« GDP per capita, or total GDP? | Main | Environmentalists in Vermont »

May 28, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00e552a0045e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leftists against transracial adoption:

Comments

Black adopted children face some challenges even when racial issues are discounted. From what I've read they tend to be older than white children at the time of adoption, which increases the chances of adjustment problems, and they're also more likely to have medical/psychological/emotional issues.

On a related note, why would a white couple want a black baby? In addition to the risk of lower than average IQ, you have the social stigma; their same-colored peers will likely look down on them, which will likely lead them to try too hard to adopt the black culture - which in America means acting as retarded/gangsta as possible. Surely adopting an asian child would be better.

I actually thought it was a stupid article also. I do think that there are complications when a black person is brought up by white people. I will enumerate them:

1. Hair. Advice: Take your kid to a black beauty salon. Other black people will notice how badly your kids hair is managed and criticize them.

2. Skin. Black people need lotion and other black people will notice and it's not good for their skin anyway.

3. Culture. Other black people will think your kid acts weird but also some white people. They will make your kid feel like weirdo for not knowing the cool handshakes and whatever else is trendy about being black at the moment. Let me emphasize BOTH WHITE AND BLACK people do this to varying extents.

Note none of these are a huge deal and by the time your kid is 30, they will have figured out how to deal with these. I think transracial adoption is an excellent idea and I will continue to support it until I see epidemiological data saying otherwise.

hugh go naught:

"On a related note, why would a white couple want a black baby?"

Why did anyone want you?

Although the law restricting consideration of race in adoptions dates back to 1994, as a practical matter the Department of Health and Human Services made no attempt to enforce it until 2003. Any studies which try to evaluate its impact are therefore based on just a few years' evidence.

hugh go naught:
"Surely adopting an asian child would be better."

i'm sure these asian adoptees would disagree w/ u.
http://www.transracialabductees.org/index.html

the ppl that run that website certainly don't speak for all asian adoptees, but i've met some adoptees that hold views similar to those expressed on that site. don't simply assume an adoptee is going to be eternally grateful to u later for "saving" them from their homeland.

why would a white couple want a black baby?

It´s much easier to adopt one. White babies are scarce and in demand and very valuable. Black babies are plenty, less demanded, less valued and therefore easier to adopt.

The left may hate transracial adoption, but they sure as hell love "integrating" prisoners:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/27/MNK610P4C8.DTL

Parents adopting children who aren't the same race=Bad. Putting together inmates who hate each other=Good.
Not hard to see what the left really wants.

Many of the Asian infants adopted by Americans were girls from China, put up for adoption because of China's one-child policy and preference for boys. In the last year or two, however, the Chinese government has made it much more difficult for foreigners to adopt, possibly because the availability of baby girls has declined. Among the more interesting restrictions is a prohibition on adoption if either spouse has a BMI in excess of 40:)

A lot of people on the left are strongly opposed to it.

Cite?

why would a white couple want a black baby?

It´s much easier to adopt one. White babies are scarce and in demand and very valuable. Black babies are plenty, less demanded, less valued and therefore easier to adopt.

This is a myth. Far more white women give up their babies for adoption than black women, and it has always been such. Even back in the 1970's, when 20% of white women with children born out of wedlock made an adoption placement, fewer than 3% of black women with children born out of wedlock did so. The percentage of single white women making an adoption placement has fallen since then, but not to the black level.

As for foster care, 1) though blacks are overrepresented, a plurality of children in foster care are white, and 2) very few children in foster care are infants of any race.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/27/liberals-no-to-transracial-adoptions-yes-to-homosexual-adoptions/

This should get you started. Try using a search engine, you lazy shit. Leftists and liberals like Will Saletan are pushing for intermarriage, but interracial adoption simply isn't possible I guess.
For the left racial integration is good, except when it isn't. If we are going to have an integrated, rainbow, diverse society, we have to crawl before we can walk, Comrade Atheist.

wongba,

No doubt you can find a group (and a website) for any cause, but the incoherent ranting on the "transracial abduction" site doesn't really prove anything.
And I didn't mean to insult anyone, just saying that based on statistics, a black baby is likely to have a lower IQ than a white or asian. And race issues are more polarizing between whites and blacks than whites and asians. So if a white baby is not easily available, wouldn't it be better to have an asian one rather than a black one?

Half Sigma

Is it your opinion that black-on-white/Asian crime, affirmative action, and white acquiescence to the black victim meme add up to the continuing success of the black parasite? Many posts on this site seem to want to bash black pathologies, but has it ever occurred yo you and your posters that blacks, in a perverted way, are "successful" parasites?

"For the left racial integration is good, except when it isn't."

The attitudes and beliefs animating the comments directed at Jewish Atheist and other progressive voices will be routed out. Accusations of intellectual dishonesty, ideological monomania and duplicity will stop. Right thinking people will join me in celebrating equality and diversity as envisioned by your moral superiours.

Neo tribalism. If you ain't one of the tribe, you can't raise a tribal child with the proper sense of entitlement.

Wongba points to:


i'm sure these asian adoptees would disagree w/ u.
Pathetic morons going on about power differentials and other useless shit like that (they call it Transracrial Abduction)


See Wongba, I even turned it into a link for you.

You know, everyone seems to want to get whitey, but we can criticize those heartless Chinese for never having the empathy to adopt children in need ... actually, I am aware of one Chinese couple who adopted two black kids. Talk about fish out of water. When those kids became teenagers and started acting like normal blacks, the Chinese couple almost committed suicide ... those two kids were not behaving like normal nose-to-the-grindstone Chinese kids. No academic scholarships there.

"When those kids became teenagers and started acting like normal blacks..."

You can take the black out of the ghetto, but you can never take the ghetto out of the black.

hugo, all i'm saying is that it's not a foregone conclusion that adopting asian is gonna be a cake-walk w/ regards to racial issues.

loki on the run:
"the Chinese couple almost committed suicide"

and this supports race-blind adoptions how? would it not have benefited the couple to get some advice before adopting those kids? anyways, i'm not saying transracial adoptions shouldn't occur b/c i know of very successful examples. just that ppl should consider carefully before doing so.

This transracial abduction thing is interesting.

Many posts on this site seem to want to bash black pathologies, but has it ever occurred to you and your posters that blacks, in a perverted way, are "successful" parasites?

Right on. I have always thought of Blacks that way. Were it not for Arab slavery and trade, then their forceful or voluntary integration in Western societies, and for colonialism and post-colonialism in the form of "aid", Africans of the Sub-Saharan kind would be nearly extinct.
Instead, they grow in numbers not only in their homeland, but also where the White man lives.
There seems to be a sort of symbiosis/parasitism going on; a successful survival strategy consisting on living on the margins of Western society.
You could draw an analogy with Gypsies, without the nomadism.

Were it not for Arab slavery and trade, then their forceful or voluntary integration in Western societies, and for colonialism and post-colonialism in the form of "aid", Africans of the Sub-Saharan kind would be nearly extinct.
Instead, they grow in numbers not only in their homeland, but also where the White man lives. There seems to be a sort of symbiosis/parasitism going on; a successful survival strategy consisting on living on the margins of Western society.

Pardon me, I came looking for halfsigma.com but seem to have stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake. My error.

This transracial abduction thing is interesting.

Sigh. Only you would think that, Vim.

Were it not for Arab slavery and trade, then their forceful or voluntary integration in Western societies, and for colonialism and post-colonialism in the form of "aid", Africans of the Sub-Saharan kind would be nearly extinct.

Agreed that their numbers are currently much higher than they would be without western intervention, but they were never "near extinction" in sub-Saharan Africa. It's not like white people funded the Bantu expansion.

From Ida Parker, 1927
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/studies/ParkerFP.htm#

Without the safeguards of expert investigations and mental tests, these adoptions were eugenic nightmares. “This is not the human stock which people contemplating adoption desire but many times, though by no means always, it is what they secure. . . Normal families of good stock seldom give away their children even in the face of poverty, death, or other adversity.”

And yet we still have the fuzzy-headed belief that you can adopt a kid from the ghetto and turn him into a left-leaning professor by merely providing a healthy diet and some intellectual activities.

When you adopt blindly you will likely get the progeny of irresponsible people.

If you think that adopting a black kid from the state is a good idea, you haven't read enough.

However there is some delicious irony in the liberal couple adopting to "save the planet" only to find that their meany brother-in-law was right about it being a bad idea to adopt the offspring of a section 8 hookup. The liberal couple gets to wake up every day to be reminded not only of how important genes actually are but also how full of shit their professors actually were.

Fuzzy-headed liberals also haven't considered the full implications of being wrong about nature/nurture.

Note that the flip side of their mistake is that people who are born from liberals are more likely to become liberal, even when the environment is accounted for.

So liberals have been basically aborting/adopting themselves into a smaller minority. At some point they will have to pay for their unrealistic view of reality. How much the rest of us will have to pay is the question.

It's much cooler and trendier to adopt a Guatemalan baby. Preferably from the Highlands. Then you can dress the child in colorful indigenous clothing, claim she is a "Mayan Indian" and tell your friends about your plans to get her in touch with her native culture.

Well I guess I can't complain too much if someone else uses my alias.


"It's much cooler and trendier to adopt a Guatemalan baby."

No kidding. If I had a dollar for every time I have overheard libs spouting off in this vein I could retire. This is elite/academic/whiterpeople status whoring at its most egregious. I can't imagine being the kind of monster that would use another human being as a status symbol, while basking in an undeserved glow of moral superiority. The irony of this is lost on these paragons of virtue naturally.

Pardon me, I came looking for halfsigma.com but seem to have stumbled onto Stormfront by mistake. My error.
Hey, the Horst Wessel Lied is really catchy.

Didn't HS basically admit after visiting Stormfront that he'd be a white supremacist if they took Jews?

You might consider American Renaissance.

You have to love how quick liberals will try to smear people who discuss the implications of human genetics.

Liberalism in many ways is just a secular offshoot of Christianity. But instead of having to explain dinosaur bones they have to try to explain away twin studies or at least try to demonize the people discuss them. Liberals really are everything that they hate.

"Liberalism in many ways is just a secular offshoot of Christianity."

What I think is interesting about Conservatives is how much work they put into pretending that their positions are intellectual and contemplative instead of visceral and simple-minded. There is a reason you voted overwhelmingly for Bush twice. His public persona is arguably the least intellectual and the least contemplative of any current public figure.

So anyway, for all the graphs about racial differences or immigration or homosexuality and whatever else, the basic driving force is: fear, anger, revulsion and despair.

The way in which republicans address the issue of not being intellectual but wanting the *authority* of sounding intellectual is pretty postmodern. They set up alternative institions where they repeatedly say how intellectual they are until it seems true. So we have Fox News and we have Think tanks and so on. Far be it from conservatives to learn something, increase their numbers in schools honestly and contribute to intellectual life.

It's pretty interesting that when it comes to minorities and so on, conservatives don't want AA, but then they want 'diversity of ideas' ie affirmative action for conservatives. They don't believe racism matters or affects people of color but they sure believe the 'liberal universities' are discriminating. The media doesn't affect people of color supposedly but without evidence, the 'liberal media' is hurting conservatives.

It's pretty hypocritical.

The NYT article seems to me that liberals are afraid that blacks raised in white/asian households might take white/asian norms and folkaways and grow up acting republican, start businesses, have careers and be otherwise successful examples for other blacks.............

and liberals just cant have that now can they......


Steve Sailer has pointed out that many successful black major league baseball players grew up in white environments, essentially learning that boring repetitious, difficult, tedious practice habits end up paying off if one has the talents necessary.................Barry Bonds was one of these. There are plenty of other big-strong-black men, but Bonds had the intellectual curiousity to really study hitting, nutrition, steriods, excercise, and the stick-to-it-ness to last all those years in MLB. The result is the all-time home run king. If Barry Bonds were raised by a single mother in a AFDC-section 8 housing environment, he'd have probably been a guy who swung for the fences at every pitch, had a much lower batting average, tried to steal too many bases and gotten himself thrown out, and generally to reckless a player with bad work habits and too much -show-off-it-ness...............but he wasn't.


Boring discipline and meekness pays off in life. Lots of whites (and Asians and Jews) are successful not necessarily because of talent, but they just keep trying and stick-with-it. Blacks raised in boring, white-bread white homes might pick up some of this disease and that would horrify the Times.

Vim:

Oh yes, we come to our beliefs through careful thought, experience, logic, evidence, and just the right touch of compassion.

They come to their beliefs from atavistic emotion, naivete, venal self-interest, stupidity, and for the few that can actually think, sophistry. What hypocrites!

Fox News not my cup of tea, but you sound like a mirror image of Sean Hannity.

to the asshole who accused me of being "racist" because of my observation of how "successful" black parasites are:

Please provide some egs why my characterization of the black agenda is fallacious


What I think is interesting about Conservatives is how much work they put into pretending that their positions are intellectual and contemplative instead of visceral and simple-minded. There is a reason you voted overwhelmingly for Bush twice. His public persona is arguably the least intellectual and the least contemplative of any current public figure.


How many times do I have to tell you Vim?

I'm not a conservative.

I didn't vote for Bush.

I'm simply anti-liberal. I know it makes you uncomfortable to realize that people like me exist, but we do.

We simply don't like dopey egalitarians like yourself pushing public policy based upon wishful thinking. We don't like our tax dollars going towards failed policies. We don't like being told that we shouldn't think critically about racial issues.

It is a liberal fantasy that the critics of liberals are all lock-step GOP zombies taking orders from Fox and Limbaugh.

This liberal fantasy actually only serves people like me. The most common mistake in war is to underestimate the potential threat of your enemy.

By the way, I laughed a lot when I realized that Weasel News in GTA IV was Fox News.

Polanski:

What's your case for the idea that blacks are parasites? In addition, what other groups of people can be categorized as parasites?

"So anyway, for all the graphs about racial differences or immigration or homosexuality and whatever else, the basic driving force is: fear, anger, revulsion and despair."

Yeah, I remember when all those conservatives got together and shut down Watson. It is usually the College Republicans who want to prevent Jared Taylor from speaking too. What are these liberals and leftists afraid of? If those guys are full of shit, the massive intellectual firepower of the left should take them down quickly and painfully. Let's not forget William Saletan either, but he repented...
And when it comes to fear, nobody can beat the liberal/leftist gun control types. And we all know the reason behind the liberal opposition to school choice and who pushes for "hate speech" codes. These are not the actions of people who are for free inquiry and expression. I though liberals were all about free inquiry and investigating the unknown, personal freedoms, free speech and the like. Of course, only in certain cases.

H. Lee:

Scientists don't agree with what Waston is saying. He was supposed to speak at Rockefellar University and they declined. Then he had to step down at Cold Stone. It's not 'liberals' who disapproved, it was most of the scientific establishment. In addition, both Saletan and Watson agreed that what they said was over the top so if you disagree with the perspective that it is, then you have to go argue with the people who actually said it.

What I said was that you can't claim that society doesn't discriminate against groups and that even if it does, it's the responsibility of the individuals to overcome it and then on the other hand, say that your group wants special protection from the same type discrimination that you say doesn't exist.

"I though liberals were all about free inquiry and investigating the unknown, personal freedoms, free speech and the like. Of course, only in certain cases."

I think this is a pretty stupid idea since it's easy to find examples that are out of order. Almost nobody would argue it's okay to scientifically investigate how long it takes to gas babies. In fact, there are boards set up to determine the ethics of experiments. There are vast blocks of nuclear science, semiconductor physics, biological and chemical research that are classified. Some questions are lewd, some are immoral, some are irrelevant, some are a threat to others and so on.

It's not 'liberals' who disapproved, it was most of the scientific establishment. In addition, both Saletan and Watson agreed that what they said was over the top so if you disagree with the perspective that it is, then you have to go argue with the people who actually said it.

Come on, dude. it was pretty obvious watson and saletan had pretty clear views and then were forced to backtrack in a politically correct way or people like you were going to get them fired. btw, watson's 'apology' is clearly not an affirmation he now is a blank slatist.

i saw the debate between murray and flynn. for those who want to see it:
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1425/event_detail.asp

& click on video at the right

both murray and flynn are using the same body of data. show me where in the video flynn gets up and says to murray that his math is wrong or that he's lying. murrray doesn't do that either, btw. the social scientists you allude to acknowledge the black-white IQ gap. flynn's best point is that black americann culture is so broken and un-academic (even at the high socioeconomic levels) that it has a massively depressing effect on IQ. i assume that this is what he also thinks is going on for black IQ in non-american countries. the greatest mind of the blank slate community strongly intimates that black culture on an international scale is severely broken. you can't support some of his views without acknowledging the ones some might find less palatable. saletan was in the audience for the debate, btw, and asks a question at the end. people, if you got time on your hands, go see the debate online and ask yourself if either of these researchers really don't know the math behind all this.

Scientists don't agree with what Watson is saying.

They do in private. But they are aware of the high costs of doing so after his public lynching. The media intentionally ignored Watson. If you hold evolution as true, than you know that there must be differences between relatively isolated populations. And all the evidence indicates that blacks are more primitive and have lower IQs, ranging from simple observation to IQ tests to specific genes which relate to intelligence. This is just like 500 years earlier: most cientists already knew that the earth was round and moved around the sun, but didn't speak about it because the church (insert the establishment) would have burned them as heretics. That blacks have the same intelligence as whites has been elevated as a dogma: it's a core believe for many humanist idealogies and political systems. But in the end, I'm a realist: I have lived in the US, but also in poor Bolivia with dirt poor quechua altiplano Indians, and I can honestly say that I have never found more primitive people than African Americans, even the more affluent ones: low IQ, stupid, always offended, always looking for a fight, destroying everything, with no impulse control, extremely sexual, always molesting white girls: I'm not saying there are evil, because they are not: they are simply more primitive, not suited for modern life but for life in the savanna. The issue is that you can't build a social market economy utopia with a significant amount of blacks in its population.

anonymous 1:

If you liked that one. This is another Murray-Flynn debate:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/past_events_2007.htm

It's about a year after the other one so perhaps it's a more developed argument on
both sides.

re BLACK PARASITISM

I am not arguing that all blacks are parasites, or that there are not other parasitical groups. What I'm arguing is that there is indeed a black agenda in the US and elsewhere that tries to rationalize parasitical behavior by blacks. Behold:

1. "affirmative action": this is a parasitical social program that sucks the life out of our economy in so many different ways--see Heather Mac Donald's work on this

2. black crime: has anyone really calculated the absolute cost of black crime? Why do you think that companies have to spend so much money on car services?

3. the destruction of the public school system: this parasitical behavior exacts a huge cost on its hosts: non-thug populations are coerced into paying for public schools, then they are forced to reach into their pockets to pay for private school--why? to avoid black "culture"

I could go on and on. Bottom line: many blacks are exploiting nonblack citizens, and they are successful at it.

Do you know what the real term for Cornel West's sinecure at Princeton?

Academic welfare. And so it goes.

Rafael:

"They do in private."

I'm in science and I'm pretty sure most don't. Most are not even aware of the existence of race-IQ research literature. Most of the scientific establishment spends its time working on increasing minority participation and nobody is using the IQ-genetics literature as a guideline. Since most scientists make a living on their brains, they are not too impressed with IQ and I would argue most don't believe in IQ. Most don't believe in race. They are informed enough to grasp that geographic variation and race are two different concepts and that the former exists while the latter does not.

Many scientists who are aware of the race literature, are not happy with the quality of the research, myself included. Sciencists unlike lay-people can and do make informed judgements about the quality of the literature in a field in addition to the content of the papers.

My personal observation is the better a scientist is, the less concerned they are about whether talent is innate or not. They tend to be the most interest in educating not just minorities but the general public. This is a community of people where 99.99% of humanity has no idea what they are doing. The idea that it might be 99.99% in whites and 99.999% in blacks has no practical significance.

I have lived in the US, but also in poor Bolivia with dirt poor quechua altiplano Indians, and I can honestly say that I have never found more primitive people than African Americans, even the more affluent ones: low IQ, stupid, always offended, always looking for a fight, destroying everything, with no impulse control, extremely sexual, always molesting white girls: I'm not saying there are evil, because they are not: they are simply more primitive, not suited for modern life but for life in the savanna.

These dysfunctional characteristics you describe apply to only a very small percentage of the black population. And you know (or should know) that. Either you are very naive, or are trolling. I suspect the latter.

Vim,
Your post was a great way to avoid the issue.

"Some questions are lewd, some are immoral, some are irrelevant, some are a threat to others and so on."

I'll bet there are. I can think of one in particular.

"I'm in science and I'm pretty sure most don't."

I'm sure you are. What field and where? And ask your pals where they live. I'm not so much concerned with what people say, but what they do.

But this was the best part:
"Since most scientists make a living on their brains, they are not too impressed with IQ and I would argue most don't believe in IQ. Most don't believe in race...Sciencists unlike lay-people can and do make informed judgements about the quality of the literature in a field in addition to the content of the papers."

And as for scientists not being concerned with IQ or even believing it exists, I'm sure their degrees are worthless. What do they know anyway? And why beat on laypeople? After all, IQ doesn't matter(if it exists at all) so why would their understanding be inferior to these "scientists?"

If you hold evolution as true, than you know that there must be differences between relatively isolated populations.

Liberals still haven't explained how height can differ between siblings and populations but not intellect.

Can siblings not differ in intellect?

At this point the liberal will either question your morality or engage in a semantic debate. But what is intelligence? The liberal will say, do we really know?

Funny that in the right context liberals do in fact believe in general intelligence. When a liberal calls Bush an idiot there is no follow-up discussion on what type of an idiot he is or if the word idiot is useful.

Also if you tell a liberal that he is really smart he will not tell you that general intelligence doesn't exist.

Liberals have to control debate to push their ideology. Some of their most fundamental beliefs can be broken down by using basic logic.

Peter,
I want to believe you, but why does it seem everytime I encounter blacks in any way way publicly, like at the mall or on the street or in the media, they display these "dysfunctional characteristics?" This "small percentage" must get around quite a bit, they seem to be everywhere I go! It is you who are naive it seems. I have been to some pretty off-beat and quite poor places in the world myself and unfortunately I have to agree with Rafael's statement.

H. Lee:

I did not say the average person's knowledge was inferior to a scientist's knowledge. Einstein probably didn't know much about food science and food scientists probably don't know much about relativity. It's fair to consider a scientist profoundly ignorant outside of his expertise. I was basically just saying what I thought was normal among scientists and the scientific establishment.

I don't really think of scientific knowledge as superior. I don't think for instance we should live in a technocracy. I think a democracy is a better idea.

"And as for scientists not being concerned with IQ or even believing it exists, I'm sure their degrees are worthless."

Very few scientists would consider their degrees a measure of their intelligence. The ultimate measure of a scientist is the quality of their body of work. Everybody knows people they considered very smart who didn't make it through graduate school and peole they thought were not that smart who did.

7.62x54:

"I have been to some pretty off-beat and quite poor places in the world myself and unfortunately I have to agree with Rafael's statement."

The current state of social problems with native americans and first peoples are much, much more severe than with black Americans. Blacks are definitely not the worst off group in America.

They are informed enough to grasp that geographic variation and race are two different concepts and that the former exists while the latter does not.


You can't simply declare race to not exist. It's a general classification system. You can call it crude, but even then the difficult questions don't go away.

In the medical field if you ignore race you will be less effective as a doctor or researcher. Are you aware that organ transplants work best when the donor and patient are of the same race?

Social scientists can sit around and declare that race doesn't exist because for them the results don't matter.
People in the medical field don't have this luxury. Accounting for race is a necessary part of their work.

Race is a clear biological concept. Populations who have certain differences, but still can produce FERTILE descendants if they mate, are part of the same species but form different races or subspecies. For every biologist race is a term with a clear meaning. A Tiger and a Lyon can mate, but because their offspring is infertile they are considered different species.The definition isn't perfect though. If I mate a lupus with a canine I get a fertile descendant, although wulfs and dogs are considered as different species.
The only way that the human races are equal is if they were created by God. Only a creationist could affirm that. Every serious scientists knows that the key of evolution is change through sexual selection and benevolent mutations. It's therefore impossible that the different races have the same characteristics. They differ not only in pigmentation, but in height, musculature, bone structure, facial structure, seize of sexual organs, lactose resistance, and so on.

The current state of social problems with native americans and first peoples are much, much more severe than with black Americans. Blacks are definitely not the worst off group in America.

That's not true. Alcohlism could be a problem. But native americans at least aren't as crack addicted as negroes. Blacks are the main drug dealers of society. Also, native americans don't rape white women on a regular basis. They might be poor, but pacific.

Since most scientists make a living on their brains, they are not too impressed with IQ and I would argue most don't believe in IQ.

I could care less about what most scientists believe since most scientists includes millions of fuzzy social scientists.


I know you would like this study to be buried but I will provide a link anyways. I wish someone provided it to me when I was in college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_%28study%29

This is perhaps the central question in the IQ controversy. Respondents were asked to express their opinion of the role of genetic differences in the black-white IQ differential. Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation, compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely due to environmental variation.

"You can't simply declare race to not exist. It's a general classification system."

1. It's a social classification that has epidemiological significance. A poor person can expect worse health than a rich person all things being equal.

2. In as much as race is helpful in a rule-of-thumb sort of way, it is subject to better ideas. For instance, blood transfusion by race is a bad idea but is better in many cases than no transfusions.

"For every biologist race is a term with a clear meaning."

What are you basing this on? I would have to say probably not facts.

There are essentially four human races:
Caucasoid (Europeans, Semites, Hindus), Mongoloid (Eastasians, Amerindians), Pacific Islanders and Negroid. Negroids are so different, that they should be divided into Negroid races: Banthu, Pygmea, Bonobo...
Also, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Pacific Islanders are relatively close, so the crudest division would be between Subsaharian homo sapiens and Eurasian homo sapiens.

"Sciencists unlike lay-people can and do make informed judgements about the quality of the literature in a field in addition to the content of the papers."

"I don't really think of scientific knowledge as superior."

Which is is? Most would consider "informed judgements" superior. You are contradicting yourself, not to mention speaking in vague generalities and making vague statements. You need to be clear.

"Many scientists who are aware of the race literature, are not happy with the quality of the research, myself included."

What "race literature" do you find of bad quality and why? The Turner Diaries and what is posted on Stormfront or the work by Rushton and Watson? And once again I will ask your scientific background.

Anon:

"I know you would like this study to be buried but I will provide a link anyways."

I get the impression this survey was done on psychologists and people like that ... some of us don't even consider psychology/psychometrics real sciences ... I was talking about scientists broadly and prosaicly defined (but more specifically the crowd I spend time with which are mostly physical scientists and some biologists) ...

H. Lee: I'm in a physical science at an ivy league university and my department is top ten in its field. Is that enough penis measuring for you? So pardon me if I think I know what elite scientists are like. What's your background?

H. Lee: "What "race literature" do you find of bad quality and why?" Small sample sizes, questionable implementation of statistics (non-stardard adjustments and extrapolations), statistical theory outside of the mainstream (factor analysis), correlations so high they strain credibility and researchers with political and financial interests tied up with their work. Stuff like that bothers people.

Nature is one of the top journals in the world. Richard Lynn is often cited in IQ research. Here is what real scientists think of the work of people like Lynn:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html

"researchers with political and financial interests tied up with their work. Stuff like that bothers people."

Right, Vim, and blank-slate/Lysenkoists are apolitical and motivated by pure altruism.

Vim first said this about scientists:

They are informed enough to grasp that geographic variation and race are two different concepts and that the former exists while the latter does not.

I then pointed out that race is used in the medical sciences and that people would be put at risk if it was ignored. Vim then replied:

2. In as much as race is helpful in a rule-of-thumb sort of way, it is subject to better ideas. For instance, blood transfusion by race is a bad idea but is better in many cases than no transfusions.


So we went from race as a non-existing concept that scientists reject to being a classification system that is helpful in the medical sciences but could be improved.

This is a good example of how liberals approach the issue of race. They won't even admit it exists until you push them into a corner. This isn't a surprise since their beliefs regarding race are so contradictory as Vim has shown.

Anon:

What's the contradiction exactly? Well, okay you seem to need the whole story spelled out so I will spell it out. Race is a social construct and does not correspond with a coherent biological construct. When I say a coherent construct, I mean something that has a definition that is not contradictory. Race, in the biological context, has no definition which coherently correspondings with the social construct.

"Race is a social construct and does not correspond with a coherent biological construct."

Well done, Vim! Please join Vim and myself in voting for Obama!

Q.What kind of bigot votes for a candidate based on mutual ancestry?

A. A white bigot.

First we get this:

"Sciencists unlike lay-people can and do make informed judgements about the quality of the literature in a field in addition to the content of the papers."

Then we get this:

"I don't really think of scientific knowledge as superior."

Now we have this:
"I'm in a physical science at an ivy league university and my department is top ten in its field. Is that enough penis measuring for you? So pardon me if I think I know what elite scientists are like. What's your background?"

I'll ask again, which is it? Please make up your mind. First you tell us that scientists judge "literature" better. Then you tell us that you don't think scientific knowledge is superior. You can't come to a simple decision.
And what does it matter what my background is? I'm not the guy posting here claiming to be in some undefined scientific field at an unknown ivy-league university who knows what "elite scientists" are like. You don't have to tell me the school, but what physical science is it? Forgive me if I'm not impressed with your "credentials."
And citing a "real" scientist from an article in Nature doesn't really mean a thing. After all, you said it yourself: "I don't really think of scientific knowledge as superior." Maybe you should change "fields."

Your posts are simply a series of contradictions. Entertaining, yes, but kind of sad in a way too. You should at least be consistent.


What's the contradiction exactly? Well, okay you seem to need the whole story spelled out so I will spell it out. Race is a social construct and does not correspond with a coherent biological construct.

All definitions are social constructs. They have all been created by society. Race describes genetic origin.

The contradiction is that you first claimed that race doesn't exist and isn't used by scientists but then later admitted that it is. You also provided a definition.

This is a common liberal contradiction of believing that race both exists and does not exist.

If I make the statement that organ transplants are more likely to work if race is taken into account, your response of race being a social construct in no way negates my statement. What you're trying to do is engage in a semantical debate. Furthermore, if your claim that race has no biological basis was true then my statement should be false. Random donors should then work as well as racially matched donors. But this isn't the case.

Note that if I made that same statement to a doctor he would nod his head in agreement. He would not go on a rant about a sociological definition of the word race that has no relevancy to my statement concerning organ transplants. The doctor would know exactly what I was talking about, as would anyone else, even you.

The fact that liberals will engage immediately in a semantic debate shows how much they want to avoid defending their positions in the first place. It however is unavoidable for them since they are constantly making racial comparisons like black/white income and making demands for racial equality.

The trick to getting liberals to see the contradictory nature of their beliefs is to in fact work backwards from the evidence and only bring race into the discussion at the last second. By then it will be too late for them to start questioning the meaning of the word.

Start with the fact that even when siblings are raised in the same environment they can clearly differ in intellectual ability. Then point out that intelligence runs in families. You can get liberals to admit this by implying that they are from one of these families.
Now make the same points but with height.
Finally mention how ethnic groups clearly differ in height. Why can't ethnic groups then differ in intellectual ability? If races are composed of ethnic groups, why would you believe them to be equal in intellectual ability? How could this be possible from an evolutionary perspective?

Anon:

"All definitions are social constructs."

Do all social contructs have a coherent biological realization? My point is race doesn't.

A social construct having a measurable effect does not mean it's a real contruct. As mentioned before, something like poverty can have measurable effects.

"The contradiction is that you first claimed that race doesn't exist and isn't used by scientists but then later admitted that it is."

You seem to be interested in pretending I made a contradiction so you can fulfil your narrative of liberals being contradictory. You aren't even addressing what I've said.

"The fact that liberals will engage ... "

Are you talking to hypothetical liberals or are you talking to me?

H. Lee:

"Forgive me if I'm not impressed with your "credentials.""

... why am I not surprised. Okay well anyway, I gave me two cents on the issue. As to what I said, I said 'informed'. If you think 'informed' means superior then that's your issue. If I was arguing for people listening to an informed opinion, I would say it's more likely (but not guaranteed) to get you want you want, not that an informed person was better or their opinion was better. I believe in democracy not technocracy.

I guess this need to establish superiority is not surprising in those of your ilk.

"Your posts are simply a series of contradictions..."

No my posts are a series of ideas that don't fit into one liners. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

"These dysfunctional characteristics you describe apply to only a very small percentage of the black population. And you know (or should know) that. Either you are very naive, or are trolling. I suspect the latter."

I read somewhere that one third of African-American men have been at least once sentenced to prison.

H. Lee:

"And citing a "real" scientist from an article in Nature doesn't really mean a thing."

How very postmodern of you. My point to illuminate what scientists think about race and I think that article has done that.

Anon:

"The contradiction is that you first claimed that race doesn't exist ..."

Lets just say it's a shorthand for the lengthier response, OK? Do you ever use summaries of arguments?

People moved away from race as a biological paradigm like subspecies because it didn't really hold together as an idea. Do you want quotes and citations?

The basic idea was that if you look at different traits, many of them have much different distributions that don't correspond to race for instance blood type or even sickle cell which follows historically malarial areas. The problem is that populations with limited gene flow between then can exchange genes and because some genes are confer advantage they can spread quite a lot more than a model of heredity could measure.

Now, it was possible to prioritize certain alleles over others and reconstruct 'continental ancestry' to some extent but it wasn't obvious that one wasn't just measuring heredity. The biological relevance is in information contained in functional mutations not all mutations.

Vim:

Race is a social construct and does not correspond with a coherent biological construct.

Are you telling me you're having real difficulty guessing on which continent the majority of Will Smith's ancestors lived in 1400 AD? And whether or not they lived South or North of the tropic of Cancer?

According to Steve Sailer's definition, race is a partially inbred (extremely) extended family. Race and ancestry are basically the same thing.

Markku:

"Are you telling me you're having real difficulty guessing on which continent the majority of Will Smith's ancestors lived in 1400 AD?"

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think geographical location is one of the things that's most easy to find in racial data because humans are a polymorphic species and there is lots of geographic variation. My point has to do with functional information. In fact, I started out my original comment by saying there was a difference between geographic variation and race.

But the idea is biologically, it's hard to pin down race. Dark skin as a criteria for instance, would give you negritos(asians), australians, subcontinental Indians, hispanics in addition to blacks. On the other hand, there are blacks who maybe be genetically and culturally quite close to the category you are interested in and are fairly light skin and would be missed by the categorization.

This explains the ideas better:
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html

Hey Halfsigma,
Remember the time I got wasted and that black girl tried to rape me? It is amazing how you carried me down two flights of stairs and saved me from fathering a mixed race child.
I am still amazed by your valor and heroism that drunken night so many years ago.
I thank you for being there for me, my good brother.
Johnny

Remember the time I got wasted and that black girl tried to rape me?

Yes, I remember that.

People moved away from race as a biological paradigm like subspecies because it didn't really hold together as an idea.

People as in liberals like yourself want to move away from race as a way of avoiding difficult questions. However as long as liberals continue to blame black/white inequality on externalities they will always have difficult questions to answer.

Should doctors no longer take race into account when selecting a donor for a transplant? Are they behind the times? Just answer this question.

Here's a question:

Suppose there were no blacks living in the US, and that the US population was very familiar with the "contributions" of blacks to other cultures.

Would ANY blacks be permitted to come here?

"in a perverted way, are "successful" parasites?"

I wouldn't call blacks "parasites," but they have much more power "as a race" than whites do. White people can't demand things for the interest of their race but blacks can and do so well. They have an extortion system that works, and is for the most part non-violent. Every ten years or so they have to pull some whites out of the car and beat them up during a riot. They have communities where whites get killed for being white.

So as a group of people, they keep the white population in pretty much a state of fear. It even relates to how people talk. White people have restrictions on words but blacks have none.

So its not "parasitism," its good old fashion extortion.

I just wonder how long it will last?

It is not smart for Anon and Anonymous (how ever many people there are using both these names) to use names that make it impossible to track just who is responding to who. Do you guys lack imagination for pseudonyms?

Anon:

"Should doctors no longer take race into account when selecting a donor for a transplant? Are they behind the times? Just answer this question."

Do you have any literature suggesting it's a good idea to take race into account? I couldn't find any. It's not my field and frankly delving any deeper into it has the feel of when creationists bring up the eye as proof of creationism. In other words, my unfamiliarity with organ transplants doesn't translate into an unfamiliarity with the species concept and I am unwilling to make organ transplants a proxy for a discussion of difference between species. Did you check out that link I suggested? I would also suggest Ernst Mayr on the definition of species.

Apache:

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6NSDUH/tabs/Sect5peTabs1to56.htm#Tab5.4B

Substance dependence or abuse in Native Americans is twice as high as African Americans. The rate in african americans is actually slightly lower than whites.

In terms of the 'crack-addicted' part of your comment. Cocaine use in the Black population is lower compared to their proportion of the population:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k1nhsda/vol3/Sect1v1_PDF_W_36-40.pdf

So for instance, only 9% of all people who have used cocaine in their lifetime are black. The percentage of people in the US who are black is 12.2%. Alternatively, 0.8% are Native America which is the percentage of Native Americans in the US.

Captain Beefheart:

"White people can't demand things for the interest of their race but blacks can and do so well."

1. The only thing blacks can credibly ask for is equality with whites (so here they are measuring themselves against whites who are considered the yardstick) and they can only get as much as a white would get.

2. Question: From whom are blacks asking permission? Answer: Whites.

American blacks are themselves a very diverse group. Many of them would not be considered "black" to a native black African.

I do not consider Barack Obama "black" in any meaningful sense, although his wife certainly is. Tiger Woods is not black, although conventional media wisdom and pop culture treat him as black. It is a curious obsession with "blackness" that American culture has.


Do you have any literature suggesting it's a good idea to take race into account?

I really doubt that you that you are unaware of often race is used in medicine.

FDA Approves Controversial Heart Medication for Blacks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301762.html

So shouldn't this medication not work if race has no biological correlation?

I think you are fully aware of how often race is used in medicine which means you are also aware of the implications. How long can Marxists like you keep up this game of intellectual dishonesty?

If medical policies that use race can save lives than it is logical that race can be used for sound political policies.

You know vim I once believed that race had nothing to do with how a society functioned. I really believed that it was just an arbitrary system created by some mean white males to control others. After reading outside the classroom I was shocked to find out how much my professors were keeping from me. What are you going to do about people like me Vim? We were given the liberal education and yet we rejected it.

The internet is going to put an end to the great lie of equality. It may take years, maybe even decades, but eventually the evidence against the blank slate will be too much for even the most dedicated Marxist. Enjoy your age of deception while it lasts.


So shouldn't this medication not work if race has no biological correlation?

If I get your prosposition then you are saying if a drug, for instance BiDil, has a different effect in people of a different race then the effect must be biological. While that is indeed one possible cause, it is also possible that the cause is environmental as many environmental factors vary between races. If could be as simple as a difference in rates at which the groups use aspirin, smoke, drink or engage in physical labor or something like that.

So something like Bidil working differently in each group is not definitive proof of biological difference.

How long can Marxists like you keep up this game of intellectual dishonesty?

I am not Marxist. I could go into detail here but I will just assume you were using hyperbole. I don't think I said anything about capitalism, means of production, class conflict and so on. It's true I believe in political equality but my thinking is following from the same source as the document that reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...".

...eventually the evidence against the blank slate

I don't believe in the blank slate. My position is something more along the lines of "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Now, I'm not religious so we can forget about the Creator part. My point is I don't think people should be deprived of any civil right without really strong evidence that they can't fully participate in society. The kind of IQs that are common now in minorities were definitely more common in whites at the time of the writing of the US constitution, so I don't think the founders were unaware that some people might be of low intelligence.

But the idea is biologically, it's hard to pin down race.

No, it's not. Forensic anthropologists do it all the time.

Dark skin as a criteria for instance, would give you negritos(asians), australians, subcontinental Indians, hispanics in addition to blacks. On the other hand, there are blacks who maybe be genetically and culturally quite close to the category you are interested in and are fairly light skin and would be missed by the categorization.

Those American light skinned blacks you're talking about are likely to have more than average degree of European ancestry for an American "black" person. African-Americans are about 20% European by ancestry on average.

Ancestry is recognized based on a combination of phenotypical cues that are all 100% heritable. I can tell southern Indians, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Australians from each other without any difficulty.

"... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Vim,
In an early draft of the DOI Jefferson had the importation of African slaves listed as one of the outrages that the Crown was perpetrating against the colonies.

"The kind of IQs that are common now in minorities were definitely more common in whites at the time of the writing of the US constitution, so I don't think the founders were unaware that some people might be of low intelligence."

The comment quoted above is so self evidently stupid that I add it only to underscore your intellectual vaccuity. You have no historical knowledge that wasn't delivered in a shrink-wrapped, PC approved package. The early Republic had many measures to contain the passions of the mob. If those measures were reinstated I can only imagine the reaction of the " I'm not a Marxist but, Stalin was justified in liquidating the Kulacks" crowd. Go wash some test tubes or sweep up under the particle accelerator.

While that is indeed one possible cause, it is also possible that the cause is environmental as many environmental factors vary between races.

Did you even read about the drug?

Would you rather I talk about cystic fibrosis? A well-known gene deficiency that is far more common in whites than blacks?

I know you hate the implications but there are well established medical differences between races. Yes this means that races differ in genes beyond a superficial level. What a shocker.


The kind of IQs that are common now in minorities were definitely more common in whites at the time of the writing of the US constitution

They were giving IQ tests then?

Why didn't something like the constitution come out of Africa?

You also need to explain how Liberia was founded by U.S. slaves but today looks no different than any other African country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Have you considered the flip-side of denying the intellectual differences that exist between blacks and whites? It means that not only have whites been unfairly blamed for black incompetence but white liberals have also been holding blacks to unrealistic standards.

If liberals are wrong about race then it means much more than white suburbanites being right about wanting to live without blacks. It also means that liberals have been causing blacks a significant amount of
stress in an attempt to equalize them with whites.

Liberals also haven't figured out that when you begin to eliminate environmental differences you only make genetic differences more apparent.

TSR:

Flynn Effect.

Anon:

The idea pretty much revolves around a single issue. The question is, if you look at biological traits, do they all cluster easily into clumps which would suggest distinct populations or do the blend across the globe in a way that suggests local adaptation to local conditions. Human beings are more like the smear. If you look at blood groups, you get Europeans seeming closer to Blacks than Asians. If you look at skin color, Asians seem more similar to whites. It's this ambiguity that comes from what traits you choose that makes for a problem. If you are intent of getting a particular geographic area as a group then it is possible to prioritize the traits you think will give you that group but you can also look at traits that cluster Australians and Africans together or Australians and Native Americans. There is no fixed self-evident cluster that comes naturally from the trait data.

At the very heart of this distinction is what makes populations of animals a single species versus a subspecies. If we were looking at humans in the abstract, racial differences wouldn't give us coherent species classifications and the differences wouldn't be large enough for us to say humans had subspecies.

Every time we plot the distribution of a trait possessing a survival value that is greater under some circumstances than under others, it will have a different pattern of geographical variation, and no two such patterns will coincide.
C. L. Loring

For instance, sickle-cell gives resistance to malaria and can be found in relation to the historical distribution of malaria, not in relation to race.

The fallacy that creeps into the idea that different races are adapted to different environments is that environments vary in many conditions (rainfall, vegetation, altitude, temperature) independently and if populations have any contact at all, the traits that are adaptive will spread faster than the traits that are not. So the environmental variation in rainfall is not going to be the same as the environmental variation in sunlight and so on.

Please read about the Cline concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_%28population_genetics%29

As to your forensics claim, please read C. Loring Brace on the issue:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

Peter, hopefully Stormfront is not the only place where we can frely talk about un-peecee matters.
That's why HS and other blogs are so refreshing.
And, Peter, try to address the issues at hand, instead of bashing the posters.

"Question: From whom are blacks asking permission? Answer: Whites."

Asking permission for what? You'll have to explain this?

At the end of the day race is a genetic risk factor for certain diseases just like gender or family history. Ignoring it would foolish.

If you think that race should be replaced with a more accurate system then by all means go ahead and propose one.

Until then the medical industry will use race to make predictions because as stated before it is a good indicator of origin which is associated with specific gene sets.

People like me will also make predictions using race because I'm convinced that enough differences have evolved to make such predictions worthwhile.

The fact that many of my predictions have become true tells me that the logical deductions I have made regarding race are correct.

The comments to this entry are closed.