with your posts largely to expose your cant to others. In contrast, Gloomy is sincere about what he posts, and has actually made a contribution in outlining an argument for racism. We don't see that often. But his epistemology--substituting personal impressions for objective knowledge, calling it "research", and dismissing the observations of others-- makes it difficult to conduct a rational discussion. Sounds like his mind is made up. Is that an ad hominum conclusion?
I would like for once to see you actually copy and paste a few paragraphs from articles you have actually read. Rather than see you carry on like this Whether it's nature vs nurture, or why stereotypes, give us examples of the logic behind the science with a few excerpts You can't just say, oh science that's why, then link a bunch of articles that aren't actually related, or actually disagree with you, because you didn't read them Short version: you just googled something like "is racism genetic" then copied and pasted the links to the first 6 search results. Stop doing that, it's annoying And obvious as all hell when those articles say the exact opposite of what you are pretending to say
Don't just say "science" it doesn't mean anything. I could pull dozens of opposing theories on evolutionary biology if I wanted to You having the ability to copy and paste 6 links whose headers sound the same doesn't mean all experts agree. It's your usual circular nonsense Just pull a few paragraphs from those links 1) so you can get specific about the argument 2) So you can actually convey what you mean 3) so you can prove to us that you actually read them I have never seen you do that
