Dismantling Racial Realist Arguments

This thread will host a listing of common racial realism arguments as well as common sense counters to them. Among these will be listings of counter RR examples and listings of inconsistencies inherent in the ideology. The reason this exercise is necessary is due to the belief that many who believe in RR also believe that policies should factor in these same beliefs. So, it is important that opponents of RR have easy, ready-made counter-points to these arguments. For those willing to contribute, feel free. As you do, I respectfully request the adherence to the following:

1. For RR opponents to counter RR arguments using more common sense than science. The reason for this request is twofold. One, any layperson should be able to confidently use the counters listed here when they come across RR arguments. And two, to not legitimize racial realism as worthy of scientific or rational discussion. Opponents of RR, I know this will handicap, but please bear with me .

2. For RR proponents to not spam the thread with propaganda. Instead, extract the exact RR arguments from its source and share it here so I (and or other participants if they wish) can have the opportunity to provide counter arguments without being subjected to irrelevant, extra long-winded, and abusive commentary from certain sources.​

Definitions
Racial Realism:
Is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs or other forms of race denialism.

Racial Denialism:
Denying the existence of politically sensitive aspects of human races

-Definitions from Metapedia.org

 

First off this isn't a proper comparison. East Asians, a subset of the overall Asian group is being compared to Whites as a full group. RRs will not bring up comparisons between Whites and Southern Asian countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Malaysia; Asian countries that score between 78-92.

Their comparisons are constructed this way to keep them from having to deal with the fact that there can be major differences within races. Acknowledging any of this undermines race-based stereotypes.




Reference:
iq-research.info

 

SS Africa has countries with IQ averages ranging from 59 to 91*. The range is simply far too wide to group/judge all SS Africans as one. Moreover, both ends of the range were found in West Africa.

If the 59 IQ sounds as questionable to you as it does me, here's why: An IQ under 70 equates to definite feeble-mindedness. 59 falls into the mildly retarded range that suggests the following:

Educable, can learn to care for oneself, employable in routinized jobs but require supervision. Might live alone but do best in supervised settings. Immature but with adequate social adjustment, usually no obvious physical anomalies (Cooijmans).
​

If the above is true, then how can the following be true? (rq):

Equatorial Guinea's literacy rate is 95.3%.
Equatorial Guinea managed to obtain a per capita GDP (PPP) of more than US $30,000 (20th highest in the world) --I admit this has/will change due to the drastic changes in the oil economy
Massive focus on infrastructure has taken place. A retarded populace wouldn't even think to try to pull this off:
[video=youtube;zwvdw8KYcdQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvdw8KYcdQ[/video]

References
iq-research.info
https://www.cia.gov/library
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5
http://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html


*59 was found for Equatorial Guinea and 91 for Sierra Leone.

 

One of the RR arguments is that criminality is inherent within race and it has little to nothing to do with poverty or other environmental factors. This type of argument is actually dishonest. First, crime isn't measured the same way country by country. Also, crime doesn't take into account all types of sanctioned violence and unpunished white-collar crimes. For example, the deaths caused by a reckless foreign policy empire won't be counted in homicide stats so the homicide lists are using pretty conservative numbers.

Anyway, building off my previous post, Equatorial Guinea with the supposed lowest IQ of 59 is beat by countries with far higher IQ's. With the lowest IQ, they should have the highest homicide rates, but that's not what you'll see. You'll see that of the top 10, the top 5 will have the highest IQ and as the homicide rate drops, so does the supposed IQ. The exception being South Africa.


[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"]Rank[/TD]
[TD="width: 144"]Country[/TD]
[TD="width: 70"]Per Capita[/TD]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"]IQ[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]1[/TD]
[TD]Honduras[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]90[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]81[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD]Venezuela[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]53.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]84[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD]Belize[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]44.7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]84[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD]El Salvador[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD]Guatemala[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]39.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]79[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD]Jamaica[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]39.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]71[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD]Lesotho[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]8[/TD]
[TD]Swaziland[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]33.8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]68[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD]Saint Kitts and Nevis[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]33.6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[TD]South Africa[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]31[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]77[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Reference:
iq-research.info
http://list25.com/25-countries-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-world/

 

Notes on the study conducted by Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman in 1975 and 1986

The authors signified how environment was more of a factor in determining IQ throughout the study. Here were some of their findings:

1. Black children adopted within the first year of life would average 110. Those who were adopted a little later fared around 98. (pg 118 & 123)
2. On average white, Asian/Indian, black children all scored below the birth children of the adopting families (pg 11.
3. All tested went through a decline in IQ from the first time tested to the follow up (pg 123)
4. Black/interracial adoptees with a white or Asian biological mother experienced greater IQ decline than adoptees with a black biological mother (pg 127).
5. Of the the variables including biological and adoptive, the variable of quality of preadoptive placement showed a trend to predict IQ in the follow up study (pg 127).
6. The conclusion:
"The results of the longitudinal follow-up continue to support the view that the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of black and interracial children and that both social and genetic variables contribute to individual variations among them (pg 133)."
​

Reference:
http://frihetspartiet.net/dokumenter/minnesota-transracial-adoption-study.pdf

 

If the bigger brain to higher IQ was true then the Neanderthal would have developed advanced civilizations. They didn't and the Neanderthal was actually more dumb than humans are despite their larger craniums.


Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/DrMikeBaxter

 

These RRs really need IQ to be fixed (genetic), because it excuses their own selves

- - - Updated - - -

And African Grey Parrots wouldn't have 300 word vocabularies and understand and respond to context etc.

 

I had to look them up. Never heard of them, but they're pretty impressive from what I'm reading. I learned something today!

 

What an INCOHERENT String.
The OP is Ostensibly about WHETHER there ARE Races/"RR."
From which one would gather you want to hear Pros/Cons about whether that's Taxonomically/Genetically true.
(as it is with other animals)

INSTEAD, you then go on to SPAM/BLOG up all these secondary things like IQ, Crime, AMONG the races.

To defeat RR YOU must make a scientific argument that there aren't Races/groups based on Genetic distance/difference, Not that there isn't higher or lower IQ among them. Because there ARE Higher/Lower IQs, and there ARE higher/lower crime rates.
Even if Crime/IQ were app the same, there COULD be Races!
ooops
Like with Chimps, Gorillas, who Both have separate Races/subspecies and even separate species among each of them.
The IQs for Chimp subspecies are probably about the same.
It doesn't mean they don't have Races/subspecies.
In fact, they have two Species as well.

This is the string/BLOG of someone who just wants to vent, but it's Incoherent/illogical

There have been ample chances to post specifically on Race/IQ in my string and others, and your points FAILED.
So Frustrated, you Run the page here trying to BURY any opposition.
+

 

It messes with everything we think we know about brain size. Apparently they have the intelligence of a 5 year old child. They're incredibly smart, and they really listen to humans and think about what is being said. They also have pea sized brains.

Plenty of vids on YT of African Greys doing their thing. Some use colourful language, be warned

 

I'm not sure how I missed this post, but anyway, you're totally wrong.

The opening post shouldn't suggest a focus on whether there are races or not. The OP was basically an invitation for people interested in opposing RR ideology to highlight the flaws therein using more of the common sense language versus the science jargon.

The idea that there are races is the most simplest definition of RR. RR ideology is highly suggestive of who, what, where, and why people fit certain physical and behavioral stereotypes and why certain people should be preemptively judged and dealt with a certain way because of those supposed who, what, where, and whys. You've managed to try and make RR look like an innocent ideology instead of the nefarious one is truly is.

Also, all those "secondary things" are part of the arguments racial realists use to justify their incredible beliefs.

"To defeat RR YOU must make a scientific argument..."

No I don't. And No I won't. RR is easily defeated through common sense. I know this because I notice RRs aren't able to address straight up questions or answer common sense questions regarding racial realism. They can't because the ideology is glued together by pseudoscience and con men. Frankly, I'm not sure many "realists" believe in most of the claims since they rely on oft rehearsed sophistry.

Regarding your "there could be races" quip, well of course there ARE races. The question is do they line up with the RR's philosophy or do they line up with something else. I personally believe it's the latter.

Feel free to be completely dismissive. Honestly, I could make the same points in the other thread, but I rather these points be featured than be buried.

 

Your mistake is to equate races and subspecies. No rational argument can be made for races being subspecies that holds true consistently over all other subspecies/species as well. You can not resolve shared culture nor sex.

 

LOL
Race and subspecies are the Same thing
'Race' has just traditionally been used for the Human subspecies.
As Always, you have NO clue what you're talking about.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia

Morphologically differentiated populations

Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.
​

Cont'd

In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones.
​

+

 

Actually, now that i think about it, shared culture and sex could eliminate any rational creation of races. The moment the internet, airplanes, free trade, globalization, tourism, and just about any other human technology that connects people in remote locations evolved, the barriers we used to seperate animals proved illogical for humans.

Add cooperation to that mix. No subspecies in the animal kingdom cooperates the way human beings do. Cooperation and sex can be treated similarly due to their shared mutual exclusivity.

So let's summarzie:
1. Humans have no separation of habitat
2. Humans have no sexual seperation
3. Humans cooperate

Perhaps you could tell me, has there ever been a species or subspecies of animal that had been seperated over time then reconnected with 100% of its habitat shared?

You like to cite ring species, unfortunately in ring species, the habitat does have lines of demarcation whereby no all the individuals interact with all others. Humans are unique in that you see complete cooperation and sex across all individuals.

 

:^)
Again, Race and subspecies are basically the same and virtually interchangeable.
Perhaps the World's Foremost expert in Evolution/Genetics/Speciation and author the the Standard text of that latter name.
This is for Race Realism denier Dark Skies too

Credentials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

Article
Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/
Jerry Coyne

Are there human Races?

Again, you have NO idea what you're talking about.
You don't even know terminology, much less anything on the topic.
You know nothing, and even now, don't do even minor research of your posts/opinions.
You just think your empty semantic argumentation can get you somewhere.
Perhaps that works on some YOU know, but it's even in the same universe of IQ as the discussion I deal in.
GAMEOVER

EDIT
Gary Matter's posts (below) are a JOKE too
Never sources, except below/finally, the juvenile dictionary, while I have quoted more elaborate opinions from the world's foremost Experts.
GAMEOVER II
+

 

There's a difference between having some abilities with a five year old and having the full spectrum of a five year gold's abilities.

I'm sure the parrot is only capable of some things as a five year old, but not the entire range of cognitive ability. So, basically, that parrot probably doesn't have an IQ/ intelligence level of a five year old.

 

For Tax and anybody else that really wants to know why a race and a subspecies can not be equivocated, just look at the definition, it's really quite simple:

sub·spe·cies
ˈsəbˌspēSHēz,ˈsəbˌspēsēz/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g., (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris subsp. crassa.

As stated in my previous post - human beings have no practical races because we:
1. share 100% of our habitat - individuals are no longer isolated

we can really stop with point 1.

Now are races real? Yes. Are they subspecies? No.

Could there be biological consequences to races? Yes. Could you prove it? Yes, but it would take a monumental effort.

Are races at all comparable to subspecies of animals? No. It is an absurd comparison as animals are far simpler and the rules that are used to demarcate species actually apply to them.

 

Different dog breeds don't exist because dog breeds are no longer isolated from another?

This is the most absurd argument against race. The opponents/proponents all consider race having a genetic basis.

 

Take your time and think about what you just said...

You are comparing breeds of dogs to human races. Species of dogs did not evolve my friend. They were created. By men. They would not exist in nature at all.

Many breeds have been created by men - horses, cows, cats...none of them represent subspecies...they are under control of man not nature.

A breed of dog is just that, a breed.

Show many anyone on this entire planet claiming dog breeds are separate subspecies. Please cite this. Perhaps you meant something else?
Perhaps you did not read my entire post?

To recap:

Do different races of homo sapiens exist? Yes.

Are races equivolent to different subspecies? No.

A breed is a breed. It is not a subspecies. A human race is a human race. It is not a subspecies either.

Folks - please for goodness sake, just read the definition of subspecies. I quoted it.

 

The Neanderthal skull is hyper-dolichocephalic though, as your image displays, with a lot of it's brain being towards the more primitive rear of the brain, but guess who else has a hyper-dolichocephalic brains?
You guessed it, Africans.

The Neanderthal skull is also of a low skull vault too, as your imagine displays, with less brain volume towards the more advanced top of the brain.
But guess who else has a low skull vault?
You guessed it, Africans.

 

Nepal is very poverty stricken much like Sub Saharan Africa.

Malaysians have a significantly smaller cranial capacities than do North-East Asians.

- - - Updated - - -

The high per capita income GDP of Equatorial Guinea mostly comes from oil reserves though.

 

1. Youy youtube! says they Had to ASK the IMF and World Bank what to do! They Didn't know.

2. According to 3 different sources, E-G is between 24 and 38th in GDP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

3. Of course, choosing/CHERRY PICKING a Tiny OIL Country is riDICuloulsy unfair. Just like with IQ, Sierra Leone (like Liberia) is '91' because it is repatriated Slaves/Mixed Race.

Want to see the BOTTOM 20 Countries in GDP.
Guess what/WHO? Virtually All Black nations, many WITH resources.

208 Sierra Leone - 1,400 (Your cherry pick for IQ)
209 Ethiopia - - -- - 1,300
210 Comoros - - - - 1,300
211 Haiti - - - - - - - - 1,300
212 Mozambique - 1,200
213 Eritrea - - - - - - 1,200
214 Guinea-Bissau 1,200
215 Togo - - - - - - - 1,100
216 Afghanistan - --1,100 (at War for 30 years)
217 Mali - - - - - - -- 1,100
218 Guinea - - - - - -1,100
219 Madagascar - - 1,000
220 Tokelau - - - - - 1,000 (remote Pacific Island)
221 Malawi - - - - - - - 900
222 Niger - - - - - - - - 800
223 Liberia - - - - - -- 700
224 Central African Republic 700
225 Burundi - - - - - - 600
226 Somalia - - - - -- 600
227 Zimbabwe - - - - 600
228 Congo, Democratic Republic of the - 400 ​

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=67

4. So what we have is Unfair/Disingenuos/NON-representative CHERRY Picking for Both IQ and GDP.
Despicable behavior.
Blacks, when looked at fairly, are at the bottom in Both.

+

 

That's really irrelevant whether dog breeds were bred by humans or not; it's still evolution. My point, btw, was an analogy why your argument is absurd.

Apparently the flew right over your head.

Simply because humans travel in a modern world doesn't invalidates their genetic differences.

The dictionary definition of subspcies, btw, refera to evolving in separate locations. That applies to humans because we evolved in separate locations from one another. We have since traveled amongst each other, but after the evolutionary changes were effected.

 

You are actually correct. Although probably not for the reason you think:

Taxonomy is not a science. It is just a naming convention. As there is no accepted definition of subspecies, thus it is not a concept that can really be argued logically. Logic requires consistency whether we are talking mathematical logic or formal or informal logic. With no consistency, and the discretion of the taxonomist being the only criteria, anyone is free to say human races are subspecies or not subspecies. As long as you put the species name in parentheses when you are referring to different races, people will understand what you mean and that you believe races are indeed subspecies.

I had forgotten this fact the last time I got involved with a conversation like this. It is a bit disappointing because everyone with an opinion is right and what makes them right is nothing other than their discretion.

 

Africans are fully human and humans are not the same species as the Neanderthal. So, I don't see how brain functions of the African and Neanderthal can be similar despite them maybe having similar skull widths and lengths.

Next, "hyper" doli what??? Gonna need to see your source. Because when I looked it up, one source had both Aryans and Blacks as just dolico cephalic (long-headed, not extra long-headed). Another source had "Negros, Melanesians, Eskimo, Ainus, Berbers, the races of Northern Europe, etc...(Deniker, pg 59)" all grouped together as dolichocephalic (different spelling but still long-headed). The cephalic index is just measurements of the skull and doesn't speak to brain size or function.

References:
The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography by Joseph Deniker
Identification from skeletal remains: http://www.slideshare.net/farhanali911/identification-from-skeletal-remains