Do you agree with race realism?

Race realism makes three assertions about the human species.

First, race is an important biological classification of humans, similar to sub species among other animals.

Second, the races differ significantly in average characteristics important to civilization. These are intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy.

Third, these differences are genetic, and have resulted from thousands of years of evolution in response to different population pressures.

 

I don't know, but the people who claim all groups within a species are necessarily the same are very ignorant about biology.
There are numerous examples in the plant world, and some in the animal world, and it is not always so clear where the line between species and sub-species actually lies.

We can look at different species of roses, which definitely have different growth habits and other physical traits, besides the obvious fact of being different colors and sizes. All these species can all interbreed and create hybrids.
Or different breeds of dogs, with different obvious behavioral tendencies.
We also see how honeybee populations have become contaminated with genes from African bee populations, and are displaying aggressive tendencies. So much so that beekeepers are having to cull their entire hive populations.

 

I don't know, I'm sort of of the opinion that "intelligence" isn't all just a single metric with a single quantifiable number; there are different types of intelligence.
Northeast Asian populations, for example, generally seem to be better with mental discipline, self-control, and rot memorization. African Americans often seem to have a peculiar sort of musical and emotional sort of intuition, and when you take a look at traditional wisdom on the African continent, it often seems to follow a very intuitive intelligence that is difficult to logically quantify, as if it comes from somewhere deeper than the conscious mind. (It doesn't seem like the type of stuff Asian cultures would have been able to come up with)
Jewish populations seem to be creative, prone to dealing with abstract concepts, and mentally forceful, all potentially very useful traits for certain fields.
There is also physical coordination, another brain area. Northern European populations tend to be more endowed with.

 

Race Realism is pseudointellectual nonsense just like in the 90s when people said the world would experience a famine, not anticipating better agricultural techniques.

Myopic conclusions by nihilists all around.

 

A person's race can usually be determined by appearance, and always by DNA analysis. It is easy to demonstrate that Ashkenazi Jews tend to be more intelligent than Orientals, who tend to be more intelligent than white Gentiles (like me), who tend to be more intelligent than Hispanics, who tend to be more intelligent than Negroes. Intelligence differences overlap between the races, but average differences are obvious to those who have had extensive experience with the various races.

With Western civilization whites have developed the most humane and advanced civilization in history. Whites are losing ground to Orientals, but not to Hispanics and Negroes.

 

Our Nazi friens are not going to like this one bit.

 

For the sake of this discussion I am defining a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. During most of history in civilized countries criminals were usually killed at the scene of the crime, they died in custody, or they were executed. The few children some of them had rarely reached adulthood. Consequently, crime genes were removed from the gene pools of civilized nations.

During most of history in civilized countries intelligent men usually became more prosperous than unintelligent men. They had usually had more children who survived to adulthood. In addition, living in a cold climate requires the intelligence to survive the winter months.

This is why whites and Orientals have higher IQ averages and lower crime rates than the other races.

 

I voted no. I think its true that different ethnic backgrounds tend to have different genetic characteristics, but I don't think they're significant. Kenyans tend to run a little faster than Asians, and Asians tend to be a little better at math. But the difference is not meaningful in any real-world scenario. An Asian can still become a better runner than most Kenyans and a Kenyan can still be better at math than most Asians, if they both apply themselves adequately to the skill. Culture, however, does play a meaningful and significant role, as it often prioritizes which skills and values are more or less important for the individual to develope.

 

There are definitely differences in intelligence between breeds of animals (border collies and Afghan hounds for example) so to extend this reality to humans is not unreasonable but I think it’s more helpful to think of performance at tasks in determining human worth.
Race neutral hiring and firing depending on the ability to do the assigned job task would be one example.
And as long as affirmative action and minority set asides still classify by race then race is certainly not an artificial social construct as observed from government agencies and social mores.

 

I disagree that "race" as it is commonly defined should be considered equivalent to subspecies. Though it's highly debatable (and debated), I feel you could theoretically divide humans in to subspecies but I'm not convinced those formal genetic divisions would follow all of the racial patterns many people would (like to) assume. Put bluntly, skin colour isn't the be-all and end-all.

Not significantly I'd say. There are certainly variations between declared "racial" groups (though that will depend on how you choose to define them of course) but there is at least as much variation within groups than between them on average and a lot of social and cultural influence which isn't directly a function of genetics or race.

 

There is fast twitch response in excellent sprinters’ muscles that cannot be achieved by simply being devoted to the sport and there are some people who simply do not have what it takes to complete medical school or succeed in advanced physics even though they are passionate about being a doctor or a theoretical physicist. I say let the university system and private business sort out the wheat from the chaff without quota systems. That serves no one.

 

I do agree that quota systems are bad. Businesses that don't hire the best people for the position aren't going to do well.

 

I think figuring out that definition of 'race', that works for the purposes he hopes, may take this OP writer a very very long time to bring to this table. This thread may just wither while we wait.

 

When I go to the doctor, I want the best doctor especially if it’s a surgeon.

I shouldn’t need to worry about whether he or she was allowed to graduate due to them being part of a protected group.

But I have reason to worry about this.

 

I agree more than I disagree... let's put it that way.

Geneticists have known for many decades that there are significant differences between the three main groups within the human race -- Caucasian, Oriental (East-Asian), and Negroid. Some of the latest research argues that there are actually two identifiable additional separate races -- "Amerindian" (American Indian), and Australian Aborigines.

Very interesting are the latest research results that reveal the racial group with the highest intelligence overall is the EAST-ASIAN race, and not the "White" Caucasian race! Link: https://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-Inheritance-Genes-Human-History/dp/1594204462

 

A race is a sub set of the human species with common ancestors that can be determined by DNA analysis.

 

Despite the taboos and sanctions against looking for them, genes for intelligence and criminal behavior are being discovered. It is also being discovered that they are more frequently found in some races than in others.

 

define 'subset' so that Irish, Scandinavian and Hausa- Fulani is not a subset, but black and Caucasian are.

 

Probably true. But how is that information useful? Judging people by their genetics is not conducive to individual liberty and self determination.

 

Is it a slightly different case when it comes to immigration?

Because there you are not talking about the individual liberty of the persons in your country.

 

No.

As far as legal immigration goes, I think some cultures deserve preference over others based on how similar their core values are with ours and thus how likely they will be to adapt, integrate and prosper. Those cultures are only ethnically similar by coincidense. All of them will have some ethnic minorities in them whom should not have different consideration than others of their culture.

As far as illegal immigration goes, well I don't want Swiss or Hungarian illegal immigrants here any more than I want Columbian or Chinese illegal immigrants. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.