You are a teacher and you don't know the difference between a race and a
species?

You are a teacher and you didn't read clearly where the signers were not
measuring creativity (jazz) and/or physical abilities in games (sports)?

MANY ethnic groups experienced hardships - some even worse than the ones the
ancestors of blacks experienced as slaves. For instance, like the Chinese -
even IN China back then and here too.

My take? Tupac Shakur was a lot more REAL than you on these matters.

"stlbl" wrote in message
news:1104943958.559632.201080@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm afraid I have to agree that there is limited meaningfulness of
> measured intelligence, and statistics in general. If you want to see
> what the effect of encouraging (through breeding) desirable physical
> traits(strength, virility, etc), and discouraging (through murder)
> undesirable mental traits (perceived higher intelligence, creativity,
> etc..) in a slave population by masters as it effects future
> generations, go ahead---but at least include "measuring" the domination
> of American sports by African American athletes.

That has to do with fast twitch muscles - the blacks are NOTABLY,
FORENSICALLY different from other races on that. Aside from that, if the
athlete didn't start playing with a ball or doing physical things very
young, he'd not be a very good athlete no matter how good athletes his
parents were.

> It might be more interesting to take a population of high IQ
> scorers, and try to breed intelligence out of them by enslaving them,
> ripping their families apart, denying them health care and schools,

That was done time and time again through the centuries to the Chinese
peasants, serfs and slaves by the ruling classes there in China. It did not
affect their usually higher IQs.

> then giving them IQ tests in a couple hundred years. That would be
> more scientific. Oh yeah, then throw in seeing if they could create a
> new art form (jazz), anyway.

It doesn't explain the even lower IQ scores for Africans in Africa that did
NOT have these things done to them. Environment there and their own
selection there called for a different KIND of intelligence than the kind
that whites and Asians have. That's obvious.

> So really all the people measuring IQ are just social historians, or
> journalists. They are only providing current evidence for the
> propagation of racist societal structures on humans.

Rubbish.

Besides, race
> does not exist. All humans are the same species. We can and do
> interbreed---

Species is not the same as race. But so what - dogs, coyotes, wolves and
jackals can ALSO interbreed and produce highly fertile offspring. Those
animals are the same GENUS.

the main difference between American blacks and other
> blacks around the world is that they usually have white "blood" in
> them. Is that a parameter that is considered?
> And again, who is to say which "suite" of problem solving tasks is
> more complex---those involved in returning a serve in the game of
> tennis, or playing chess. I bet its easier to write a chess program
> than to build a robot to return serves...
> Again, the utility of such statistics is exagerrated.

But playing chess and throwing a ball around have nothing to do with the
ability to make technology and create an industrial society - i.e., modern
civilization. When the environment thru time DEMANDS that smarter people
with more foresight are needed, those are the traits people breed for. If
the environment doesn't demand that, you'd not end up with smarter or higher
IQ people there.
>

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:23:48 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
> You are a teacher and you don't know the difference between a race and a
> species?

Well, if you ask this question, it's obvious that you have some definite
meanings of these terms in mind. Whether they correspond to some
objective reality is an entirely different question. You think they do.
You also seem to think that anyone who looks at the facst will agree
with you. More fool you.

I am a teacher, and I know that both "race" and "species" are very
slippery terms. There are many such terms -- all of them are more or
less abstract, which should provide a number of clues towards better
understanding.

"Race" and "species" mean whatever you define them to mean. I have read
a lot on these and related topics. I know that Africans belong to a
large number of cultures that didn't do much intermarrying, and have
different genetic profiles. So what? The same is true of Northern and
Mediterranean Europeans. So what?

If you want to identify "race" with genetic profile or genotype, you
also have to decide which features of a genotype are significant: that's
not a scientific question. Medically, we know that certain groups are
more or less prone to ceratin genetic mistakes. If you want to call such
groups races, go ahead. IMO it's the only meaning of "race" that makes
any sense. However, groups defined by genotype don't coincide very well
with groups defined by phenotype.

Recent work on evolution and genetics has shown that "species" is just
as slippery a term. Basically, a species is a breeding population, is
all. But how do you define "breeding population"? You could use normal
breeding behaviour, in which case breeding populations that do not
normally interbreed (ie, when there are enough mates available in each
group) are different species. But such breeding groups can and do
hybridise. (This is the case with wolves, coyotes, and dogs in Ontario.)
Do we now have three species? Or did we have two races of one species?
If you draw the boundary at infertile hybrids, then wolves, coyotes, and
dogs are the same species. If you draw the boundary at normal breeding
behaviour, then they are three species. Which meaning of species do you
have in mind?

Etc.

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:36:38 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:QAdDd.18331$7n1.977098@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
>> You are a teacher and you don't know the difference between a race and a
>> species?
>
> Well, if you ask this question, it's obvious that you have some definite
> meanings of these terms in mind. Whether they correspond to some objective
> reality is an entirely different question. You think they do. You also
> seem to think that anyone who looks at the facst will agree with you. More
> fool you.

I read the same essay you read, saw who signed it.
>
> I am a teacher, and I know that both "race" and "species" are very
> slippery terms.

More or less. Niles Eldredge seems to have a good idea of what speciation
is. Races are VARIETIES within a species. Ask any botanist what it means
when it comes to plants.

There are many such terms -- all of them are more or
> less abstract, which should provide a number of clues towards better
> understanding.
>
> "Race" and "species" mean whatever you define them to mean. I have read a
> lot on these and related topics. I know that Africans belong to a large
> number of cultures that didn't do much intermarrying, and have different
> genetic profiles. So what? The same is true of Northern and Mediterranean
> Europeans. So what?
>
> If you want to identify "race" with genetic profile or genotype,

Uh, I don't think anyone can. Race is identified by people IN races
(identifying as such) by PHENOTYPE. They do it by looks.

you
> also have to decide which features of a genotype are significant: that's
> not a scientific question. Medically, we know that certain groups are more
> or less prone to ceratin genetic mistakes. If you want to call such groups
> races, go ahead. IMO it's the only meaning of "race" that makes any sense.
> However, groups defined by genotype don't coincide very well with groups
> defined by phenotype.

I think they more or less DO coincide - very generally speaking. But they
do not coincide well enough to match up genotype to phenotype 100% of the
time.
>
> Recent work on evolution and genetics has shown that "species" is just as
> slippery a term. Basically, a species is a breeding population, is all.
> But how do you define "breeding population"? You could use normal breeding
> behaviour, in which case breeding populations that do not normally
> interbreed (ie, when there are enough mates available in each group) are
> different species. But such breeding groups can and do hybridise. (This is
> the case with wolves, coyotes, and dogs in Ontario.) Do we now have three
> species? Or did we have two races of one species?

That's debated. Some say these canines are the same genus - different
species. Some say that ability to interbreed makes them same species.

> If you draw the boundary at infertile hybrids, then wolves, coyotes, and
> dogs are the same species. If you draw the boundary at normal breeding >
> behaviour, then they are three species. Which meaning of species do you
> have in mind?

Do you know that plants are cross fertile across FAMILY lines, GENUS lines,
and SPECIES lines? I don't abide by the idea that cross fertility means
same species at all. I also know that anything involving humans is polluted
by politics and emotions - none of it is objective. Botany is not like that
at all. Studies of invertebrates are also more objective.
>
> Etc.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:12:58 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
[...]
>>However, groups defined by genotype don't coincide very well with groups
>>defined by phenotype.
>
>
> I think they more or less DO coincide - very generally speaking.

How generally? What's your measure of coincidence? Some ratio ("On
average, individuals in Group A differ from each other by one base pair
in N, while individuals in group B differ by 1.5 base pairs in N.") Or
some correspondence ("In region X of the genome, base-pair differences
of individuals in group A compared to each other are small, while
base-pair differences compared to individuals in Group B are large.")
What scale would you use to identify people as belonging to the same
rather than a different race? BTW, phenotypical race differences
themselves are rather dicey, as people at either side of the
phenotypical mid-range could just as well be grouped with another race.

> But they
> do not coincide well enough to match up genotype to phenotype 100% of the
> time.

Well, it seems to that they coincide no better than any grouping you
care to make. As I understand it, on average, the genetic difference
between individuals in any group is greater than the differences between
averages for those groups.

>>Recent work on evolution and genetics has shown that "species" is just as
>>slippery a term. Basically, a species is a breeding population, is all.
>>But how do you define "breeding population"? You could use normal breeding
>>behaviour, in which case breeding populations that do not normally
>>interbreed (ie, when there are enough mates available in each group) are
>>different species. But such breeding groups can and do hybridise. (This is
>>the case with wolves, coyotes, and dogs in Ontario.) Do we now have three
>>species? Or did we have two races of one species?
>
>
> That's debated. Some say these canines are the same genus - different
> species. Some say that ability to interbreed makes them same species.

Precisely. Which means that "species" is not an objective fact. It's a
more or less convenient grouping made for, um, specific purposes.

>>If you draw the boundary at infertile hybrids, then wolves, coyotes, and
>>dogs are the same species. If you draw the boundary at normal breeding >
>>behaviour, then they are three species. Which meaning of species do you
>>have in mind?
>
> Do you know that plants are cross fertile across FAMILY lines, GENUS lines,
> and SPECIES lines?

Yes.

> I don't abide by the idea that cross fertility means
> same species at all.

Well, that's your choice. I'm just pointing out that what you define as
a species _is_ a choice. The same goes for race. "Race" seems to matter
more in some cultures than others, and it also seems to matter more for
some people within (for example) N. American society than for others.
This fact is in itself a clue that race is a construct made for certain
purposes. It's those purposes that need clarification and debate.

> I also know that anything involving humans is polluted
> by politics and emotions - none of it is objective.

Oh dear, humans just will be humans, won't they? If only they weren't so
damn emotional! The world would be a much better place if everybody were
totally rational. Nothing would ever get done, of course, because nobody
would care enough about anything to get it done, but that' a samll price
to pay, eh?

> Botany is not like that
> at all. Studies of invertebrates are also more objective.

Stick to hostas and snails, then. (Actually, if you know some way to
keep slugs and snails off my hostas, I'd be grateful for your
information. :-))

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:53:22 GMT

YOU wrote:
> Oh dear, humans just will be humans, won't they? If only they weren't so
> damn emotional! The world would be a much better place if everybody were
> totally rational. Nothing would ever get done, of course, because nobody
> would care enough about anything to get it done, but that' a samll price
> to pay, eh?

You said that. I did not say that. It is emotional and instinctive
reactions that humans tend to have that cause them to see people as "us"
versus "them." And as "more like us" versus "more like them." Only after
the facial recognition instinct kicks in and the feelings are felt, is the
theory made up - or no theory made up - people just act on what they feel -
attraction or repulsion. It is the sense of sight by which humans identify
"physical markers" - i.e., not sense of smell. It is by that facial
recognition sense that humans tend to categorize people into general races -
and they tend to agree with each other on these facial recognition markers.
Forensics can also identify with just a skull. The facial recognition
ability is something in-built in our own natures. It is 100% solely by this
facial recognition ability that blacks of all kinds, even those that look
non-black to me (but maybe not to someone else), self-identify as black.
>
>> Botany is not like that at all. Studies of invertebrates are also more
>> objective.
>
> Stick to hostas and snails, then. (Actually, if you know some way to keep
> slugs and snails off my hostas, I'd be grateful for your information. :-))

Malathion, probably. OR:

http://www.ehow.com/how_4031_rid-snails-slugs.html

Bug Geta Snail/Slug bait by Ortho.

http://www.nemasysinfo.com/

You could have found that out by asking anyone in a store that sells plants.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:55:12 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
> YOU wrote:

[...]
>>Stick to hostas and snails, then. (Actually, if you know some way to keep
>>slugs and snails off my hostas, I'd be grateful for your information. :-))
>
>
> Malathion, probably. OR:
>
> http://www.ehow.com/how_4031_rid-snails-slugs.html
>
> Bug Geta Snail/Slug bait by Ortho.
>
> http://www.nemasysinfo.com/
>
> You could have found that out by asking anyone in a store that sells plants.

Sure, but I wanted to know your experience on this issue. I don't like
malathion. I've tried a number of slug baits/traps - they work, sort of.
Beer seems to work best. Seems that slugs can't resist a buzz.!
:-)

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:56:13 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:eiFDd.31108$7n1.1259818@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
>> YOU wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>Stick to hostas and snails, then. (Actually, if you know some way to keep
>>>slugs and snails off my hostas, I'd be grateful for your information.
>>>:-))
>>
>>
>> Malathion, probably. OR:
>>
>> http://www.ehow.com/how_4031_rid-snails-slugs.html
>>
>> Bug Geta Snail/Slug bait by Ortho.
>>
>> http://www.nemasysinfo.com/
>>
>> You could have found that out by asking anyone in a store that sells
>> plants.
>
> Sure, but I wanted to know your experience on this issue. I don't like
> malathion.

Well, it works pretty well, especially with wasps. It - STINKS, tho.

I've tried a number of slug baits/traps - they work, sort of.
> Beer seems to work best. Seems that slugs can't resist a buzz.!
> :-)

:-D drunk slugs. I think they are beautiful creatures. Well, where I am,
fire ants (and biting black ants too - we don't have nice northern variety
non-biting ants here, they are ALL vicious) have eaten up slugs, snails,
beautiful earthworms too - all the insects that are good for the soil - and
(fireants) are causing most of the soil erosion. The new breed of fireants,
the ones with 30 queens, cooperate with other nests instead of war with them
for territory - and now they cooperate with termites. They'll kill a tree -
and let termites have the rest. The old fireants didn't do that, they used
to eat termites - and it's not that these new ones do not eat dead tree and
termites. THEY DO. BUT - now they aren't doing it. Like, how the hell
they they - arrange? - this deal with termites? I know they did - but heh,
that's amazing! Insects are SMART! They are awesome, imo. I had slugs on
the driveway back in the 80s - I left them alone. There was another animal
too, I never saw it in the day, but it would make figure 8 slime trails - no
joke. But the fireants... the bastards didn't just neatly pick up pieces of
ortho poison I put down, but they placed them in a nice circle while I stood
there and watched. They love going deep under concrete too - I can get
ideas about billions of them under all of the concrete around - couldn't
that eventually cause it to cave in? I know people that go back up north
and came back down here, came back to see 1 acre of solid fire ant mound,
the 30 queen type. Of course, environmentalists are too eager to blame MAN
for soil erosion - when the fire ants have done most of it. And now they
are destroying other plants. Plague man. And they are SMART. Forget
humans and strategies for life - mehhh. Look at insects and - say WOW.

I have a lot of greenery and colorful plants around my home, but insects
don't tend to bother them at all. I have junipers, copper leaf crotons,
brava crotons, fan palms, pygmy date palms. a HUGE Canary Island date palm,
sheflara, King saego (a Permian age plant!) and coccus pamosa palms (I think
one died being partly uprooted by Hurricane Charlie :( Ivy tends to be a
pain in the butt and weed killer doesn't kill it (it's not a weed!).
Otherwise, my plants are pretty big because I use grass cuttings as thick
layer of mulch - it forms a hot anaerobic environnment that tends to make
"ground shrubs" grow into pretty damned BIG plants (as high as the house!).
Green thumb helps :) I don't baby them at all.

Families of lizards live where my plants are, they are beautiful. One snake
(black one) took to using the soffit drain pipe as a hotel :) Occasionally,
a cat makes it onto the roof - how they do that I don't know - and has
kittens. The only animal I had a squabble with for "free home" was an
armidillo - I finally got it to go dig elsewhere on my property :) Oh, and
wasps. I don't mind they make a home in the outside unused light - or under
the soffit, but STING THE LANDLADY THREE TIMES IN THE BACK? And OUCH? Uh
uh. I evicted them.

OH, one other thing. I notice these days that the strongest "off" (deet) no
longer works to keep biting insects other than mosquitos away. Not good.
Deed melts plastic - so that's not good either and it is not good to put
near spandex - as in bathing suit on beach where off-land wind brings biting
flies. :(

Is this off topic or what? LOL.

From:	Wolf Kirchmeir
Subject:	Fireants and such (Was Racial Differences...)
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:19:29 -0500

P.Comm wrote:
[sni[ an entertaining and informative post about fireants]
> OH, one other thing. I notice these days that the strongest "off" (deet) no
> longer works to keep biting insects other than mosquitos away. Not good.
> Deed melts plastic - so that's not good either and it is not good to put
> near spandex - as in bathing suit on beach where off-land wind brings biting
> flies. :(
>
> Is this off topic or what? LOL.

Maybe, but interesting. Would be nice to see some baseline data on
fireant behaviour. If the behaviour you observe represents real change
(and not merely the effect of your not having noticed fireants much
before, hence having missed the behaviour that you see as new), this
looks like an example of very fast evolution of social behaviour, and
would support the Eldridge/Gould hypotheis of punctuated equlibrium.

H'm.

From:	P.Comm
Subject:	Re: Fireants and such (Was Racial Differences...)
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:55:17 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
news:IITDd.76366$P%3.2536285@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
> [sni[ an entertaining and informative post about fireants]
>> OH, one other thing. I notice these days that the strongest "off" (deet)
>> no longer works to keep biting insects other than mosquitos away. Not
>> good. Deed melts plastic - so that's not good either and it is not good
>> to put near spandex - as in bathing suit on beach where off-land wind
>> brings biting flies. :(
>>
>> Is this off topic or what? LOL.
>
> Maybe, but interesting. Would be nice to see some baseline data on fireant
> behaviour.

Agree. I also called up the makers of both OFF and Cutter and told them
about their product's lack of effectiveness with other biting (flying)
insects. I offered to go when any of them to the place and DEMONOSTRATE it
for them.

If the behaviour you observe represents real change
> (and not merely the effect of your not having noticed fireants much
> before, hence having missed the behaviour that you see as new),

I have observed the behavior of ants for decades, btw. Ever see two groups
of ants at war? No, it's not just me noticing it. The experts that thought
up the idea to introduce a pheromone that would cause the drones to murder
the single queen (but not die out themselves) noticed it - WOW, now they
have ants with 30 queens. I.e., they really screwed up. They aren't going
to ADMIT they did this. But they have "observed" the "new breed" or
"different breed" of fireants. Who knows what spin they'd put on it, but to
have to admit they CAUSED this? Not an option. Some of us paying close
attention noticed it. 99% just want them off the lawn.

this
> looks like an example of very fast evolution of social behaviour, and
> would support the Eldridge/Gould hypotheis of punctuated equlibrium.

Yup, sure would! It's already known that insects adapt very fast. But heh,
nationalist monarchic fireants turning into communist ologarchic fireants
was not expected - and yes, LMAO. I think Gould proved his hypothesis
regarding PE with trilobites and other life forms. Heck, even the arising
of primates (including us) is proof of it - had the dinosaurs still been
here, we would NOT be here. And they are gone due to the big rock from
space.

I think the whole paradigm they have about strategy and evolution is missing
a lot of information. They are only beginning to see cooperative
strategies, even symbiotic ones - when before they only saw competition.
They are far too slow to believe that ants can cooperate with termites - and
even if they see it and find poison to kill both species, it would be a long
time before anyone had the balls to write an article about how they
cooperated. That kind of cooperation is against their own paradigm. They
also make the grave error of thinking other animals, like insects, are
"stupid." They aren't. There are animals that can get inside a rat and not
only undermine the rat's reproductive stragey, but make that rat like the
smell of cats. So the rat goes up to the cat (other rats must look on and
think that rat has gone nuts) - the cat eats the rat - and the little animal
that made the rat do that get where they aimed to get in the first place -
IN the cat's digestive tract. That's intelligence. It's alien, sure, but
it's intelligence. To make matters worse, many humans are terrified of
thinking that something that small can undermine their own free will and
make something "else" seem like free will. Humans are terrified of that.
So no MD will say that "the bacteria will MAKE YOU want chocolate, MAKE YOU
get up and get it and eat it." They simply say "YOU may crave chocolate -
but do not eat it for it will render the antibiotic useless." Focus on the
YOU, YOU crave, the antibiotic, blah blah. Nonsense. The bacteria want the
chocolate in order to make themselves immune to the antibiotic. The
bacteria can MAKE YOU crave chocolate (even if you didn't like chocolate to
begin with). It's all in the semantics - what's really going on, versus
what people are told THEY might feel.
>
> H'm.