I wasn't making a logical argument. I was making an empirical one. Genes associated with intelligence are distributed differently between racial populations.
And your data to back this? You cannot make an empirical argument with no data.
2. NO, being able to produce fertile offspring is NOT the definition of species. Fertile hybrids exist such as Ligers. And in any case, this being the line to draw between species is ENTIRELY social. Humans chose this. There's nothing in nature saying this is where one species ends and the other begins. We could have said anything with different colored fur or feathers is a different species. This would be no more or no less a social construct.
We'd have to agree to disagree on your first bit, because historically yes that IS that definition used and a lot of English dictionaries, encyclopedias and is the common understanding at the moment.
Now whether this is still an accurate or good definition is a separate discussion, but I digress, as a starting point it is still something rooted in biology meaning its a combination of convention (social constructs, yes) rooted in biological and empirical study - my contention was only on your use of the word ENTIRELY, its intersectional between the two; but other than that I think we are on the same page in terms of species and to be honest I'm forgotten why I raised it in the first place.
Oh that's right, what I mean is "social construct" is a loaded term, I now get what you mean and your position a bit better, by that I digress and we're singing from the same song book (especially now that I see the comment you responded to which I don't agree with either).
For reference you seem to be arguing that everything is rooted in genetics and they seem to take the position (which I'm sure you'll agree has no substantiation in academia) that everything is rooted in environmental (aka everything is a social construct).
You can identify a person's ancestry based on PURELY physical factors such a bone and especially skull morphology, DNA, blood etc.
Sure, but that's not the point - we weren't discussing ancestry in general, just intelligence and those more complex traits, because to bring it back to the topic of this thread, your argument is summary as understood by some is that blacks by genetics, have less intelligence and therefore that is why South Africa is in the situation it is.
Your argument as understood by most in this thread:
1. Black people genetically are less intelligent than white people based on genetics.
2. Higher intelligence means better outcomes in society (focusing on particularly stability and non-violence etc)
3. South Africa is worse off being run by predominantly black people than white people.
Again, amongst people who do not know the first thing about intelligence research, not intelligence researchers themselves.
This is meaningless without data. It's just rhetoric.
Almost every single heritability study on intelligence.
"Almost every single heritability study on intelligence" - Ambiguous and actually not true.
"Again, amongst people who do not know the first thing about intelligence research, not intelligence researchers themselves." - that is also rhetoric. Its like redefining experts to exclude anyone who disagrees with you.
I was quoting a study on this that was simply making an observation and critical analysis on the taboo around hereditarian research.
"We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism."
Quoting from the same study verbatim
"The consensus among psychologists is that variations in behavioral traits are the product of both genes and environment. What is disputed is how we might answer such a question for such knotty human traits such as intelligence (
Devlin et al., 2002;
Nisbett et al., 2012;
Richardson, 2017), whether the folk categories such as “White” and “Black” race are actual biological categories (
Brace 2005;
DeSalle & Tattersall, 2018;
Jackson & Depew, 2017;
Marks, 2017;
Yudell, 2014), whether or not partitioning trait differences into “genes” and “environment” makes any sense, given the continuous interaction of the two (
Goldhaber, 2012;
Keller, 2010;
Tabery, 2014;
Taylor, 2014), and, how certain we need to be of such knowledge as a basis for social policy (
Frank, 2012;
Gillborn & Youdell, 2009;
Hilliard, 2012)"
This is probably the easiest way to explain my position.
Okay, WHY has almost nobody heard about them? Because black people can do no wrong and these facts don't get promoted by the powerful.
To be honest beyond the reasons already mentioned idk, so yeah maybe, preaching to the choir on this one. I don't think that its a case of where one group is always in the right and vice versa, the reality is history is mixed.
Says you a couple of pages ago when you said "I don't support apartheid" because I'm assuming you see yourself as a logical rational person so you had your reasons for not supporting it when you said that.
The history of Africa has been violence and poverty. The rapid growth of South Africa under European rule from almost nothing and the behavior of south african blacks post-apartheid shows that no, it was exactly the right outlook on humanity.
So you do support apartheid? Your position on this seems inconsistent? Please clarify...
I would have to strongly disagree its the right outlook on humanity, see previous responses, just because there were as you assert there was a positive consequence to apartheid - it doesn't mean the principle behind it is justifiable (mainly because I don't think apartheid vs no apartheid; aka the presence of racial segregation is necessary the sole explanatory factor for why South Africa is the way it is - in some respects you could argue that there was an overreaction / over correction to apartheid)
But for the same reason I don't believe in having token Aboriginal / minority representation in Aus politics , I think those elected to power should be based on merit rather than on race; but the whole principle of apartheid is based on race (rooted in "skin colour"/appearance not the social construct mind you), not on actual qualities like experience or aptitude. That is morally repugnant. (Although to clarify, European rule and apartheid are not synonymous).
Again I'll leave the others to argue the specifics of violence during apartheid period because I'm not well read on that side of things. I
It's weird how Germany can experience the worst humanity has to offer and within decades is one of the most prosperous countries in the world again with no large scale unrest or political violence, even the ones occupied by rapacious, oppressive foreigners for decades on end.
There's simply no way to make sense of history that isn't an endless series of just so stories without using race.
So really what you are telling us is that you, SylviaB, cannot be racist for saying that white people are superior intelligent beings and black people are dumber therefore they have worse because of genetics - that is the whole argument that everyone is contending at least
(Yes, I know its an oversimplification / and overlooks some good points you are making)
Its probably an intersection of a number of factors including yes, race, (depending what we mean by it) although culture (is probably the better concept to capture what we mean), religion (e.g. we can see the influence of Christianity vs Islam vs Buddhism on society, the former impacting US/Europe), politics, family, personalities, social constructs.