Williams syndrome and race

[Huruma]

This is a disingenuous study here.

How is the study 'disingenuous'?

It doesn't count the fact that Williams Syndrome children's lives aren't generally-lived in ways, that expose them to the practices nor nuances of racial-bias,

But they are aware of the 'practices' and 'nuances' of gender roles and gender stereotyping?

as it is learned behavior...whereas this study here, treats it as genetic, in order to theorize it's non-existent hypotheses

What is this supposed to me?

Normally, children show clear preferences for their own ethnic group by the age of three, if not sooner, other research has shown.

I thought this was interesting. I'm not entirely convinced that it is learned behavior.

 

[p-tavern]

Their parameters for comparison of ethnic bias to gender bias are way off. Stupid article in that sense. The rest of it is somewhat interesting.

 

[judahxulu]

. And "While this study was done with white children" is what makes the study disingenuous...while paternal/maternal awareness is usually instinctive in mammals, allowing them to be aware of practices and nuances of male v. Female traditional roles in caregiving

Normally, children's cognitive skills are able to easily distinguish that if they are 3 yrs old and being taken out into society...and can clearly tell who they are around vs. The type of people they are not usually around.

on top of that ...the opening statement about racial stereotypes being found in all human populations. no basis for that statement and how we perceive race nowadays is a very recent phenomenon in the scope of human history. "Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes." GTFOHWTBS

 

[p-tavern]

on top of that ...the opening statement about racial stereotypes being found in all human populations. no basis for that statement and how we perceive race nowadays is a very recent phenomenon in the scope of human history. "Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes." GTFOHWTBS

A lot of that article was baseless. I just checked the site itself and one of top stories is about the discovery of Yeti nests in Russia, so I guess this shouldn't be considered a credible source of information in the first place.

 

[judahxulu]

A lot of that article was baseless. I just checked the site itself and one of top stories is about the discovery of Yeti nests in Russia, so I guess this shouldn't be considered a credible source of information in the first place.

LOL @ yeti nests...smfh...i gotta peep that site now.

 

[judahxulu]

lol..i find the headline " sexual seniors are happiest, survey finds" ...nigga duh...who needs a survey to find out fucking >>>> not fucking at ANY age?

 

[Huruma]

Their parameters for comparison of ethnic bias to gender bias are way off. Stupid article in that sense. The rest of it is somewhat interesting.

How so?

on top of that ...the opening statement about racial stereotypes being found in all human populations. no basis for that statement and how we perceive race nowadays is a very recent phenomenon in the scope of human history.

No, that's not actually true. Arab racism against Black Africans is well documented and there is evidence upon evidence that humans have an innate disposition for ethnic nepotism. Some studies have shown that altruism is actually higher in ethnically homogenous societies, I've posted two articles (one not so long ago), one about a study that showed Black Americans as having more empathy for Black American victims of Hurricane Katrina (the more they identified by race/ethnicity, the higher their empathy) and White Americans having less empathy, not just for Black Americans, but for White victims of similar catastrophes (I think this can be explained by the 'fact' that in our modern, 'politically correct' North American society, Whites are less likely to identify by race or ethnicity and more likely to identify as 'just human' or 'just American/Canadian') and the other study showed that people injected with the 'love hormone' oxytocin were more likely to favor ethnic in-group members over out-group members (although they weren't any more likely to display ethnic prejudice, xenophobia or any racially/ethnically based negative feelings). If not consciously, animals tend to favor those who are more genetically similar to them because kin-based altruism increases the chance of more of your genes surviving another generation, this is why family and ethnic nepotism was favored by natural selection. In fact, a study on the genetic heritage of Ashkenazi Jews showed that any two random Jewish participants were genetically equivalent to fourth or fifth cousins (Scottish couples in the UK are typically equivalent to 6th cousins, apparently).

I'm too lazy to respond to the rest (it's over, p-tavern,). Ethnicity and race aren't the only factors that play a role in how humans view and treat other humans and of course people can overcome their innate tendency for ethnic nepotism but I think the evidence for an innate human disposition for ethnic nepotism is too strong to ignore. Every society has a history of, if not ethnic conflict with other groups, showing a preference for one's own group.

"Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes." GTFOHWTBS

It's not at all far fetched, I have no idea why you think this is baseless.

 

[judahxulu]

How so?

No, that's not actually true. Arab racism against Black Africans is well documented and there is evidence upon evidence that humans have an innate disposition for ethnic nepotism. Some studies have shown that altruism is actually higher in ethnically homogenous societies, I've posted two articles (one not so long ago), one about a study that showed Black Americans as having more empathy for Black American victims of Hurricane Katrina (the more they identified by race/ethnicity, the higher their empathy) and White Americans having less empathy, not just for Black Americans, but for White victims of similar catastrophes (I think this can be explained by the 'fact' that in our modern, 'politically correct' North American society, Whites are less likely to identify by race or ethnicity and more as 'just human' or 'just American/Canadian') and the other study showed that people injected with the 'love hormone' oxytocin were more likely to favor ethnic in-group members over out-group members (although they weren't any more likely to display ethnic prejudice, xenophobia or any racially/ethnically based negative feelings). If not consciously, animals tend to favor those who are more genetically similar to them because kin-based altruism increases the chance of more of your genes surviving another generation, this is why family and ethnic nepotism was favored by natural selection. In fact, a study on the genetic heritage of Ashkenazi Jews showed that any two random Jewish participants were genetically equivalent to fourth or fifth cousins (Scottish couples in the UK are typically equivalent to 6th cousins, apparently).

I'm too lazy to respond to the rest (it's over, p-tavern,). Ethnicity and race aren't the only factors that play a role in how humans view and treat other humans and of course people can overcome their innate tendency for ethnic nepotism but I think the evidence for an innate human disposition for ethnic nepotism is too strong to ignore. Every society has a history of, if not ethnic conflict with other groups, than a preference for one's own.

It's not at all far fetched, I have no idea why you think this is baseless.

First of all you said in contention to my assertion that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon "Arab racism against Black Africans is well documented...". How recently did arabs even come in contact with africans?? c'mon son. its dummies on here who are only educated via google and youtube, but i aint one of them. i read. yoou made the statement about the arabs and then said a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with what i said. like i said that shit is baseless. saying it is not far-fetched is not providing a basis nor is going of on a tangent preceded by a flawed and inaccurate premise. i aint got no problem with you but you honestly have a tendecy to be a smart dumb nigga sometimes.

you really need to start using BOTH hemispheres of your brain.

 

[Huruma]

First of all you said in contention to my assertion that racism is a relatively recent phenomenon "Arab racism against Black Africans is well documented...". How recently did arabs even come in contact with africans??

While it peaked during the 19th century, Arabs purchasing and enslaving Black Africans has been going on since the 8th century. In the first 2-3 centuries of Islam, White slaves were better treated by Arabs than Black slaves were because they were thought of as 'refined' and less barbaric.

"Blacks are ugly and misshapen because they live in a hot country."

-Ibn Qutayba (828-89 A.D.)

"Inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries are people distant from the standards of humanity,,, their nature is that of wild animals...."- Persian geographer Hudud al-`alam, 982 AD

Arabs (and Persians) have had contact with Black African cultures long before Europeans knew that Africa existed and long before they 'invented' the concept of 'race'.

c'mon son. its dummies on here who are only educated via google and youtube, but i aint one of them. i read.

Don't worry about where I get my information from. Just disprove my claims if you think that they're wrong.

yoou made the statement about the arabs and then said a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with what i said. like i said that shit is baseless. saying it is not far-fetched is not providing a basis nor is going of on a tangent preceded by a flawed and inaccurate premise.

You balked at the idea of there not having been any known civilization where the people did not have any kind of racial or ethnic bias, I mentioned the Arab history of racism against Africans and the studies about ethnic nepotism and the correlation between empathy and in/out-group membership to show that these claims are not baseless. The theory of kinship selection, popularized by W.D Hamilton but first introduced by Darwin himself, states that social animals typically have a preference (even if they don't consciously value kinship or blood relations) for behaving altruistically toward genetically similar animals over more distantly related animals and this is generally accepted among modern biologists (although competition exists more within species than outside, I'm sure). Europeans did not invent ethnic bias, conflict or favoritism, these are the default positions in pretty much every human culture and, on the contrary, it's only until relatively recently in history that we've really come to think of ourselves as 'just human' and view both identifying with and giving equal consideration to all members of the species as virtuous. Whether we should or not, your claim that the article's claim that there has never been any civilization without ethnic (you said 'racial' but similar idea) bias is baseless was baseless.

i aint got no problem with you but you honestly have a tendecy to be a smart dumb nigga sometimes.

That's fine, I have no problem with you either. Disprove my argument or don't.

you really need to start using BOTH hemispheres of your brain.

Right.

LONDON, Ontario -- A paper showing a strong genetic contribution to patriotism and in-group loyalty was published in the October issue of Nations and Nationalism, 11, 489-507, entitled "Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology, and genetic similarity theory."

Co-ethnics are as similar to each other as half-siblings when compared to all the genetic variation in the world. Two-random English people are the equivalent of 1/32 cousin by comparison with Germans; 3/8 cousin by comparison with people from the Near East; � cousin by comparison with people from India; half-siblings by comparison with people from China; and like full-sibs compared with people from Africa.

The pull of genetic similarity was also found to be fine-tuned, operating within marriages, within friendships, and among acquaintances--and even within families following bereavement.

Studies of adoptees and also of identical and fraternal twins show the preferences for similarity is substantially heritable.

"Likeness leads to liking," said the study's author, J. Philippe Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario. "People have a need to identify and be with others like themselves ('their own kind'). It is a powerful force in human affairs."

Rushton anchored the human preference for similarity in the evolutionary psychology of altruism, which suggests that favoritism toward kin and similar others evolved to help replicate shared genes. In-group loyalty is almost always seen as a virtue and extension of family loyalty. This explains why ethnic remarks are so easily taken as "fighting words."

The paper described the group-identification processes as innate--part of the evolved machinery of the human mind. Even very young children make in-group/out-group distinctions about race and ethnicity in the absence of social learning.

"Other than through evolution it is difficult to explain why people group themselves and others using social categories and why these categories assume such powerful emotional and evaluative overtones (including guilt, empathy, self-esteem, relief at securing a group identity, and distress at losing it)."

The politics of ethnic identity are increasingly replacing the politics of class as the major threat to the stability of nations.

Although social scientists and historians have been quick to condemn the extent to which political leaders or would-be leaders have been able to manipulate ethnic identity, the question they never ask, let alone attempt to answer is, "Why is it always so easy?"

The answer lies in the fact that the aggregate of genes people share with their fellow ethnics dwarfs those they share with their extended families. Rather than being a mere poor relation of family nepotism, ethnic nepotism is virtually a proxy for it.

http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-10/cdri-lto103105.html

 

[judahxulu]

While it peaked during the 19th century, Arabs purchasing and enslaving Black Africans has been going on since the 8th century. In the first 2-3 centuries of Islam, White slaves were better treated by Arabs than Black slaves were because they were thought of as 'refined' and less barbaric.

"Blacks are ugly and misshapen because they live in a hot country."

-Ibn Qutayba (828-89 A.D.)

"Inhabitants of sub-Saharan African countries are people distant from the standards of humanity,,, their nature is that of wild animals...."- Persian geographer Hudud al-`alam, 982 AD

Arabs (and Persians) have had contact with Black African cultures long before Europeans knew that Africa existed and long before they 'invented' the concept of 'race'.

Don't worry about where I get my information from. Just disprove my claims if you think that they're wrong.

You balked at the idea of there not having been any known civilization where the people did not have any kind of racial or ethnic bias, I mentioned the Arab history of racism against Africans and the studies about ethnic nepotism and the correlation between empathy and in/out-group membership to show that these claims are not baseless. The theory of kinship selection, popularized by W.D Hamilton but first introduced by Darwin himself, states that social animals typically have a preference (even if they don't consciously value kinship or blood relations) for behaving altruistically toward genetically similar animals over more distantly related animals and this is generally accepted among modern biologists (although competition exists more within species than outside, I'm sure). Europeans did not invent ethnic bias, conflict or favoritism, these are the default positions in pretty much every human culture and, on the contrary, it's only until relatively recently in history that we've really come to think of ourselves as 'just human' and view both identifying with and giving equal consideration to all members of the species as virtuous. Whether we should or not, your claim that the article's claim that there has never been any civilization without ethnic (you said 'racial' but similar idea) bias is baseless was baseless.

That's fine, I have no problem with you either. Disprove my argument or don't.

Right.

http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-10/cdri-lto103105.html

this is what i mean by smart dumb nigga shit..you are saying disprove your argument BUT YOU HAVENT PROVEN the statement i said was baseless. was ALL THE WORLD arabs in the 8th century? is the 8th century recent according to how long we have records of human civilization? by what means did the author use to measure the ethnic or racial bias in ALL human civilizations and where are the references??

there is nothing to disprove. you cant disprove rhetoric, only agree or disagree.

 

[judahxulu]

this is what i mean by smart dumb nigga shit..you are saying disprove your argument BUT YOU HAVENT PROVEN the statement i said was baseless. was ALL THE WORLD arabs in the 8th century? is the 8th century recent according to how long we have records of human civilization? by what means did the author use to measure the ethnic or racial bias in ALL human civilizations and where are the references??

there is nothing to disprove. you cant disprove rhetoric, only agree or disagree.

and btw im pretty sure the original arabic did not refer to africans as "black" as that is an extremely recent label.

 

[Huruma]

and btw im pretty sure the original arabic did not refer to africans as "black" as that is an extremely recent label.

It's called a translation, dumb ass. I'm pretty sure the original Arabic did not refer to people as 'humans'.

'Zanj' and 'Sudan' both refer to Black people or the land of the Blacks in Arabic (and not just the actual color, which is 'aswad').

this is what i mean by smart dumb nigga shit..you are saying disprove your argument BUT YOU HAVENT PROVEN the statement i said was baseless. was ALL THE WORLD arabs in the 8th century? is the 8th century recent according to how long we have records of human civilization? by what means did the author use to measure the ethnic or racial bias in ALL human civilizations and where are the references??

there is nothing to disprove. you cant disprove rhetoric, only agree or disagree.

What I was trying to do is provide evidence for a biological basis to ethnic nepotism which gives credibility to the statement that no *known* civilization has been without ethnic or racial bias.

Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes.

Considering how much evidence there is, why do you still think the onus is on me to prove that every known culture has traditionally valued in-group loyalty and favoritism. The evidence is all around you, we separate ourselves with arbitrary, man made borders, root for our favorite sports teams, etc., of course this is going to extend to phenotype and shared cultural heritage.

 

[judahxulu]

It's called a translation, dumb ass. I'm pretty sure the original Arabic did not refer to people as 'humans'.

'Zanj' and 'Sudan' both refer to Black people or the land of the Blacks in Arabic (and not just the actual color, which is 'aswad').

What I was trying to do is provide evidence for a biological basis to ethnic nepotism which gives credibility to the statement that no *known* civilization has been without ethnic or racial bias.

Considering how much evidence there is, why do you still think the onus is on me to prove that every known culture has traditionally valued in-group loyalty and favoritism. The evidence is all around you, we separate ourselves with arbitrary, man made borders, root for our favorite sports teams, etc., of course this is going to extend to phenotype and shared cultural heritage.

then why didnt it say sudan or zanj then, dumbass? the word black in reference to ethnicity or race has a cultural context which is NOT arabic. and there is an arabic word for human..

and you keep dancing around talking stupid shit about "how much evidence" there is etc. what fucking evidence? you dont even have to explain it. copy and paste some shit ( as you usually do on some pseudo-intellectual poser shit) or a link. something other than talking about some kind of general evidence. the evidence around me you cited, is once again rhetoric. who made this fact? you? who the fuck are you? did you do the legwork to make such a definitive statement? moreover, how did we jump from ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS (of all time by inference) to the human population around "us" in THIS time? lol....nigga just give it up. aint nobody compiled a body of data from studying ALL THE WORLDS HUMAN POPULATIONS of ALL TIME to qualify that goddamn statement. on top of that its arrogant as fuck and an indicator of the stupidity of western thought ( and you) that you can gauge ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS OF ALL TIME by your little ass experience around you in this day. nigga you lack common sense....

 

[Huruma]

then why didnt it say sudan or zanj then, dumbass? the word black in reference to ethnicity or race has a cultural context which is NOT arabic. and there is an arabic word for human..

The quotations are a translation of Arabic (and Persian) into English. Of course Arabs and Persians didn't refer to 'ancient' Africans as 'Black' because 'black' is an English word. Notice that the Persian word for 'humanity' was not used in the quote either even though 'humanity' was used in the translation and the Persian quoted did not himself use the English word 'humanity' since he didn't speak English. Arabs did, however, think of Africans as belonging to a separate biological group and they used terms in their own language to refer to us, terms which translate into what we would call 'Black' (in reference to people, not just the actual color).

and you keep dancing around talking stupid shit about "how much evidence" there is etc. what fucking evidence? you dont even have to explain it. copy and paste some shit ( as you usually do on some pseudo-intellectual poser shit) or a link. something other than talking about some kind of general evidence. the evidence around me you cited, is once again rhetoric. who made this fact? you? who the fuck are you? did you do the legwork to make such a definitive statement? moreover, how did we jump from ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS (of all time by inference) to the human population around "us" in THIS time? lol....nigga just give it up. aint nobody compiled a body of data from studying ALL THE WORLDS HUMAN POPULATIONS of ALL TIME to qualify that goddamn statement. on top of that its arrogant as fuck and an indicator of the stupidity of western thought ( and you) that you can gauge ALL HUMAN POPULATIONS OF ALL TIME by your little ass experience around you in this day. nigga you lack common sense....

The evidence for ethnic nepotism is not 'rheortic'. If it's not as 'concrete' as the evidence for gravity, that's just the nature of psychology, we can't directly observe human consciousness but we can directly observe that humans and other animals tend to behave more altruistically towards genetically similar people. I even gave you a fucking link. Read about it yourself, from google, an actual book, or whatever, you can find the info. The point is, the much supported idea of ethnic nepotism gives credibility to the idea that people of all known civilizations have some kind of racial or ethnic bias. You claimed that this was baseless, it isn't. The article never said anything about *all* human cultures.

 

[p-tavern]

How so?

It's not at all far fetched, I have no idea why you think this is baseless.

1. To keep it as simple as possible, what constitutes a "good" or "naughty" child is very subjective in the first place. You first need to either be taught or reason for yourself what fits these terms. You then have to do the same for who the labels apply to and why. Either way, there's really too much outside influence with a child, since basically everything they know about the world is taught to them and the vast majority of children (at least here in the U.S.) don't seem to be taught critical thinking or reasoning outside of math and literary classes (both of which these children wouldn't have had exposure to at this age anyway.) Which child would play with a doll doesn't follow the same line of reasoning.The second experiment would be like if you showed a picture of an adult and a baby and asked which is more likely to drive a car. If they answered the adult 99% of the time, do they "assign roles and actions based on age," or did they simply answer a loaded question in the manner it was designed to be answered? If they asked "who's job is it to cook and clean," and compared the answers of which children had strong gender roles enforced in the household they lived against those who didn't, and still found the same correlation, I might be more apt to buy into what they are suggesting. The way they performed the experiments and made comparisons, though, was full of holes to me.

2. The reason the last part you mentioned is baseless, like much of the article, is because they didn't support it with independent research or historical evidence to back their claims of absoluteness.

 

[JadaRoss]

..............................

[video=youtube;ypIbTpnuNgg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypIbTpnuNgg&feature=related[/video]