He-e-e-e-e-re's Science!

Yea, I heard about this.  You should note he is not only a pre-eminent scientist, but also a Nobel prize winning scientist!

Of course, my opinion of the nobel committee has dropped significantly when they started awarding peace prizes to profiteering entrepreneurials for making movies about themselves.

isn’t this a political discussion?  :mrgreen:

@Imperious:

isn’t this a political discussion?  :mrgreen:

No.  This is a scientific discussion.  The scientist in question has raised points of contention that certain races are genetically better disposed to certain tasks then other races.  I really don’t know why this is news though.  We know some races tend to be more detail oriented, some more athletic, some more migratory, etc.  We further know that men, on average, are better suited to building and maintaining muscle structure and bone density then women, but women are more analytical and mentally stable, on average.

@Cmdr:

but women are more analytical and mentally stable, on average.

Who came up with that!  Who ever it was never watched Opra!

@dezrtfish:

@Cmdr:

but women are more analytical and mentally stable, on average.

Who came up with that!  Who ever it was never watched Opra!

Exceptions to the rule do not prove the rule. :P

Hillary Clinton, Opra Winfry and other individual women do not necessarily represent women as a whole.  Just like OJ Simpson and Jeffery Dahmer do not represent men as a whole. (And yes, I am equating the 4 of them, if you don’t like it, well, there’s some rather derogatory, sexual comments I could make about your lineage and appetite. :P )

That scientist SHOULD be derided for his ignorant comments. Same goes for the Harvard math professor. If you allow them to publicly make these statements, then you lend credence to all the other idiots with their unfounded stereotypes. You are going to get a whole slew of bigots who will stand up and say “See, I was right the whole time.” Generalizations are a poor way to classify people and giving voice to people who advocate generalizations is going to end up spreading ignorant assupmtions. More and more people are going to buy into the stereotypes that black people are physically superior to caucasians who are physically superior to Asians while the inverse is true with regard to intelligence. And that is simply NOT true. PC came about specifically to prevent this kind of ignorance from spreading.

In the case of the Math scores, it leads people to believe that men are intellectually superior to women. Wrong.You have to understand that women, for millenia, have been widely discouraged from entering the fields of Math and Science so they haven’t necessarily put the same effort into those disciplines that males do. Society has always dictated certain career paths for the genders and only now, finally, is that changing. Did the study indicate whether scores among the genders were rising or falling? Is the gap between males and females getting larger or smaller? Are females becoming more and more competetive with males within the Math discipline now that societal hindrances are falling away? Those are much better indicators than anything the current test scores can prove.

And in the case of the article, it leads people to believe that black people are stupid. The money and effort invested in education varies from country to country as well as from each neighborhood within each city within each country. And if you believe the article and the other stereotypes, then you are also going to believe that if you pick ANY random poor black child from Chicago’s West Side and place them into a rich white Prep school, that they will always graduate at the bottom of their class but will excel in the school’s sports program. AGAIN, wrong, wrong, wrong. Did he also include a study on whether how much time and money spent on a child’s education affects their intelligence test scores? Or whether black children in the same class as their white children counterparts scored higher or lower than his informal data collection or national averages suggest? If you actually read the article you would note that this is his data collection precedure: He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Oh yeah, that’s an accepted method of scientific evaluation. Must be true then.

In both cases, the playing field isn’t level and never has been. The data is incomplete. They, and you, are taking a small statistic (or even just word of mouth?!) and declaring it’s truth across a broad spectrum. It simply amazes me that people buy into this garbage. And, frankly Jennifer, your acceptance of it surprises me most.

@Imperious:

isn’t this a political discussion?  :mrgreen:

And, yes, it became a political discussion when balung included this:

@balungaloaf:

if your findings go against liberal PC, you will be crucified.

Balung, everybody already knows that you believe in the “Liberal conspiracy to suppress the real truth” but you aren’t allowed to spout your political beliefs in the GD forum. Nice try, though.

505,

If there were not genetic differences between the races, then we’d all look the same, believe in the same things, like the same food, dislike the same activities, etc.

Since that is not the case, I find it rather ignorant for anyone to say that one race is just as good at everything as every other race.  Especially when imperacal, and now scientific, evidence tells us the exact opposite.

Women, in general, are not bad at Math because for 2000 years they were encouraged not to participate in math.  What does that have to do with how Mary is doing in Algebra class THIS year!?!?  THIS Generation and the one before it (Gen X and our kids) have never encouraged women to do anything but what they want to do.  And our parent’s generation (Baby Boomers) broke all the barriers that were left to be broken.

So why is out children today can still be readily split down the line with distinct bell curves for boys and girls in different subjects?  Boys excel in math and science, girls in empathy/creativity classes.

Same with sports.  No one is silly enough to say women are just as good as men in sports.  That’s why we have our own divisions and physical fitness standards.  That doesn’t mean you are a bigot because you recognize that men more readily build muscle then women.  It makes you intelligent.

Same thing here.  Africans are genetically superior in athletic events.  Europeans in problem solving and engineering.  Asiatics in analytics.  It’s just nice to see people who discovered DNA and other scientists finally standing up and saying “BS.  All men and women are not equal in every aspect of life.”  Sure, we are all equal in worth and in opportunities given, but some people will accomplish more with what they are given by nature/God then others in the same fields.

I’m sorry that makes you feel sad.  But your feelings really bear no effect on reality.

Politics should have nothing to do with it.  Scientifically speaking certain genetic traits pre-dispose certain groups of the population to excel at certain tasks and not excel at others.

@Cmdr:

505,

If there were not genetic differences between the races, then we’d all look the same, believe in the same things, like the same food, dislike the same activities, etc.

Where did I say or even suggest this? Do you read my posts or just breeze through and fill in the blanks as to what you THINK I said? And even more importantly than that, do you actually think before you post? Genetics determines whether you like the same foods, believe in the same things, and like or dislike certain activities?! Really?!I used to hate broccoli and believe in God, but I don’t anymore. Did my genetics change? I’ll check but I’m pretty sure that I’m still genetically the same as I was before. Are you telling me that because I don’t particularly like fried chicken but do like watermelon that I am half black? Or, if I was black, that it would mean I wasn’t purely genetically black? I hope not. Please do some research on genetics before you try to fool me with that statement. That one was too easy.

@Cmdr:

505,

Women, in general, are not bad at Math because for 2000 years they were encouraged not to participate in math.  What does that have to do with how Mary is doing in Algebra class THIS year!?!?  THIS Generation and the one before it (Gen X and our kids) have never encouraged women to do anything but what they want to do.  And our parent’s generation (Baby Boomers) broke all the barriers that were left to be broken.

So why is out children today can still be readily split down the line with distinct bell curves for boys and girls in different subjects?  Boys excel in math and science, girls in empathy/creativity classes.

Same with sports.  No one is silly enough to say women are just as good as men in sports.  That’s why we have our own divisions and physical fitness standards.  That doesn’t mean you are a bigot because you recognize that men more readily build muscle then women.  It makes you intelligent.

I never discussed genetics. What I said was that outside environmental forces affect people greatly as opposed to you who think that genetics pidgeonholes people into neat little packages that are impossible to escape. If you want to discuss genetics then I am obliged to educate you on the fact that people are a lot more alike, with regards to intelligence, than you would want to believe and that genetics determines your ceiling ONLY. Environmental influences, especially educational resources, affect how far you go with it. And for thousands of years men have gone farther with it because of societal pressures. And I have history to back up that claim.

You know as well as I do that that, unless there is a social revolution, that society doesn’t change drastically and you are very likely to have the same beliefs that your parents did. Open your eyes, please. Women have traditionally been excluded from the Sciences and pressured to be the mommy and family caregiver whether by force early on or by social pressure later, but even I can go outside and see that the change hasn’t been that fast nor has it been completed either. Legally yes, completely no. Pretend all you want. Women have been encouraged to pursue Math and Sciences far less than men, even today, and it HAS affected the data collected. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the current test scores. What I asked for is the long term data. Now that more and more women are being encouraged to study those fields and are getting the same resources as men, is the test score gap between men and women closing? If it is, then someday you are going to see that your blanket statement of genetic inferiority is exactly what I’m telling you it is, pure hogwash.

And when did I ever suggest that women are physically the same as men. Women have always been physically smaller and weaker than men. Stick to the subject, please. I thought we were discussing intelligence.

@Cmdr:

Since that is not the case, I find it rather ignorant for anyone to say that one race is just as good at everything as every other race.  Especially when imperacal, and now scientific, evidence tells us the exact opposite.

I find it more ignorant to assume that any particular race is better at certain things than the others. Again, you’re clumping individual races into neat little packages based on generalizations when there are millions of people that just don’t fit into your tidy " certain races are driven to be only certain things or act a certain way" mold. Explain George Washington Carver then. Arguably the peer of Edison. Or any number of great football players that are white. The more you have to divide it down to specific fields of discipline or specific sports or even down to specific positions within those sports or fields of discipline the more your general “certain races are better” theory falls apart.

You think that genetics determines if you excel because of your race. I think that genetics determines only your limits and environmental impact on your development determines whether or not you reach those limits and that your race only plays a part. While you will be right some times and wrong some times, I will be right all of the time.

@Cmdr:

I’m sorry that makes you feel sad.  But your feelings really bear no effect on reality.

I didn’t say it made me sad. What I think is sad is that there are legions of ignorant people out there who think exactly the way you do. But while you may think your ingnorance and opinion are genetic, I’m firmly convinced that you haven’t reached your intellectual ceiling yet and are fully capable of learning more about this subject and redefining you opinion about it. I have faith in you. Well ok, I don’t have faith in you. Maybe if I was a more genetically faithful race I would.  :lol:

@balungaloaf:

it is just science. politics shouldnt have anything to do with his science.  he’s top notch.  won a nobel!  that matters now doesnt it :roll:

Well if politics doesn’t have anything to do with it then why do you keep bringing LIBERALS into your posts? Is anybody moderating this thread?

And you grab onto ONE scientist, with limited data to back his claim, who fits your personal opinion and label his words as gospel while at the same time taking a vast amount of scientists with a great deal of data, in global warming for example, and label them liars simply because they don’t fall into line with what your political party wants to believe. YOU can’t have it both ways. Science is OBJECTIVE and the only science you believe in is SUBJECTIVE.

I’m going to try to imagine you not being a hypocrite. Wait a second…. Almost there… Damn. Couldn’t do it. It was worth a shot, though. If I was only more genetically imaginative. Hey Jen, what’s the most genetically imaginative race, anyway?

Galileo was considered ignorant in his time too.

Being insulted by being called ignorant would have more weight if you had proven any level of superiority.  You have not.  You have taken a scientific finding, and because it violates your personal belief structure, disregarded it as ignorant and bigotted.

We can see evidence all around us that supports the scientific finding however.  Who dominates basketball and football?  Who dominates medical research?  Who dominates machine assembly?

Why do you think that is?  It is not all “nurture” as you are claiming.  A lot of it has to do with “nature.”

And,for the record, for the past 20 years women have been pressured to get into math and science in this country.  Can’t speak for other nations that may or may not be doing it, but in America they have been getting mega pressure because there are so few of us in those fields.  There are so few of us in those fields because we have to work harder to understand the concept then men of equal training and backgrounds.  Just like there are fewer women stronger then men there there are men stronger then women.

There is absolutely no way I’m going to compare you favorably to Galileo. You are less than visionary.

And I didn’t call you stupid, just ignorant. You are smart enough to figure out where your argument is going wrong and ultimately fix it. I just don’t believe you will attempt to lift the veil of ignorance about this subject. Keep stereotyping people. You’re only betraying your own gender by doing so. I’m just not interested in this anymore.

Who dominates baseball, hockey, and the penultimate world sport: soccer?

@Cmdr:

Who dominates medical research?

Don’t rightly know. Pfizer? Merck? The Republic of Congo?

@Cmdr:

Who dominates machine assembly?

Who cares? What does it have to do with genetic intelligence or physical stereotypes?

@Cmdr:

And,for the record, for the past 20 years women have been pressured to get into math and science in this country.  Can’t speak for other nations that may or may not be doing it, but in America they have been getting mega pressure because there are so few of us in those fields.

So you are freely admitting that in the past women have been discouraged from entering those fields and only recently have they been strongly encouraged to bulk up their numbers. Kinda proves my point that since the numbers of women in the field were limited so is your comparison data. Score 1 point for me. Thanks.

@Cmdr:

There are so few of us in those fields because we have to work harder to understand the concept then men of equal training and backgrounds.

Peddle that gender inferiority somewhere else. And quit insulting female Mathmaticians and scientists. Women have just as much capacity to understand those concepts as men. There are so few of you because of socially imposed gender roles and disinterest in the fields not because of intellectual deficiencies.

@Cmdr:

Just like there are fewer women stronger then men there there are men stronger then women.

Comparing intellectual differences to physical differences is apples to oranges. Cut it out. It’s a weak argument.