Skeptic Project

I'd also like to refer to my running analogy once more. Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Kenyans dominate Nigerian, Sudanese, etc... in the distance fields, yet they are all ascribed one race. It is clear that the social constructs have little to do with the real developed differences within a group and more to do with the outward, relational differences. I think we should keep this in mind.

Sehr gut Herr Doktor

I'll agree with you on that last point, Falkner, but I think we still disagree on the similarity of the environments in which they evolved. I'll elaborate my argument for that later, but first, I'd like to hear what Dr. Benedict Zaroff has to say about what he posted and how he finds it idiotic since I personally find it to still be like 60% accurate today.

@Dr. Benedict: The remarkable thing about what you posted is just how intimately bound those classifications are to the philosophical schools of Europe. The "submission to law" may as well be a direct quotation from Kant's moral philosophy. I'm curious to see how these assertions were quantified at all.

There's also the context that these "scientific" approaches were used to further the socio-political endeavor of colonization. This kind of research was encouraged because it continued to justify this process.

Are you contesting that their highly subjective findings are in some way correct? These "data" points are completely unverifiable and absolutely polluted with social bias. How can any of these slanted claims be verified? We are, even today, unable to reduce personality traits to a genetic marker in any individual, much less these more than dubious, overarching claims. This is the exact problem with the history of "race science." It used primitive methods to jump beyond observation to conclusion- and only within an accepted social agenda.

There is also the dubious claims about these specific groups. Consider that "caucasian" or white is constituted by so many radically different groups that it is pitifully futile to try and find some common ground among them, much less to lay the subjective claims that "the European [is] Blonde, sanguine, muscular, alert, intelligent, innovative; submits to the rule of law." Furthermore, this carries the argument that submission to law is a good thing. The argument could run that submission to the rule of law is a sign of weakness if it refers to legislation, and a non-argument if it refers to the "laws" of human nature.

I should clarify that I am highly doubtful of such human "sciences." There is of course science which is verifiable by experiment, and none of these human sciences are. Experiments designed to try and prove these points can't isolate variables in any real way. And the points brought up by the good Doctor are further meshed with a philosophical arrogance- and frankly there is no "hard science" that can anchor itself to issues of philosophy. So yes, I think its hands down wrong.

I posted the Linne quote to demonstrate how completely asinine this pseudoscientific field is. For one, the field has already been invalidated by the existence of suburban Wiggaz.

@Falkner ... and from a Thelemic point of view, there is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

You have every right to be skeptical, Falkner. I used to be one of the most firm deniers of biological differences between races and a staunch opponent of sociobiology, but the more I've looked into the matter, the more it seems that genetics do play a very significant role in how people develop.

I've always changed my opinions when compelling evidence has convinced me to do so. I would much appreciate studies conducted by scientists that have shown the contrary to what I have argued in this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101726.html?wprss=rss_nation

This is the most recent article I've read on the matter.