...Continued

<<My premise is, that nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality to which environmental conditions can either exacerbate or mitigate the genetic programming.>>

I would agree with that, while emphasising my very first paragraph to you on this thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724) as an illustration of the difficulties in extending heritable personality traits among close family members to entire “races”, to which I will delve into a little further next…

<<Difficult babies are renowned for becoming difficult adults, and vice versa.>>

This is not what recent evidence suggests (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-infant-fussiness-idUSBRE8920T320121003). Either way, it still wouldn’t be clear whether genetics was the driving force behind the difficult adult, because you also have a spiraling situation in which a difficult baby/child exasperates parents, who are then in turn less inclined to exercise the additional patience that a difficult baby/child requires; both of which exacerbate the situation in a vicious cycle that is difficult to break. So while genetics are probably at play there somewhere, it’s likely to be far less than what you’re suggesting. More importantly though, in the face of how radically different personalities are between individuals of any group, you still have the mammoth task of explaining how these genetic factors survive with a lack of environmental pressures, and in the face of variation, mutations and junk DNA too. Your point regarding psychotic breeding males is pretty momentary and insignificant in light of the above.

<<Your position ... suggests that genetic factors in behaviour are insignificant to the environmental factors you mentioned.>>

Yes, because that’s what all the research suggests.

<<I don't think your premise stands up to examination.>>

Okay, well if you could provide me with some of this examination that it doesn’t stand up to, then I’d be interested to look at it. It couldn’t be your buffalo and bear analogy because, as even you point out: “Human behaviour is different. Both nature and nurture shape human personality.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275540)

Your leading premise was, that you "start with a null hypothesis" and "believe something when there is evidence for it". Correct me if I am wrong, but I am a racist and you are not. Both racists and non racists have "ideological positions", but I deny that mine is "dogmatic." I think that your position is dogmatic, because it is based on a contemporary absolutist orthodoxy that is so insecure about criticism of it, that it suppresses scientific research that questions it, and threatens legal sanctions on any person who dares to speak against it.

As a racist, I believe through direct observation, scientific research, and logic, that although the term "race" can be a generalised physical descriptor, but that some physical appearances are so strikingly different, that races exist in reality. As a racist, I believe that these races not only have different physical appearances, they have generalised different physical and mental capabilities as well.

If you are a non racist, then (correct me if I am wrong) your ideology must be, that all races are equal, because genetic differences are so "insignificant" that races are only a social construct based upon physical differences, so they do not exist in reality. That is hardly a "null hypothesis" to start with. And (correct me if I am wrong) if this is what you as an anti racist believe, what evidence do you have that all of these socially constructed "races" that are recognised only through physical appearances, are equal in physical capabilities and especially mental capabilities?

If you think I have misrepresented your case by presenting the widely recognised fundamental differences in ideology between racists and non racists, then please explain exactly what is your own particular "null hypothesis" non racist ideology? What does your own particular non racist ideology believe in? And by what evidence does it come to its conclusions?

Human behaviour is different, my Dear Mr Phillip, because with animals, genetic heritability of personality traits within sub species is the primary force controlling the personalities of individuals within the sub species. The only mitigating factor, is that some behaviour in animals is learned behaviour adopted from parental teaching of the young, in regards to which foods the young should consume, or how to react to threats from predators or rivals.

Humans are different, because environmental factors can be much more significant than genetics in explaining human behaviour. But at least we seem to agree (correct me if I am wrong) that both heritable genetic traits and environment both play a part in shaping human behaviour. We just disagree upon the importance that genetics plays as opposed to environmental conditioning.

You have submitted that there are "difficulties in extending heritable personality traits among close family members to entire “races". Not according to "The Bell Curve". "The Bell Curve" has used the data compiled in a hundred years of IQ testing in the USA to prove that the three identifiably different races in the USA have different bell curves of intelligence. "Intelligence" can be considered a "personality trait". Feel free to submit any scientific research which proves that the races in the USA or anywhere else have identical bell curves of intelligence. Feel free to also caste aspersions on the accuracy of IQ testing.

If we can understand that sub species of animals within species can have different heritable character traits caused by adaptation to localised environmental conditions, then the same can be said of humans. The differing levels of measured IQ between races does have an environmental explanation. Put simply, education and civilisation increases intelligence over time. Asians have a higher IQ than whites, because they have had the benefit of civilisations which have existed longer than whites. African and black people generally, have only ever lived in pre civilisation "hand to mouth" social structures where skills linked to intelligence such as forward planning, literacy, abstract thought, or numeracy, were not essential survival skills

Interesting response, LEGO. Not only do you not deny that you need me to have a rigid ideology, but you continue to try to pin one on me more conspicuously than ever before.

<<Correct me if I am wrong, but I am a racist and you are not.>>

Correct.

<<Both racists and non racists have "ideological positions"…>>

Yes, and I stated mine.

Non-racism, however, is not an ideological position any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Racism and non-racism are two logical absolutes. Racism consists of a specific set of ideas; non-racism is everything else.

<<…but I deny that mine is "dogmatic.">>

Your actions speak otherwise. The fact that you need to twist what I say to fit your particular narrative is not indicative of someone who is open to evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

<<I think that your position is dogmatic, because it is based on a contemporary absolutist orthodoxy that is so insecure about criticism of it, that it suppresses scientific research that questions it, and threatens legal sanctions on any person who dares to speak against it.>>

It matters not whether the position that I have arrived at is based on evidence gathered and compiled from an "absolutist orthodoxy", if that is the only reliable, peer-reviewed evidence available. What matters is my willingness to alter my position in the face of reliable evidence to the contrary.

You position, on the other hand, is dogmatic because of the extent to which you will go in order to avoid accepting anything that contradicts your premises (and you don’t get any 'more desperate' than persistently twisting what I say and mean). It’s not the position itself that matters, but how far we will go to defend it and avoid accepting other conclusions. But really… do I have to explain this sort of stuff to you?

As for this alleged orthodoxy, your one-sided emotional language there once again disregards the ethical issues and historically proven dangers regarding such studies. I don’t think such research should be banned necessarily, but to what end should such research be carried out?

Continued…

…Continued

You still haven’t answered this because you know that there’s no conceivable reason other than to justify racial oppression. Tolerance is one of the main reasons the world is more peaceful now than it’s ever been before and you, apparently, would jeopardise that for the chance to scientifically justify picking on certain groups.

<<…I believe through direct observation, scientific research, and logic, that although the term "race" can be a generalised physical descriptor, but that some physical appearances are so strikingly different, that races exist in reality.>>

This is a bit disjointed. So basically you’re saying that although the term “race” can be a generalised physical descriptor, the fact that some physical appearances are so strikingly different is why we can scientifically and logically conclude that races exist? Hmmm…

“Strikingly different” is a bit subjective too, dontcha think? What would you call the difference in physical appearance between humans and dogs? The fact that you need to appeal to such subjectivity is indicative of a weak argument.

<<…I believe that these races not only have different physical appearances, they have generalised different physical and mental capabilities as well.>>

You don’t even understand the psychological and sociological factors involved, and write those that you do know of off as conspiracy, so how could you possibly make this determination?

I like your next paragraph. It’s prime example of how you try to lead me down the path you need me to go by altering what I’ve said by a word or two.

<<If you are a non racist, then … your ideology must be, that all races are equal, because genetic differences are so "insignificant" that races are only a social construct based upon physical differences, so they do not exist in reality.>>

Firstly, I addressed the absurdity of applying specific traits to “non-racism” above. Secondly, even if you had said “anti-racist”, this would still be a big assumption because there is no reason why an anti-racist couldn’t acknowledge mental and criminogenic differences between “races”, but still not believe that some “races” are inferior, or should be treated as such.

Continued…

…Continued

Thirdly, I said “MORE OF a social construct” not “only”. Finally, an “ideology” is a system of beliefs and/or ideals. Not a single idea.

So no, that’s not my ideology.

<<…what evidence do you have that all of these socially constructed "races" that are recognised only through physical appearances, are equal in physical capabilities and especially mental capabilities?>>

I’ve never claimed they are. In fact, I‘ve said and suggested the opposite here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275037, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275386, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275087.

You really need me to believe this, don’t you. That’s why you’ve led me down the path to this.

In light of what I’ve pointed out regarding non-racism, your fourth paragraph gave me a bit of a chuckle. But if you want evidence for my opposition to racism, then go to your state library and check out any peer-reviewed journal article on race issues and read any sociology textbook. Each chapter will have plenty of references for you to follow. I’m not going to do the work for you.

<<Human behaviour is different, my Dear Mr Phillip, because with animals, genetic heritability of personality traits within sub species is the primary force controlling the personalities of individuals within the sub species…>>

Probably. The heritability of personalities is more profound in selectively bred animals, though, for obvious reasons.

<<Humans are different, because environmental factors can be much more significant than genetics in explaining human behaviour.>>

Correct. You’re making progress. You wouldn’t have admitted this a week ago.

<<But at least we seem to agree … that both heritable genetic traits and environment both play a part in shaping human behaviour.>>

And this so soon after trying to get me to agree with the conclusion of your third paragraph, in which you deduced that I must therefore believe that all races are mentally and physically equal, so that you could pin an ideology onto me.

<<We just disagree upon the importance that genetics plays as opposed to environmental conditioning.>>

More important is the fact that you disagree with pretty much every expert on this. What I think is of little significance.

Continued…