Human mental abilities, such as intelligence, are complex and profoundly important, both in a practical sense and for what they imply about the human condition. Understanding these abilities in mechanistic terms has the potential to facilitate their enhancement. There is strong evidence that the lateral prefrontal cortex, and possibly other areas, support intelligent behaviour. Variations in intelligence and brain structure are heritable, but are also influenced by factors such as education, family environment and environmental hazards. Cognitive, psychometric, genetic and neuroimaging studies are converging, and the emergence of mechanistic models of intelligence is inevitable. These exciting scientific advances encourage renewed responsiveness to the social and ethical implications of conducting such research.
It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.
Before I start, though, a preliminary clarification is in order.Hochman kindly calls my article ‘‘one of the strongest defenses of racial naturalism in recent times’’, which might suggest to the reader that my goal was to offer a full-fledged biological explication of the concept of race. But in fact my ambition was more limited. As I explained:My aim in this paper was not to prove the biological reality ofrace. Rather, more modestly, I have tried to show that typical attempts to disconnect the concept of race from genetics have too quickly and too uncritically been accepted by many ‘‘race critics’’. (Sesardic, 2010, p. 160; italics added)I will continue defending the same position in this article.
This is where I out myself as an avid Disney fan. Have mercy.
Princesses are an original European tradition, yes, based in Monarchy, that evil thing we’re supposed to resent in a democracy. *hums God Save the Queen* There are a few Arabian princesses, but even their Princes go for white blue-eyed European ancestry in choosing a wife. Ouch. Real Arabian princesses aren’t actually princesses, the tradition and power involved was
stolen borrowed from Europe, beforehand an unmarried woman under Sharia had no real title or status, and the women in that role to this day are basically hostages. I don’t think they count as princesses. Non-European princesses are trying to appropriate European culture, from a feminist standpoint.
Africans had priestesses in each tribe before Christianity came along and gave them medicine. A film based on that would be interesting indeed.
…So I actually hope that the left keeps pushing this issue hard. I hope that they continue to attack and corner white people that try to console them. I hope they push it to the point that whites get that nothing will ever be good enough, there is no settlement that can be made. If you are white, you are a target and that’s it. There is no way out. There is no way short of killing yourself to be non-racist, so you may as well embrace your own identity….
Put it this way: if there was an entire decade of black Disney princess films at the exclusion of others, they’d call it patronizing. You can’t win. I find it unusual how these new types of Princess, now a third personality style (or you could say, a Third Wave) have none of the gentle wit, charm, sweetness, grace or bearing et cetera of an actual princess, an important social role in a monarchy with such responsibilities. The first form of princess did (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), the second had less but other redeeming qualities, more of a modern update (Belle, Ariel, Mulan) and this third lot seem to have little to mark them out as nobility or upper
caste class at all.
I think they’ll follow the money.
Could someone forward these tweets to Russell Brand?
I’m allergic to stupidity.
I wish Internet Aristocrat could cover Otherkin Genocide. It’s a really important identity issue I feel strongly about, you guys. Hunting werewolf-kin is NOT OKAY.
Copied from: http://firstworldfeminism.tumblr.com/post/105590767098/rose-reasoning
As you can see from this beautiful picture;
A rose is a wave where the curve loops away from the origin of the graph, before passing back through and continuing with the same process until the shape is eventually closed off by meeting up with the starting point, where it would be tracing over the existing shape if continued.
The many segments of the rose will typically meet and overlap at the same point, resembling the petals of a flower.
Rose reasoning is an expansion of circular reasoning, that the argument will always be on an infinite loop as the defendant won’t properly justify their stance, thus the argument cannot rationally conclude.
No matter how many arguments you make, they respond with the same illogical point and you return to square one. Each argument is represented by the curve of a petal, with the point of origin of the rose being their response.
…While there is a lot of starry-eyed prognostication about the replacement of people by machines, fundamentally,
the below average IQ will have nothing to do, it’s a disaster
economics is about trade between humans for their subjective satisfaction. When a culture produces fewer humans, and demands more of those younger humans in the form of taxes to support the older ones, some people need to be imported to make up the deficit.
However, the people that can be imported are not like those that would have reproduced under different conditions. Rather than reproducing the society that existed before, mass immigration instead produces a mutant amalgam that isn’t entirely recognizable to the native stock. The people have different values, different productivity levels, different behavioral propensities, different religions, and different genetics.
….What has happened is, that given the crude egalitarian ideology shared by most of the country, one person is held to be as good as any other, with no differences that can’t be melted away by education and television.
This is not true: a people can’t reproduce itself by importing some other people from some other place. They think that they’re getting reproduction, but are actually getting replacement. Not all of the replacements get along with one another, either — crude racial categories like ‘Hispanic’ can include different strains of humanity that have hated each other for centuries, speak a different dialect, and don’t particularly cooperate well…..
The phrase “community relations” springs to mind, within a nation there should be no division.
As the number of entrants increases and the number of prizes doesn’t, the process becomes less deterministic—less merit-based—and more stochastic. Smaller and smaller percentages of applicants get tenure-track positions, get funded, get published—or get Turbo to join their labs. A system set up to be a meritocracy is starting to seem—to be—more of a gamble, and that can’t be good for science.