Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Why do some current college students want to discredit higher education?

Recommended Posts

Here is another fact that i bet you soft science morons didn't know.

There are different races of cutthroat trout.

There are different races of pacific salmon.

It is a scientific term used to describe differences in divergent populations that have not got to the point where they are separate species.

 

Now I am going to be told I am sure that I am a trout racist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I'm not an expert nor do I pretend to be on the subject of race, biology, genetics etc.  My understanding is basic at best. 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln 

Guys...he said "race".  Get him!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Guys...he said "race".  Get him!

BUZZWORDS!

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Neither is half the conversation in this thread.  But they are not as smart as Lincoln or Mugtang,.

FIFY

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

It is funny and perfectly shines a light on your total lack of education and inability to discuss this issue coherently, that you think there isn't a fundamental lack of equality.

There is a small genetic group in Kenya that has dominated long distance running.   I am not at all equal to them and no other race white or black is close to equal to that population in that ability.   https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/

Only a total moron sociologist would claim that equality.

There are so many examples of this that are documented but because of political correctness and the fascist beliefs of people with like ignorance of sociologists, these things have to be studied in secret or ignored for fear of being called a racist.

It is the ignorance of smlwrckr that leads to fascist hitler science.  Things cannot be discussed in the open because journalists, lawyers, teachers and sociologists among other soft scientists cannot deal with biological facts.  Their education has left them without the tools to think clearly or determine what is political correctness babble and what is actual science.

 

That article you posted supports the points Happy and myself are making. Those runners, when categorized by race, are seen not as Kenyans but as black.

For someone who claims everyone else is not as educated as him, you should read a book. But then again, those books are written by liberal racist sociologists, so they're not worth reading.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

That article you posted supports the points Happy and myself are making. Those runners, when categorized by race, are seen not as Kenyans but as black.

For someone who claims everyone else is not as educated as him, you should read a book. But then again, those books are written by liberal racist sociologists, so they're not worth reading.

You are such an idiot, you can't even understand the topic.   The authors of that paper even refer to the problems they have describing the issues involved in discussing genetic differences among humans.   The fact that ignorant people like you are unable and actively repress actual science because of your bigotry.

You probably think all blacks are the same race.   You are such an ignorant fool.  

If anything written about sociology was ever worth reading, it was probably written by a physicist, biologist, mathematician or chemist.

Race is used discussing populations of genetically different fish, antelope, and humans among probably thousands of other examples.   The fact a sociologist like you doesn't understand science is not surprising in fact it is very predictable that you would be ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious the problem that exists here.

The term "race", for uneducated idiots like historians, sociologists, lawyers, teachers and the like is a problem.  They have all these issues from political correctness to their lack of rigor in their pursuits that they can't use words as defined.

 

For scientists who have to use specific words, understand their definitions and apply them correctly.  The term "race ",is not a problem because it has a specific meaning that is important in distinguishing generally between populations isolated genetically to some extent from the rest of their species.  Populations who have developed specific genetic differences unique or at least more common to those members.

 

It is not their fault they are stupid.  It is just the lack of rigor and seriousness in their education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna start calling blues the cooler. He's maybe the best at killing a thread by spouting off a litany of nonsense that would take more time than it's worth to engage.

This thread probably needed to die anyways. But for those of you who want to get some learning on the subject, read some history.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

It is obvious the problem that exists here.

The term "race", for uneducated idiots like historians, sociologists, lawyers, teachers and the like is a problem.  They have all these issues from political correctness to their lack of rigor in their pursuits that they can't use words as defined.

Except they are who invented the word and is their definition that pervades popular understanding.

"Races" of animals are based on taxonomic differences and animals are far more heterogeneous than humans so their differences are far more significant than ours are.

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

 

For scientists who have to use specific words, understand their definitions and apply them correctly.  The term "race ",is not a problem because it has a specific meaning that is important in distinguishing generally between populations isolated genetically to some extent from the rest of their species.  Populations who have developed specific genetic differences unique or at least more common to those members.

It is a problem because the term already used. Terms like population or ethnicity don't have problematic prior connotations.

Also humans are very homogeneous as a species compared to animals so there's a valid argument that humans, if looked through the lens of biology, aren't different enough to separate into races like animals are.

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

It is not their fault they are stupid.  It is just the lack of rigor and seriousness in their education.

 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, happycamper said:

Except they are who invented the word and is their definition that pervades popular understanding.  There are all kinds of words that are used in science that have different meanings in common use.  The only reason this one is an issue is because of political correctness.

"Races" of animals are based on taxonomic differences and animals are far more heterogeneous than humans so their differences are far more significant than ours are.  Wrong.

It is a problem because the term already used. Terms like population or ethnicity don't have problematic prior connotations.    No again the only thing that is problematic is the ignorance of soft science and political correctness.

Also humans are very homogeneous as a species compared to animals so there's a valid argument that humans, if looked through the lens of biology, aren't different enough to separate into races like animals are.

 

Not true especially when compared to ocean going animals including large mammals.   Humans are far from being the most homogeneous species genetically.  There are still breeding populations of humans all over the world that are isolated genetically.   Not to mention it has only been about  7000 - 10000 years of time where there has been any kind of significant interbreeding even on continents not separated by oceans

You are making an inaccurate assumption again based on political correctness and ignorance.   In fact it is difficult to think of a large mammal species that is as heterogeneous as humans.  Everyone of the large mammal species from euro rat on up is more homogeneous than humans.   Cheetah is probably the most homogenous land mammal and Blue whales might be the most homogeneous mammal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick here. I appreciate that you have and can use the internet. But you could apply that definition to any of the social sciences, all of which ask different questions and use different methodologies. I, in fact, study human social relationships and institutions, and I'm not a sociologist. In fact, I think sociology kinda sucks. My wife also studies human social relationships and institutions. She thinks sociology is antithetical to human progress. 

Again, you should learn a little more about a field before making blanket statements about its value.

Bruh you said gender studies is not under the umbrella of sociology, despite it being considered so by a very good institution.  Sounds like we are arguing over minutia.  Given what you said you do, I would agree you are not a sociologist.  Seems the discontent might be in what you consider an institution and what I do.  

Feel free to educate me.  @youngrebelfan40 has educated me a lot on certain issues and can testify I am open to it.  I know it is you doing me favor, so thanks.  If I push back do not get offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Bruh you said gender studies is not under the umbrella of sociology, despite it being considered so by a very good institution.  Sounds like we are arguing over minutia.  Given what you said you do, I would agree you are not a sociologist.  Seems the discontent might be in what you consider an institution and what I do.  

Feel free to educate me.  @youngrebelfan40 has educated me a lot on certain issues and can testify I am open to it.  I know it is you doing me favor, so thanks.  If I push back do not get offended.

Just because you can study gender in sociology doesn't mean that gender studies is under the umbrella of sociology.  There are some "gender studies" programs that are part of what are known as "area studies" programs (critical race, gender, queer, african american, asian, etc). but those programs are actually interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary programs or groups, where you'll have sociologists, anthropologists, behavioral psychologists, philosophers, historians, critical theorists, literature scholars, etc. whose scholarship includes that focus. Often, the professors in the gender studies program will have a dual appointment to the traditional department as well. But you can study gender in any field of the social sciences or humanities.

Further, while sociology is typically defined as the study of society and/or social problems, you can say that for any of the social sciences. Sociology is often a catch-all for all the social sciences for various reasons, but it's different in the questions that are asked and the methods used. The field generally takes big-picture studies of social structures (institutions, classes, movements, concepts) and uses quantitative data like surveys and statistics. Another social science, anthropology being the closest, tends to focus more  ground-level questions relating to humans and human perspectives. They also tend to use qualitative data like ethnography. Economists and political scientists also use different methods, but often ask similar questions about institutions. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm gonna start calling blues the cooler. He's maybe the best at killing a thread by spouting off a litany of nonsense that would take more time than it's worth to engage.

This thread probably needed to die anyways. But for those of you who want to get some learning on the subject, read some history.

 

You should have got a real education.  Then you could discuss stuff with the big boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Not true especially when compared to ocean going animals including large mammals.   Humans are far from being the most homogeneous species genetically.  There are still breeding populations of humans all over the world that are isolated genetically.   Not to mention it has only been about  7000 - 10000 years of time where there has been any kind of significant interbreeding even on continents not separated by oceans

You are making an inaccurate assumption again based on political correctness and ignorance.   In fact it is difficult to think of a large mammal species that is as heterogeneous as humans.  Everyone of the large mammal species from euro rat on up is more homogeneous than humans.   Cheetah is probably the most homogenous land mammal and Blue whales might be the most homogeneous mammal.

 We're not the most homogeneous species, no, but we are more homogeneous than our closest ancestors are. Great apes are more heterogeneous than humans, with MUCH lower populations and distributions : https://www.upf.edu/cexs/news/genetica.html

It makes sense that whales are less diverse than we are, there's effectively no barrier to mixing other than culture (like with orcas). 

Your thought that "it is difficult to think of a large mammal species that is as heterogeneous as humans" is strange, blues. Especially depending on how you define "species". I mean, look at dogs. They have far more variation than humans - gaining an order of magnitude in size? or horses - having different numbers of vertebra? or deer for crying out loud? An average buck around here weights 150 lb, so about my size - but in Minnesota you can see 500 pound bucks. 500 pounds! That's Andre the Giant shit and he had acromegaly and was one of the largest humans in a species of ~5 billion when he died. By contrast you can get 70 lb bucks around Florida and in the tropics. 

My assumptions are based on the shitty pseudo-scientific work of 1800s anthropologists who wanted to create a veneer of respectability to existing cultural practices. That's what "race" for humans is based on and it's a tainted term, unfortunately. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, happycamper said:

 We're not the most homogeneous species, no, but we are more homogeneous than our closest ancestors are. Great apes are more heterogeneous than humans, with MUCH lower populations and distributions : https://www.upf.edu/cexs/news/genetica.html

It makes sense that whales are less diverse than we are, there's effectively no barrier to mixing other than culture (like with orcas). 

Your thought that "it is difficult to think of a large mammal species that is as heterogeneous as humans" is strange, blues. Especially depending on how you define "species". I mean, look at dogs. They have far more variation than humans - gaining an order of magnitude in size? or horses - having different numbers of vertebra? or deer for crying out loud? An average buck around here weights 150 lb, so about my size - but in Minnesota you can see 500 pound bucks. 500 pounds! That's Andre the Giant shit and he had acromegaly and was one of the largest humans in a species of ~5 billion when he died. By contrast you can get 70 lb bucks around Florida and in the tropics. 

My assumptions are based on the shitty pseudo-scientific work of 1800s anthropologists who wanted to create a veneer of respectability to existing cultural practices. That's what "race" for humans is based on and it's a tainted term, unfortunately. 

Since that study does not include the genetics of isolated human populations with which we have no contact it is pretty hard for them to be so definitive.  If they are averaging the huge populations of billions of people that dominate the world equally agianst the small isolated populations that number in thousands I guess you could say humans are less diverse on an average.    I have a hard time believing their claim anyway.  It is obvious though iif there were large mammals that would be more diverse genetically it would be the great apes because there are populations isolated from each other.

There are humans that weigh in excess of 800 lbs and adult humans who weigh less than 50 lbs.  

Dogs are a domesticated species artificially bred and isolated for specific traits no a very good comparison.   We could do the same thing to humans in a short period too.

There are human brains that are 5 times larger than other human brains.

There are fuegians on the tip of south America are really weird with small heads, difficulty with language and only rudimentary tool use even now.

There are isolated interbred populations of humans on islands in indonesia, in the Brazilian interior that we have little idea how they differ.

African pygmy populations are genetically diverse and extremely divergent from all other human populations, suggesting they have an ancient indigenous lineage. Their uniparental markers represent the second-most ancient divergence right after those typically found in Khoisan peoples.[19] Recent advances in genetics shed some light on the origins of the various pygmy groups. Researchers found "an early divergence of the ancestors of Pygmy hunter–gatherers and farming populations 60,000 years ago, followed by a split of the Pygmies' ancestors into the Western and Eastern Pygmy groups 20,000 years ago."[20]

New evidence suggests East and West African Pygmy children have different growth patterns. The difference between the two groups may indicate the Pygmies’ short stature did not start with their common ancestor, but instead evolved independently in adapting to similar environments, which adds support that some sets of genes related to height were advantageous in Eastern Pygmy populations, but not in Western Pygmy populations.[20][21][22]

 

To say humans are homogenous compared to other animals though is just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Since that study does not include the genetics of isolated human populations with which we have no contact it is pretty hard for them to be so definitive.  If they are averaging the huge populations of billions of people that dominate the world equally agianst the small isolated populations that number in thousands I guess you could say humans are less diverse on an average.    I have a hard time believing their claim anyway.  It is obvious though iif there were large mammals that would be more diverse genetically it would be the great apes because there are populations isolated from each other.

I'd think it would be more wolves or bears because they have such an extended range. I couldn't find anything in my brief look.

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

There are humans that weigh in excess of 800 lbs and adult humans who weigh less than 50 lbs.  

Both of those are ill, though. There aren't healthy 800 lb humans and healthy 50 lb adults. With deer it's a healthy 500 lb and a healthy 50 lb. That's nuts. 

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Dogs are a domesticated species artificially bred and isolated for specific traits no a very good comparison.   We could do the same thing to humans in a short period too.

I doubt it.

For one, it took ten thousand years to make different dog types and they breed about 10 times faster than we do. 

For another, I would not be surprised if wolves show more diversity than humans due to their huge range and isolated populations. As I said earlier I couldn't find any usable information on it in the amount of time I was willing to invest. 

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

There are human brains that are 5 times larger than other human brains.

There are fuegians on the tip of south America are really weird with small heads, difficulty with language and only rudimentary tool use even now.

That sounds interesting, could you provide a link?

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

There are isolated interbred populations of humans on islands in indonesia, in the Brazilian interior that we have little idea how they differ.

Andaman islanders? I've always been fascinated by that population. The lack of data makes them more interesting. 

30 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

African pygmy populations are genetically diverse and extremely divergent from all other human populations, suggesting they have an ancient indigenous lineage. Their uniparental markers represent the second-most ancient divergence right after those typically found in Khoisan peoples.[19] Recent advances in genetics shed some light on the origins of the various pygmy groups. Researchers found "an early divergence of the ancestors of Pygmy hunter–gatherers and farming populations 60,000 years ago, followed by a split of the Pygmies' ancestors into the Western and Eastern Pygmy groups 20,000 years ago."[20]

New evidence suggests East and West African Pygmy children have different growth patterns. The difference between the two groups may indicate the Pygmies’ short stature did not start with their common ancestor, but instead evolved independently in adapting to similar environments, which adds support that some sets of genes related to height were advantageous in Eastern Pygmy populations, but not in Western Pygmy populations.[20][21][22]

 

To say humans are homogenous compared to other animals though is just not true.

The problem with all of this ^ is that the most heterogeneous population of humankind is in Africa by far. Comparatively, the rest of the world is just a small blip of difference compared to the sub-saharan variation.

But... we categorize that very diverse population set into "black" and "brown" and that's it. If our definitions of "race" truly encompassed the genetic variation it wouldn't be crazy to have 5 or so African races and then one single "not african" race. We don't though because our races were categorized before we knew much of anything. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

The problem with all of this ^ is that the most heterogeneous population of humankind is in Africa by far. Comparatively, the rest of the world is just a small blip of difference compared to the sub-saharan variation.

But... we categorize that very diverse population set into "black" and "brown" and that's it. If our definitions of "race" truly encompassed the genetic variation it wouldn't be crazy to have 5 or so African races and then one single "not african" race. We don't though because our races were categorized before we knew much of anything. 

This is a problem of the soft sciences and ignorance.   Every scientist talking using the term to talk about race in Africa would divide race into several different divisions.   No scientist would be satisfied with calling blacks one race, that is a stupid social construct produced by the ignorance of soft science.

7 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I'd think it would be more wolves or bears because they have such an extended range. I couldn't find anything in my brief look.

 

Wolves and bears are not isolated.  The size of their range is not significant, it does not isolate populations.   Plus like many other animals their populations have been reduced so much Humans have artificially transplanted them back into old habitats which tends to homogenize genetics even more.    In Nevada 200 years ago you would have had bighorn sheep populations isolated on islands of habitat throughout the state.  The diversity would have been significant.  But because of domestic sheep and the diseases they brought in, bighorn sheep were made extinct in most of the state.   A transplant program has renewed the populations on many of these island habitats but since all the individuals came from the same populations the diversity is now gone.   This has happened over and over with many species.

12 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

For one, it took ten thousand years to make different dog types and they breed about 10 times faster than we do. 

 

A 100 years ago poodles were one of the best hunting dog species for quail, pheasant and the like.  They pointed, had great noses and were very easily trained.   Within a short period of time (20 years) the breed was destroyed by selecting for dog show criteria.   When you are selecting for existing genetics you can change a population fast.    If humans were selected for say size, you could probably reduce the average height of a male to below 5'2" in a dozen generations.  It happens fast.  Of course because of the time it takes to cycle through human generations the period would probably be 12-14 times longer than in dogs.

18 minutes ago, happycamper said:

 

That sounds interesting, could you provide a link?

 

I was reading a text on a follow up investigation to the galapagos islands a few years after darwin produced Origin of Species.   They were wrecked on Terra Del Fuego and did some work on the locals.  Who were then completely wiped out by small pox and other diseases.   It was very interesting, I will try and find a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...