Too White to Win (now enhanced with an evolutionary biology lecture!)

TurdBuffer said:

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

tvoie said:

I am not sure if I should be astounded or offended by all of this. I am really conflicted. But I will admit this is super interesting, and I presume, relevant. This place is so fucking bizarre.

Agreed.

I love this board because there are a lot of smart people here that know shit that I don’t. And the board is also great because we are better than other sites where you have to pay for info you can get here (minus Ruth, Ruth is the GOAT).

So this thread is really serious and basically graduate level stuff is being discussed in a sane manner. Meanwhile at Dawgman, they are trying to figure out how to start a fire with sticks and hurling their feces at each other.

Anyways, love you all.

Would all you fuckos stop plagiarisming my shit? Shit is my bailiwick.

Dennis_DeYoung said:

jarlsbergraygun said:

AZDuck said:

This is a pretty fascinating concept - in part because the science of it starts to veer toward verboten topics like eugenics and the Bell Curve. But of course, there are both genetic and sociological factors present WRT athletic performance.

I think it is difficult for laypersons to distinguish between the real science and the junk science and to avoid lazy generalizations.

This is a good discussion though.

It's not even eugenics, it's discussing heritable traits that is increasingly verboten - except when it's not.

I would say that it is most certainly not INCREASINGLY verboten. It's probably increasingly accepted in science (maybe some PC dickwads on twitter don't like it, WGAF).

However, at issue is that when traits are mostly discussed on the positive side (like athletic ability) there's not so much danger in understanding heritability. However, we should all (IMO) rightly be cautious when we start talking about who is worthy of equal treatment, human, etc.

When we look at heritable traits, it's important to have a firm understanding of what the 'trait' is. Muscle mass, height, etc. is all relatively easily perceived (though we are still developing understanding), measured and understood. However, there is not a single unifying theory of intelligence, social behavior or learning that can guide us in terms of what's being inherited. IQ, EQ, school performance, SATs etc are easily shown to be constructs that are (at the very least) second order. They are groups of ideas for which no one in humanity has hit bedrock on.

To say it in language @Swaye can understand: physical traits (like huge tits) are not like intelligence, we can directly measure them. Everyoneagrees on them and what they are, are for, etc.

So, looking at 'trait' heritability in cases where we don't fully understand the traits is nonsense.

This, coupled with our common tendency to view out-groups as inhuman and we have some serious reason to be careful.

TLDR: Physical traits are pretty easy to understand. Mental ones aren't.