@amerika I'm not sure, I don't think I know enough about the US to speak, either by statistics or by personal experience. From the biased internet view, US seems more "ideologist" than most countries I know, arguing a lot about principles. If the matter was what works and what not, I'd see very different political debates, more based on science and facts
In my view, it's likely hitting all fields
The need to "publish or perish" has a high cost, and much research being pushed through is cherry-picked and/or filtered.
Still, peer review and others reproducing hard-science should continually preen the knowledge base, if it works right.
🇳🇱
there is an expectation that you know certain theories and schools of though before you go onto more obscure or complex ones for sure. but that isnt dogma. Studying a thing doesnt inherently create dogma for the thing.
I study religion in some depth and while there is plenty floating around in the way of dogma when it comes to religion I have never adopted that dogma because I only study the topic, I dont adopt the faith.
I also never experienced teachers pushing too much dogma. Generally they care if you prove your point using logic and data, they dont force your conclusions. Most teachers not just accept dissenting thought they encourage it and want you to try to disprove theories, they even tend to promote projects where you attempt to do so.
the only reason scientific thought tends to align is because we have all went through the science and tried to disprove it and ultimately found we were wrong and could not.
Not sure that is a great example.. Your not talking so much about dogma or wasted careers as you are talking about observing scientific progress where competing ideas and theories are over time refined and confirmed.
@TradeMinister
I am very familiar with it. Individuals have wrong theories all the time, and thats how science is suppose to work, thats how we learn we are wrong and ultimately what is correct.
And every generation, we find out that settled science from the previous was nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
Sometimes funding can derail science and create some issues, no doubt.. A prime example of that is the whole autism vaccine nonsense where basically someone paid a bunch of money to a small minority of crooked scientists to produce a easily debunked paper. Even though the whole of the scientific community quickly rejected the paper its very existence was used as fodder by some for years to come. So yes a person with some money can certainly use psudo-science to cause some harm.
But these sorts of situations never get very far, they certainly dont pass any comprehensive peer review, and generally is not what we see from the majority of the scientific community.
Lots of areas are not explored because they are politically incorrect.
Let's look at IQ research.
There has been a great deal of research around IQ, even going so far as to investigate IQ differences among cultures we think of as different races, alot of that research is ongoing. Better IQ tests designed to be suited for tribal cultures with little contact with the outside world have been developed over the years for exactly that reason.
The issue is simply certain assertions have been made so often in the past and debunked so thuroughly, and almost always done under extreme bias, that most scientists arent going to rehash the same old nonsense unless someone actually comes up with a compelling high quality science, which is rarely the case in certain areas.
Every once in a while I come across some moron with a clearly racial bias trying to argue blacks are inherently lower IQ than whites, and every time when i give them the time and effort to review the evidence of their claim it is completely laughable the lack of evidence and the amount of bias they employed to collect it. Obviously when 99% of people arguing a particular point are always crackpots even if there is a valid point somewhere among them it isnt going to as easily get attention. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence.
Hard to say. I mean we see studies that suggest black people have genetic deficiencies other races do not all the time. for example it is well known and established science that blacks have a much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than non-blacks. Despite this effectively looking like they are genetically inferior in that regard, and thus would be something you might think couldn't get published, it tends to be free published and fairly well accepted science.
The reason such studies stand little chance of getting published isnt so much about the biases in the industry, its about the fact that we have tested the hypothesis for over a 100 years in great depth and never once have found anything to support that assertion. So naturally its not something you will see getting published unless there is some pretty solid and reproducible data, and there never is.
If I can chip my humble 50 satoshis on this, African people have way higher genetic diversity than the rest of humankind, not having experienced the bottleneck from getting out of Africa.
It's easier, therefore, to find higher diversity of problems too, and the sampling can wildly affect the results of any research. Talking about "black people" or Africans is really like putting together all the rest of humankind, papuasians, native americans, latins, australian aborigenal people etc, and say "see, they have this and that".
My main point is, we can't talk about "African people" as a group and pretend it makes sense.
This is something that until more recent genetic discovery was not well known, so a lot of studies even from a recent past have a huge bias in that sense
You can talk about any group that has something in common. For example, we say "humans do X or Y"
He never said you cant talk about africans as a group, in some respects you can.. but as he pointed out talking about africans as a group is such a huge biodiverse group that it would be like asians, indians, russians, and europeans as all one group and making generalizations about them. Sure you can get away with that some of the time, but with a group that diverse more often than not it will be far too general to be useful.
So in reality there are not three or four subspecies, there are two: sub-Saharan Africans and the recent descendants of Africans imported as livestock, and literally everyone else.
You clearly have no clue what the technical definition of sub-species is then, which is about what I'd expect from you to be honest.
Blacks don't just fail in comparison to Whites, where one could whine about slavery forever and I'm sure you would;
they fail in comparison to everyone, including Indios who were also enslaved and cruelly oppressed.
hahahah, he thinks he is high IQ... how cute. This is some first rate kruger-dunning syndrome right here.
Husky_1604165364724_DKJKWQCTHF.…
Husky_1604165423739_LUJELC8S68.…
Nah, you are far too insignificant to be comparable to them in the least. Just an insignificant, grumpy, and not too bright, racist fool, little more.
Not ad honimen when its literally true.
To quote him from earlier in the conversation " I just love it when they argue all races are identical despite obvious empirical facts like smart Negroes being about as rare as stupid North Asians."
https://freespeechextremist.com/objects/03cac52d-1632-48e3-b799-afd4cef4fe7a
Let's see, North Asian average is somewhere around 110 and African (Negroid) average is somewhere around 80-90.
@amerika @mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock
do you have a source for it? I'm not in the psychology field, so I am not very up to date with researches
It does not focus on race at all, but does show studies that human breeds perform differently on.
Just to clarify this dude (who has been excessively racist with his comments earlier in this thread) uses words like "breed" and "subspecies" in a way that is completely ignorant of the scientific definition of those terms. Apparently he things black people are a different "subspecies" from humans and now he is calling them a different "breed"... I wouldnt really trust much of what he says considering he hasnt even come to a point where he understands the most basic terminology.
Subspecies just means a different variant, like "cultivar."
I haven't even bothered to look it up, since clearly a supergenius 'Data Scientist' (whatever that is) must be right:
https://jeffreyfreeman.me/
But for communication such as it may be among us mere all-too-humans, I'm using it in exactly the same sense as 'breeds' when referring to other animals, and am henceforth mending my sinful ways by deprecating 'subspecies' and 'races' (which WTF does that even mean unless it decends from say the latin root for Spanish 'raiz', "root"[recursion warning!]) as "breeds" of humans, precisely like breeds of other animals.
"Breeds" works well too. Subdivisions of species = sub-species, no matter what we call it.
@amerika
Mate, taxonomy is complex already as it is, why go against the established names just for the sake of it?
please refer to the ICZN code, article 45 (regarding specific and subspecific nomenclature)
https://code.iczn.org/species-group-nominal-taxa-and-their-names/article-45-the-species-group/
breed is only used for domestic animals that went through selective breeding - doesn't have any taxonomic value
tribe is above the genus, many genera can be part of the same tribe, but below subfamilies.
You can use words as you prefer, just don't put your foot down on them.
In the humans afaik we don't have enough genetic diversity to talk about subspecies. Human is actually considered a subspecies by many, like Homo sapiens sapiens.
There is I think a lot of political difficulty in the field though (I study other stuff so I'm not really into it)
The most common words I've heard for the different groups are "**populations**", which in ecology means a group of individuals living int he same area, which can bring to evolve different phenotypic traits without being a different group
Consider that the Fst, that is, the genetic difference between populations, is usually higher inside than outside, ie there is more difference inside the european people, for example, than between europeans and africans.
To make it clear, I don't care how you call the groups as long as I understand and you don't sell it for scientific consensus. Race is usually used for zootechnic reasons as I said, so I'd avoid the term, just this.
You are tackling a complex scientific problem that is not resolved for any organisms, even ones where we have no political interest like many plants.
I don't have any ultimate answer
I have made no study of taxonomy and don't intend to delve into it. I have watched the term 'quantum' being so abused that I don't mind if I do borrow a taxonomic term with minor imprecision.
What is the genetic variation between breeds of dog?
Anyways it is somewhat irrelevant: we all know the phenotypes and other characteristics that correspond to the root races, breeds or whatever of humans and dogs: if genetics and epigentics can't yet differentiate Asian from Caucasian or Chihuahua from Alsatian, that is neither here nor there, as we can rest assured that before long they will.
I will predict further that there will be autosomally dominant groups of genes that produce the brutality and other undesirable behavioral traits of Negroes, which I assert are not merely a matter of low intelligence; but that is a separate question.
@TradeMinister @mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock
people who spent their entire lives studying biology: ok this is really complicated, we can't make any definitive conclusions, outside of some very narrow contexts.
laymen with agenda: hahaha, these stupid scientist don't know anything, but I figured it out, I'm gonna tell the race of every person on the planet, line em up:
nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, jew, nigger, jew, jew, nigger-jew, jew-nigger...
Scientists participated in the suppression of race and IQ studies, so no one trusts most of them.
In the meantime, looking at history, it's obvious what is afoot.
I don't worship scientists, journalists, or anyone else by category; I respect competence in individuals.
@amerika
The consensus is the only thing that matters, if your effort was genuine it would be directly at convincing said scientist and not dismissing them as biased. You clearly don't have neither the ability not desire to do so. Instead you preach some grand religious revelations to other laymen like you in hopes to exploit their ignorance. Your truth is subjective and your conduct is uncouth.
@amerika
I'm describing your behaviour I observe. Present your own words against mine, unless you are implying those of god that the chosen are aware of by nature and are beyond the comprehension of the my heathen race.
@mystik @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock
Paid hack 'scientists' also participated in the lead and tobacco coverups, are certainly participating in the climate-change coverup (huge bucks available there) and some may be working the other side also.
But real scientists are all about the work, all about the data. It at least used to be that most were like that.
@TradeMinister
Of course, you and your buddies are the only real scientist left, therefore instead of doing said work, you must recruit the ignorant for your great cause (of what exactly?), with conspirators rhetoric. You are just confirming what I said.
@mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock
FSCK! This thing is like the X.25 spec and can only have been produced by a committee of predominantly French and Germans. As with all such works, there is an unreadable tangle of verbiage conveying precious little meaning. Thank god there's a glossary:
"subspecies (sing. and pl.), n.(1) The species-group rank below species; the lowest rank at which names are regulated by the Code. (2) A taxon at the rank of subspecies."
Oh wait, that's mostly recursive verbiage also.
But it appears that subspecies (or 'infraspecies' after 1960 or some BS) means what I thought it meant.
There is also "tribe" in the glossary, which is tempting but really doesn't mean anything like it normally does.
"tribe, n.(1) A family-group rank below subfamily. (2) A taxon at the rank of tribe. Names of tribes have the suffix -INI.trinomen (pl. trinomina), n., or trinominal name"
They don't refer to Breeds at all, but I'm sure you are right. Nevertheless, I reserve the right to somewhat misuse a term if my usage would in general convey my meaning to non-specialists.
While breeds of humans were purpose-bred only by Mother Nature (and the Great Mother is among many other things a bitch), the 'races' are otherwise breeds in that they are distinct and breed true if not crossbred.
So, should we refer to eg Whites as Homo Sapiens var. Caucadiensis or...?
@amerika @mystik @manarock