On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:09:33 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:
>> first time caller... sorry for the cross post, but i just had to say
>> that there is some great stuff in this debate. and i'm one of them
>> lefty pinkos that might rub stan the wrong way, but i get your point.
>> there definitely IS difference in distribution, but i think that i'd
>> have to ask you if you really think it is biology? or if it is about
>> historical influence?
>
>Historical influences from 60,000 years ago? That is a real grasping at
>straws.
i'm not talking about anything over 300 years ago and the society that
has become the usa... i'm talking about where people are
socio-economically in society today. i don't know what you're talking
about...
>There is very strong data that says people are determined by genetic,
>environment, and free will. The amount of control of a human by genetics
>is typically somewhere in the 30% range but varies considerably for
>different characteristics. Same can be said for the environment.
what does "people are determined" mean? you have no idea how much is
nature and how much is nurture. there is no typical 30% number.
where'd you get that from? "varies considerably.." how very scientific
of you!! this is crazy stuff
>In general genetics controls the tendencies of what people do. You can
>have the genetics of a murderer, but that does not mean you will be a
>murderer, although that tendency will probably show up in your relatives.
you have no idea if "in general genetics..." is true. "...show up in
your relatives"? like if your dad kills someone, but you never know
and you never meet him, you are more likely to kill or your second
cousin will? weird science. could be true, but i don't think you or
anyone KNOWS. i HIGHLY doubt that there is a murder gene. probably an
anger one, but a murder gene is asurd. That's like saying there is a
frisbee gene... there is probably a dexterity one that might make
frisbee easier, but not for specific behaviours like murder or
fishing. Gee i feel like kicking a soccer ball. good thing someone
invented a game that relates directly to my soccer gene. There might
be genetics in people that relate to things like motivation or comfort
or stubborness, but it does not transfer that these would only relate
to math for chinese kids and english skills for white kids and
basketball for black kids (i'll use some friendly neighbourhood
stereptyping just for you!!).
>The tendency for murders is that they have small frontal lobe activity and
>high back lobe activity according to brain scans. Tends to make a person
>less able to control their rage.
The tendency for murderers is also that they grow up poor, with single
parents, drop out of school or go to a poor one, have negative peer
influences and negative self image, vague, unfocused, but high
asperations, with low opportunities, substance abuse issues, gang
affiliation, unsafe environment, unsupportive or unhealthy home life
whether with parents or "spouse". shame about that lobe problem. maybe
we should spend billions on research to get that fixed...
>> So the question is: are things the way they are _supposed_ to be? I
>> would answer no and think that something should be done. there are no
>> more new family fortunes to be made, to any significant extent,
>
>To the contrary, most of the wealth these days is from people that made all
>the money themselves. At one time in Silicon Valley we were producing a
>very rich family every day on average. It probably far easier to become
>wealthy now than it was in the past. Many of those new rich by the way are
>from places like India and China, but few from Europe.
to the contrary, MOST wealth in the us is old money. you might be
talking about .com uber rich new families, but they are not a majority
of wealth in the usa and tons of them lost their shirts... if you
think that most of the wealth is new money you are nuts. do a little
research about old families and who has the wealth in the us... it is
nearly impossible to become rich now if you are poor. you would have
to invent something or get a degree from the most expensive schools
and get a hugh money job. who do you think has more access to the best
schools or the best research or the best anything? my god, are you for
real?
>> I think stan is ignoring that the imbalances come from historical
>> influences and simple lack of wealth and also very few vertical social
>> climbing opportunities and also positive role models for blacks are
>> few and stereotypeset (to make up a word) and general low self-image
>> is common (and documented).
>
>I strongly disagree with your view because the opportunities for wealth are
>amazingly higher than they were in the past with the lack of skill and low
>cost technology.
what does "opportunities for wealth" mean. in general, rich stay rich
and poor stay poor. and it's not just because. there are really
obvious reasons if you care to look... everyone knows that. you really
should take a first year sociology course. i think you might be
talking about upper-middle class and rich, not poor and rich... blacks
had nothing, whites had power. that has never and probably will never
balance out. very simple stuff here...
>> If you see statistically that blacks have less... whatever...
>> motivation? or study skills? or math skills? or science skills?
>>,,,,.
>
>This is not the topic. The topic is statistical differences without a
>discussion of what those differences mean. Statistical difference can be
>virtually every human characteristic because human (and all other life) is
>made by the messenger RNA reading the DNA to produce 20(?) proteins that are
>used to build the body.
>
>BTW the process of reading "DNA data tape"to create the body is even at the
>most fundamental level is the same as a Turing machine which is the simplest
>model representing a computer.
>
>Turing machine models are used to prove theorems about computation. I find
>it amazing that evolution created the simplest model of a computer billions
>of years before the computer was first invented.
i have no idea why you are talking about turing machines and i kinda
think i give up. you cut out that part about why those differences
exist beyond biology. even if there is a difference in biology between
the races, it is not significant enough to override the social
reasons. There are way more immediate social reasons why people are
different. again, see the differences between upper and lower class
results in all white parts of the world or all black parts of the
world. look at incarceration rates in rich and poor communities where
everyone is white. look at test scores in rich and poor schools in
every country in the world. look at separated twins who are raised by
families of different socioeconomics. holy crap, you are incredible!!!
>> i'm into thinking about biological differences as a possibility for
>> why things are the way they are. i mean who knows really right?
>
>Huh? There has been a large amount of good research in this area. We
>really do have a reasonable knowledge of how genetics and environment
>effects people.
sure research, but i never mentioned environment at this point; i was
only talking about biology. there probably are differences of some
sort but we do not know what they are exactly or at least what they
mean or how they will manifest themselves. but dumb whites and smart
blacks everywhere thank you for your knowledge of early computers.
>but it
>> would seem to me that, as some others have pointed out, biological
>> differences seem way less likely than environmental factors
>
>That has been proven not to be true for many human characteristics. Since
>we are constructed from the DNA code, it is not logical that we would be
>highly independent of DNA coding.
but our dna code is WAY more similar than different... and it has NOT
been proven anywhere that biology is more important than environment
in determining human behaviour. and in fact i would go so far as to
say that anyone who thinks that your dna has more to say about your
behaviour than your upbringing or your peers or your social mores or
your environment is INSANE. i'm done....
bob |