I just want to make clear that his original position was:

But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction —

He offered the research in support of that position, which is simply a racist position as the research doesn't support the position. By agreeing to the language of the Quartz article (which you appeared to do), which grossly exaggerates the influence of the 52 genes found, you might accidentally be agreeing to something more than you intended. Considering this is the same person that raised Charles Murray's book, we have ourselves a racist and you don't seem to agree with his ultimate position.

Charleton: How are the followers of people like David Icke not against those who think? After all, a basic understanding of physics would have made him aware that no higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, — LD Saunders

Tell that to Pope Francis and Ratzinger, both well known intellectuals.

higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, without losing all higher-dimensional aspects. It would be like a person trying to live in a two-dimensional physical space. We would simply die in an instant. — LD Saunders

Pooof!!!

LOL. Since there is no evidence of higher dimensional beings, a little thought will tell you that what you just said is nonsense.

I would agree with you, but the problem is he has millions of fans and can fill up sizeable venues when he gives a public talk. — LD Saunders

I think you might need a multidimensional venue to squeeze in "millions". People come to see him because they seem him as an intellectual.

Sorry there, Charleton, but those two Popes are not intellectuals at all. How could that possibly be? Because they wear silly hats and expect people to bow down to them because they have a silly hat? How is that being smart?

As far as my proof about inter-dimensional beings being impossible in our dimensional spacetime, I don't need in any way to prove that any such beings actually exist. The math tells us that even if they did exist, they could not exist here, among us, as Icke claims. So, please stop personally insulting me while failing to grasp the basic math.

Sorry there, Charleton, but those two Popes are not intellectuals at all. How could that possibly be? Because they wear silly hats and expect people to bow down to them because they have a silly hat? How is that being smart?

As far as my proof about inter-dimensional beings being impossible in our dimensional spacetime, I don't need in any way to prove that any such beings actually exist. The math tells us that even if they did exist, they could not exist here, among us, as Icke claims. So, please stop personally insulting me while failing to grasp the basic math. — LD Saunders

ROTFLMHO

Right, Charleton, laughing is just such a persuasive argument. Let's see? You claim that two Popes, at least one of whom has a serious baggage problem of Nazism and child-molestation are intellectuals? So, name some scholarly work either has done outside of theology which involves superstitious claims and hardly counts as intellectual achievement.

As far as the math goes, any proof that I am wrong about the impossibility of traveling among interdimensions? Nope. And, as a matter of logic, please explain for everyone here why my mathematical argument would require me to first prove that any interdimensional beings actually exist, when my original argument required no such claim?

But, I'm pretty sure that since you are stumped, you'll merely make another childish response.

If you've seen Murray and Harris talk you'll see that there is a difference between bringing up the findings he found and being racist. I think the original poster does overexaggerate the findings and I don't agree when it comes to that, but there is a possibility that genetics has a role (albeit a tiny one, imo). I see no reason to take Murray's 40-80% correlation of heritability seriously, but I do see the research as important nonetheless.

As someone that went to a prominently black high school (~95%), I can tell you that there are no differences between the friends I had in my AP courses and my future university (more white) friends. The biggest commonality between them all was valuing education, which is a cultural thing, something I doubt has anything to do with genetics. Similarly, the friends I had in the AP courses did well on the SAT/ACT (we all scored well well above average) while the school in general struggled (not surprising as the school was in a lower income area), again pointing to cultural and socio-economic issues, not genetic.

Thank you for your comment though. : )

A paradox for some: I'm Jewish, which according to some (racists), means my IQ must dwell within to the Empyrean. However, I don't think IQ is an expression of biological race. So, to some (racists), given my clearly superior Jewish IQ, they must accept that IQ is not an expression of biological race.

Harris is not an expert on genetics, and for some reason, he's off on a pro-racist rant lately. Perhaps he needs more subscribers for his podcasts? Who knows. But, he's definitely drinking the Kool Aid on the issue of races being based on biology, much less that there are biological differences among them that leads to IQ differences.

Right, Charleton, laughing is just such a persuasive argument. Let's see? You claim that two Popes, at least one of whom has a serious baggage problem of Nazism and child-molestation are intellectuals? So, name some scholarly work either has done outside of theology which involves superstitious claims and hardly counts as intellectual achievement. — LD Saunders

Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. 1966 [1963]. ISBN 978-0-8091-4610-9.[N 1]
Introduction to Christianity. London: Burns & Oats. 1968 [1968]. ISBN 978-0-223-97705-1.
Faith and Future. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1971 [1970]. ISBN 978-1-58617-219-0.
The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1978 [1977]. ISBN 978-1-58617-184-1.
Daughter Zion: Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1983 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-89870-026-8.
Dogma and Preaching. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1985 [1973]. ISBN 978-1-58617-327-2.
Principles of Christian Morality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1975]. ISBN 978-0-89870-086-2.
Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1981]. ISBN 978-0-89870-056-5.
The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-0-89870-080-0.
Seek That Which Is Above: Meditations through the Year. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-1-58617-187-2.
Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1984]. ISBN 978-0-89870-087-9.
The Blessing of Christmas: Meditations for the Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986. ISBN 978-1-58617-172-8.
Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1987 [1982]. ISBN 978-0-89870-215-6.
Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press. 1988 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology. New York: Crossroad. 1988 [1987]. ISBN 978-1-58617-217-6.
Ministers of Your Joy: Scriptural Meditations on Priestly Spirituality. Ann Arbor: Redeemer Books. 1989 [1988]. ISBN 978-0-89283-654-3.
The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1989 [1959]. ISBN 978-0-8199-0415-7.
To Look on Christ: Exercises in Faith, Hope, and Love. New York: Crossroad. 1991 [1989]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1064-0.
A Turning Point for Europe?. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1994 [1991]. ISBN 978-1-58617-349-4.
The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today's Debates. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1995 [1993]. ISBN 978-0-89870-538-6.
In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1995 [1986]. ISBN 978-0-8028-4106-3.
Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1996 [1991]. ISBN 978-0-89870-578-2.
A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ in Liturgy Today. New York: Crossroad. 1997 [1995]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1536-2.
Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1997 [1996]. ISBN 978-0-89870-640-6.
Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1998 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-702-1.
Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1999 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-753-3.
The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2000 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-784-7.
God and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2002 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-868-4.
God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2003 [2001]. ISBN 978-0-89870-962-9.
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [2003]. ISBN 978-1-58617-035-6.
Introduction to Christianity (revised edition). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [1968]. ISBN 978-1-58617-029-5.
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [2002]. ISBN 978-0-89870-963-6.
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2005. ISBN 978-1-57455-720-6.
Mary: The Church at the Source. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [1997]. ISBN 978-1-58617-018-9.
Way of the Cross. Boston: Pauline Books & Media. 2005. ISBN 978-0-8198-8308-7.
On the Way to Jesus Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005. ISBN 978-1-58617-124-7.
Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-142-1.
Handing on the Faith in an Age of Disbelief. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1983]. ISBN 978-1-58617-143-8.
Images of Hope: Meditations on Major Feasts. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-964-3.
God's Revolution: Pope Benedict XVI's Cologne Talks. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-145-2.
Values in a Time of Upheaval. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-0-8245-2373-2.
God Is Love: Deus Caritas Est. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-163-6.
What It Means to Be a Christian. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1965]. ISBN 978-1-58617-133-9.
Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. San Francisco: Basic Books. 2006. ISBN 978-0-465-00627-4.
On Conscience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [1984]. ISBN 978-1-58617-160-5.
Europe: Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-134-6.
New Outpourings of the Spirit. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-181-0.
Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday. 2007 [2007]. ISBN 978-0-385-52341-7.
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007. ISBN 978-1-58617-220-6.
God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-179-7.
Saved in Hope: Spe Salvi. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2007]. ISBN 978-1-58617-251-0.
The Fathers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59276-440-2.
Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008. ISBN 978-1-58617-245-9.
Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-280-0.
Saint Paul. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-367-8.
The Joy of Knowing Christ: Meditations on the Gospels. Frederick: Word Among Us Press. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59325-151-2.
Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2010. ISBN 978-1-58617-606-8.
The Fathers, Volume II. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-783-0.
The Apostles. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-799-1.
The Virtues. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-794-6.
Great Teachers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-59276-536-2.
Holiness Is Always in Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-444-6.
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-500-9.
Holy Women. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-510-3.
Doctors of the Church. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-576-9.
Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. Colorado Springs: Image Books. 2012. ISBN 978-0385346405.
The Faith. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612786674.
Prayer. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612787091.

As far as the math goes, any proof that I am wrong about the impossibility of traveling among interdimensions? — LD Saunders

oh PLEEEEEESE!
How are you differnt from Icke?

A paradox for some: I'm Jewish, which according to some (racists), means my IQ must dwell within to the Empyrean. However, I don't think IQ is an expression of biological race. So, to some (racists), given my clearly superior Jewish IQ, they must accept that IQ is not an expression of biological race. — Maw

Hmmm I thought it was your finances which were supposed to be Empyrean :lol:

Charleton: The real question is how are you any different from Icke, and the answer is you aren't. Where Icke is unable to understand basic mathematics, neither are you able to understand basic math. Whereas Icke is a God-believer and thinks such beliefs are rational, you think two Popes are intellectuals for essentially arguing over matters no more significant than arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to reality, and you can continue worshipping the Popes, the very people dedicated to nonsense, and child molestation.

A paradox for some: I'm Jewish, which according to some (racists), means my IQ must dwell within to the Empyrean. However, I don't think IQ is an expression of biological race. So, to some (racists), given my clearly superior Jewish IQ, they must accept that IQ is not an expression of biological race. — Maw

Why assume that racist would be logical?

Anti-intellectualism...

It's not an ideology. More of a sentiment originating from ignorance. — Posty McPostface

Or both? Or neither?

Some periods in history are more intellectually buoyant, ebullient, and productive than others, just as some periods are more economically exuberant than at other times.

When society is enjoying a strong high-pressure front, to use a meteorological term, of fresh air and new scientific discoveries, new products, economic growth, etc. It is easy and sensible to be enthusiastic about intellectuals, inventive engineers, new modes of production, and so on. There have been various "high-pressure fronts" episodes in history.

But in society, as in weather, depressing low-pressure fronts tend to follow bracing high pressure fronts. Economic expansion is followed by contraction; fresh new ideas become de rigueur. Reaction follows, and the new ideas become old hat, or maybe anathema.

It's not quite as mechanical as I put it (for brevity's sake).

The last big high-pressure front, in my humble opinion, was in the late 19th-early 20th century, lasting until... 1945, to pick an arbitrary date. That is the period of time when the transformative scientific, electronic, technical, economic, and intellectual with which we live were laid out. Needless to say, not all of this innovation and novelty was welcome, good for us (think of the automobile assembly line), or desirable (like atomic bombs). Antibiotics are good, global warming isn't.

We are now in a low-pressure zone. There have not been any new transformative developments that weren't invented by 1945. (Sorry, cell phones are old technology. If it wasn't for the idea of computers and telephone wires running into just about every house, the internet wouldn't exist.) Science, engineering, and intellectual pursuits just aren't delivering much uplift these days to most people, and there is a consequential low-pressure zone lack of enthusiasm for this stuff.

Hence, an "anti-intellectual flavor" to things.

When people are economically trapped, they generally don't turn to highfalutin ideas. Rather they turn on highfalutin ideas, with a vengeance. It isn't so much that they become anti-intellectual, as they become despairing. What good are the rovers on Mars and all this ivory tower crap doing me when I'm losing what little I had?

I think there is a wave of anti-intellectualism through the world - not just in America - but also in Europe, Russia, China, etc. because intellectuals have failed to provide an alternative to the collapsing world-order of the West - intellectuals have failed to steer us in the right direction or, for that matter, to provide practical solutions to the "everyday" problems that we encounter.

Thus, intellectuals came to be associated with weak, impractical people, who can do no other work, and hence resort to being a mere intellectual. And in a certain sense this is true - many intellectuals have retreated into being gadflies and parasites unto the existing world-order which conferred them with a cozy place as a Professor or faculty member at some learning institution - and in exchange for this cozy position (neither too rich nor too poor), it has stripped them of any serious influence - intellectuals are not taken seriously anymore.

What can be done about it is that intellectuals must come out of their caves and show that they can practically lead the way, and they're not staying in their caves merely as an escape from reality - they need to show that they must be taken seriously again.

gadflies and parasites — Agustino

My highest ambition was to be a gad flying parasitical professor. I have managed to achieve Gadfly Parasite Level 17, but I didn't make it into a professorship. Too bad. It's a pretty cushy position, from what I've seen, especially once one makes tenure. Or, at least, it used to be.

You are no doubt right that anti-intellectualism is a global phenomenon, just as at times intellectualism is IN and know-nothingism is OUT. Clearly know-nothingism is more IN than OUT at this point.

It will be difficult or intellectuals (defined very, very broadly) to stand in good stead again, while the world is going to hell in a hand basket. But yes, they do need to come back out of the woodwork and apply their intellectual capacities to the most significant problems at hand:

Over population - in the context of
Global warming - in the context of
Declining resources - leading to
Declining Q.O.L. - (quality of life)

We really do need to start preparing for, among other things, a population die off. We can't stop it, so we need to prepare psychologically, morally, ethically, and practically. 3 billion people won't die tomorrow (barring an atomic war) but within 40 years... it could be well under way.

We need to devise ways of life that are much simpler technologically. Do we need to start practicing home canning today? Tomorrow? Do we need to start hoarding seeds? Learn how to keep bees? Learn how to spin wool into yarn, then weave it into cloth? Not today, but eventually we won't be making oil-based clothing (polyester, nylon, etc.), or producing huge crops of sugar and cotton, or flying blueberries from Chile to New York.

Right now we need to figure out how to force our governments and industries to cut CO2 emissions. control reproduction, learn to do without common resources (like petroleum) and so on.

It doesn't make sense to wait until national governments, world commerce, local societies, and educational systems collapse to start figuring out how we are going to go forward.

I think there is a wave of anti-intellectualism through the world - not just in America - but also in Europe, Russia, China, etc. because intellectuals have failed to provide an alternative to the collapsing world-order of the West - intellectuals have failed to steer us in the right direction or, for that matter, to provide practical solutions to the "everyday" problems that we encounter. — Agustino

Why is it the intellectuals role to lead? I wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a person or a small cadre. Why isn't it a failure of society to listen, politicians to act based on fact instead of ideology, the reduction of people as a means for the economy as opposed to the economy being a means to have people flourish?

Intellectuals didn't stop thinking, didn't stop researching, didn't stop worrying and didn't stop explaining when people asked questions.

Intellectuals didn't stop thinking, didn't stop researching, didn't stop worrying and didn't stop explaining when people asked questions. — Benkei

But they stopped having an influence. If people don't listen to you, that's your fault - you failed to find a way to communicate with them in a way through which your message got across.

Why is it the intellectuals role to lead? — Benkei

Who should lead then if not the intellectuals?

I wouldn't want to pin my hopes on a person or a small cadre. — Benkei

Not in the sense of having no say in the matter, sure. But does that mean that you wouldn't want a small & capable leadership group?

Why isn't it a failure of society to listen — Benkei

You can't have expectations out of a pig, but you can have expectations out of Socrates.

politicians to act based on fact instead of ideology — Benkei

That is a problem, and also that they act based on their own economic interests.

I'm Jewish, which according to some (racists), means my IQ must dwell within to the Empyrean — Maw

It may well be true that "jewish" people score higher (on average) on IQ tests. But you can't predict a person's IQ by their "ethnicity".

Race is a social category, not a real scientific one. Grouping characteristic are the result of a social process of history, and are not bourn out by genetics. Humans of all types are reproductively compatible and have been 'mixing' since the beginning of our species (if such a point can ever be truly said to have existed). However to sunder the appearance of human variety (and it is mosty by appearance) there are multiple individuals who can never conform to the type. These are rendered 'half breed', octeroon, 'mixed race' or some such insult. Yet for each of us, all mixed as we must be cannot perfectly conform to any set type. And those that are close to a type can easily confound the nomenclature by having a child with another 'type'.

I know black people, jews, asians who have more in common with me upon things that matter, than many so-called 'white people' I could name.

Ethnicity is a dangerous myth. A myth that is tearing the world apart. And is about as scientific as supporting a football team.

Whenever I answer a form with the ethnic question. I always cross out all the choice, and put other: And write "Homo Sapiens" into the box. That is my only ethnicity.

Charleton: The real question is how are you any different from Icke, and the answer is you aren't. Where Icke is unable to understand basic mathematics, neither are you able to understand basic math. Whereas Icke is a God-believer and thinks such beliefs are rational, you think two Popes are intellectuals for essentially arguing over matters no more significant than arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to reality, and you can continue worshipping the Popes, the very people dedicated to nonsense, and child molestation. — LD Saunders

Nothing you say here is relevant. Being an intellectual, or being seen as intellectual (which is what the thread is actually about) does not entail maths, not even cuckoo maths.
You sound like a total idiot. For one I am not Catholic. Not even a Christian. I'm an atheist.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making.
You can't even master the quote system. I nearly missed your fascinating post.

Charleton: Actually, since you are an admitted math illiterate, your opinions are worthless. I'm an atheist, and would never claim that two Popes, especially one who protected child rapists, were "intellectuals." You come off as a complete nutter. And, yes, I am personally insulting you, since you have personally insulted me a number of times already. Hell, I probably knew more math than you when I was ten.

I'm an atheist, and would never claim that two Popes, especially one who protected child rapists, were "intellectuals." — LD Saunders

Well, you only showcase your ignorance by refusing to call Karol J. Wojtyla an intellectual. And that's also coming from an atheist.

I just don't see where the particular selection and isolation comes from. — yatagarasu

Well for example you'll get a different average attitude to deferred gratification, planning ahead, etc., where you have an environment that rewards it. That's one hypothesis why the relatively more intelligent races (Asians, Whites) evolved across the northern "band" of regions, which alternated between temperate and cold to temperate over hundreds of thousands of years.

(Just as an aside: I do think there's an intermediary factor though, which is family forms and structures. The full picture would be that environment (in the long run) shapes genes, which shape (in the medium-term) family forms, which (in recent historical terms) shape culture. It's absolutely true that race has some cultural aspects to it - it's just that the genetic aspect is also there, and it's silly to suppress it.)

Mainly because of the implications of eugenics and also partially for discrimination. — yatagarasu

You're actually more likely to get eugenics from the Left (which is historically where you mainly got it from in the past) because they're much more concerned with remaking man into a more ideologically satisfactory being.

But anyway, I must emphasize that none of these racial differences affect the core liberal principle that when it comes to potentially doing violence to people, you judge people by their actions, not by their group membership. The group averages matter some for politics, policy, etc. (e.g. you can only "level the playing field" up to a point, though of course you should level it up to that point), but they don't affect the "negative" rights due to the individual qua individual (of whatever race) in any way. I think a lot of fear of race realism comes from a bit of a muddle over this point.

Well for example you'll get a different average attitude to deferred gratification, planning ahead, etc., where you have an environment that rewards it. That's one hypothesis why you might relatively more intelligent races (Asians, Whites) across the northern "band" of regions, which alternated between temperate and cold to temperate over hundreds of thousands of years. — gurugeorge

I moreso doubted the time it would be necessary to create differences and that there were some form of mixing even in relatively isolated regions. But everything else you mentioned is on point. I remember seeing a study and graph that compared GDP to Distance from the Equator. It's very interesting. Basically that the lower temperatures in the colder regions necessitated invention compared to the more temperate regions. I think cultural values may be disconnected from the genes. They could have evolved separate from the genetic side. Some cultures just value education more and some languages involve more rote memorization, which could affect the way that same culture forms it's educational systems. Basically I don't think they influence each other directly, it's more of a combination of factors at each stage ( as you mentioned).

You're actually more likely to get eugenics from the Left (which is historically where you mainly got it from in the past) because they're much more concerned with remaking man into a more ideologically satisfactory being. — gurugeorge

Yes, but only slightly. Both sides have a flair for authoritarianism at the edges. And both sides would have their reasons to fight any form of "playing God".

The last part of your response is interesting. I think that is where the concern is. Many feel like any possible research in the field of genetics along these lines could lead to minority groups being classified and possibly "demoted" as humans. This confusion is probably because no one can listen apparently and it's not like there are any real discussions. All sides just assume the worst. : /

I'm an atheist, and would never claim that two Popes, especially one who protected child rapists, were "intellectuals." — LD Saunders

Well, really! A child rapist protector could certainly be an intellectual, even if he just happened to be neither a catholic priest nor a pope. Even an atheist child rapist could be an intellectual. Who one prefers to rape doesn't have much to do with how intellectual one is, after all.

Bitter Crank: It's hardly a sign of being an intellectual that one argues in support of child-rapists. That's different from being a child-rapist. It's actually far uglier to defend child-rapists, in the name of some mythical beliefs of the Vatican. That's as anti-intellectual as it can get.

I moreso doubted the time it would be necessary to create differences — yatagarasu

Isn't "doubting the time" one of the main arguments from creationists? ;) Evolution doesn't have to take all that long. For the claimed effects on intelligence variance, you only need timespans similar to those for lactose tolerance and that kind of thing to develop (i.e. tens of thousands of years-ish).

They could have evolved separate from the genetic side. — yatagarasu

This would depend on whether there's such things as replicators in culture. I do like the idea of memes and memetic evolution as a cute idea in and of itself, but I'm not sure how much weight to put on it. At any rate, the convoluted avoidance so prevalent these days, of the slightest hint that genes might have an influence above the neckline strikes me as the modern-day equivalent of "epicycles."

All sides just assume the worst. : / — yatagarasu

A few decades ago, I would have agreed that there's roughly equal blame on both sides, but these days the Left is much more to blame than the Right. (This shouldn't be such a surprise; the Left has had its time on the naughty step in the past.) Currently, the Left is chasing intersectional identity politics into the abyss, it's gone completely insane, and it's pulling the rest of society with it. It really has to stop.

That's one hypothesis why the relatively more intelligent races (Asians, Whites) evolved across the northern "band" of regions... — gurugeorge

Just a FYI, but the study you linked to had this to say:

But the genetics of intelligence is “complex and subtle,” as Nature’s editorial says, and simply doesn’t support prejudiced theories of racial superiority. In fact, they argue, better understanding the genetics underlying intelligence will disprove racist theories of eugenicists.

the study you linked to had this to say: "[...] and simply doesn’t support prejudiced theories of racial superiority" — Michael

Yeah, I would agree with that to some extent (though to some extent it's also obviously ass-saving boilerplate). But race realism isn't a prejudiced theory of generalized racial superiority. It's a demonstrable theory of specific racial rankings in specific areas. And while general intelligence is certainly an important human trait, it's not the be all and end all of being human.

IOW the average intelligence of Jews is obviously vastly superior to the average intelligence of Blacks, and quite a bit superior even to Asians and Whites; but that doesn't make Jews superior human beings to Blacks, Asians or Whites in any general sense.

Again, these are just averages across populations; it doesn't mean you can't find lots of dumb Jews, or lots of smart Blacks, etc., in absolute terms, it just means you'll find less of them proportionately, in each group.

The statistics matter for things like public policy, or what you can expect, on average, of given racial or ethnic groups; and the matter of the degree of genetic influence, in particular, sets ceilings and floors on what's achievable or desirable with public policy. But I emphasize: none of it touches the liberal principle that you must judge given individuals by their manifest qualities or revealed actions, and not by the average characteristics of the group (or socioeconomic class, for that matter) that they happen to belong to. It's the latter that is literally prejudice.

Isn't "doubting the time" one of the main arguments from creationists? ;) Evolution doesn't have to take all that long. For the claimed effects on intelligence variance, you only need timespans similar to those for lactose tolerance and that kind of thing to develop (i.e. tens of thousands of years-ish). — gurugeorge

I see what you did there. :wink:

This would depend on whether there's such things as replicators in culture. I do like the idea of memes and memetic evolution as a cute idea in and of itself, but I'm not sure how much weight to put on it. At any rate, the convoluted avoidance so prevalent these days, of the slightest hint that genes might have an influence above the neckline strikes me as the modern-day equivalent of "epicycles." — gurugeorge

Yeah. Really interesting stuff to put it like lightly. And for the second part.... Fear can be a really powerful thing. Any evidence in that field could slightly shake the platform the left has. The right responds in the same way too. It's just a part of science unfortunately.

A few decades ago, I would have agreed that there's roughly equal blame on both sides, but these days the Left is much more to blame than the Right. (This shouldn't be such a surprise; the Left has had its time on the naughty step in the past.) Currently, the Left is chasing intersectional identity politics into the abyss, it's gone completely insane, and it's pulling the rest of society with it. It really has to stop. — gurugeorge

As I mentioned above, any research that attacks the notion of "equality between races" is going to be attacked by the left more and elicit a response. Yes, they are. : / I'm sure it will eventually simmer down... I think. : l