Why do PC Liberals hate/deny genetics so much?

reply to post by Xaphan


This.

The thing is, OP, it's not that people are brainwashed (I could say that you are too, 9000 sides to a coin and whatnot), but it's the ethical implications we'd have to face if indeed your 'facts' are accurate. I'm no psychologist or geneticist (and barely a garden variety anthropologist) either, but I do know the difference between averages and absolutes.

Do you know what a liberal is? I'm asking you this in sincerity, because a lot of people get it confused with socialist principles. Three major tenets of textbook liberalism are freedom, meritocracy and, believe it or not, individualism. Equality, from a textbook liberal's standpoint, should be both facilitated and tempered by these ideals, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, socio-economic class, etc. So let's take your premise, put it into practice for argument's sake, and make an attempt of understanding the "PC Liberal's" unfounded hatred.

Five years after the results are publicly disclosed, governments across North America and Western Europe fall over themselves in a rush to implement new policies and programs to stratify their populations by race. These actions will affect both the education and legal sectors, as well as employment opportunities. Depending on the purported average IQ of your ethnic group, your access to certain fields of education and employment will be rather slim. If your ethnic group happens to suffer from certain behavioural abnormalities (yes, I've read articles related to race and intelligence that claim as such), you'll be targeted by racial profiling initiatives run by law enforcement, and you might not even be allowed access to "normal social environments" because you'll be a danger to yourself.

Let's say that you happen to have a considerably high IQ in general, that you've never committed a crime, that you have ambition and drive in leaps and bounds, but you happen to hail from one of the underperforming groups. To be accepted into regular school, you'll need to take standardized intelligence and personality tests at the ages of five, eleven and fourteen. Sure, that's not a problem, right? But will the state be bothered to pay for the administrators when people of your situation are so rare? Why do the "normal" kids with the IQ of 95 get to bypass it when your parents have IQs at the 130 mark?

Wanna get a nice, cushy white-collar job? Be prepared to take those tests again since everyone does anyway, but expect them to be even more rigorous due to your "unique" situation. Be prepared to get a no to your face because your interviewer's bigoted views are now somewhat justified by the state. No one's going to bother filing a discrimination lawsuit for you, buddy. You can probably forget that skilled trade job while you're at it too, so it's gonna be cleaning the "normal" people's toilets for you, unfortunately.

Let's say you manage to overcome all of these obstacles, though. You'll have people come up to you all the time, singing your praises because you're not like the "other ones". Be on guard, however, because you're held to a higher standard than even the "normal" people you're mixing with. Slip up once, and you'll be deficient like the "rest of them" all over again.

This is what liberals (real liberals anyway) would have a problem with. The tenets of true meritocracy, freedom and individualism wouldn't just be undermined, but outright denied. It's quite rich to hear conservatives talk about limited government as a conservative ideal. In the UK, the "sus laws" (suspected person laws) were used and abused by the police during the Thatcher era to stop, search and potentially arrest racial minorities. It wasn't an overtly discriminatory law, of course. But hey, institutional racism doesn't really exist, so we might as well implement it, right?

By believing that genetics has that big a say in who we are you are denying yourself the credit for who you are, we are all mature enough to make changes in our lives, we are all completely who we want to be once we make the decision to change, and even if you choose not to change then you are still making a choice to be someone.

Originally posted by LeroyBrown
By believing that genetics has that big a say in who we are you are denying yourself the credit for who you are, we are all mature enough to make changes in our lives, we are all completely who we want to be once we make the decision to change, and even if you choose not to change then you are still making a choice to be someone.

edit on 27/10/2012 by LeroyBrown because: spelling error

Yes, but some of us have the genetics to be physically stronger or more intelligent.

Some of us have bigger lungs, some of us denser bones, good teeth, softer or harder skin and different hormonal and chemical balances in our bodies.

Some of us have more faster twitch muscle fibers, so will build muscles differently according to different workout routines.

Some of us naturally have more fat cells (adapted to climate) and some of us are very naturally very lean.

Some of us different limb/torso ratios which have different strengths and weaknesses and as a result better or worse at certain sports.

Even small things like the type of ear wax we have or whether we can taste broccoli or not, our propensity for certain diseases and the way our body reacts to certain things are determined by our genomes.

We need to look at what Scientists and anthropologists say instead of following wishful, feel-good thinking where we believe in something that is how we want the world to be instead of how it is.
If we keep telling ourselves that something isn't true just because it 'offends' us......it's not going to make the truth somehow untrue.
So why follow a feel-good lie?

For instance, no matter how much I train at boxing or how much I study I won't ever be like Mike Tyson or Einstein.
Why?
Genetics
Though, despite this I will try my best and try attain my own best potential.

Human beings are animals, just like any others and the same rules apply to us as well.
Why else are some animals bred with others....?
Because they have different attributes based on their genetics.

Originally posted by Dante2117
For instance, no matter how much I train at boxing or how much I study I won't ever be like Mike Tyson or Einstein.
Why?
Genetics
Though, despite this I will try my best and try attain my own best potential.

Much more than genetics.

Tyson for example had a boxing trainer who was very kind to him and like a father figure to him. When Tyson let himself get in with creepy boxing promoters he turned into, some would say, a failure. He was never the same, and became rude and violent to his opponents more so than most boxers (which is kind of an achievement)

Every upbringing, every set of genetics, every persons unique situation is special to them. Nature and nurture, not just genetics.

If it was all genetics then some children wouldn't turn out to be failures, some wouldn't succeed against all odds, and there would be no black sheep in families.

Fact of the matter is, to a degree you're dealt your hand. Genetics shouldn't be used as an excuse any more than it should be used as a method of choosing our world leaders. As for looking at scientists say ... There is a few things in this thread that do not reflect reality.

1. What scientists are we ignoring?
2. Which backwards liberal group is ignoring reality? (because I see no correlation between political groups and these beliefs)
3. What point are actually trying to make?

It's easy to make a post about how we should follow science, ignore stupidity, etc etc ... when you're using a phantom group that doesn't exist as your bench mark.

The only thing I can take from the OP's post is that they believe David Duke etc is right and everyone else is wrong?

reply to post by Pinke

Originally posted by Pinke
It's easy to make a post about how we should follow science, ignore stupidity, etc etc ... when you're using a phantom group that doesn't exist as your bench mark.

The only thing I can take from the OP's post is that they believe David Duke etc is right and everyone else is wrong?

I think he's talking about Lynn, Rushton et al. The 'race realist' crowd. So yeah, David Duke types in white coats. XD

WHY is it that the people who have the most fear and lowest IQ, constantly look for a genetic basis for superiority?

Sure, there are genetic differences in the way some minds process data, or interests and motivations. That doesn't give an instant "superiority" because being successful and the "elusive genius" is not that simple.

I've heard this nonsense before, by looking at how many blacks go to prison. However, I notice that 90% of the police enforcement is in "urban" areas and that Crack Cocaine has a punishment ratio 25 times more severe than Cocaine -- even though there isn't that much difference. Anecdotally, I remember how my white brother from a well-to-do family got a slap on the wrist for "youthful indiscretions" and went to "treatment." Now if he were "urban" -- he'd have gotten 15 years if he was lucky, and have a record. He would never have had a tech sales force of a could hundred people. Game over.

It's not about being politically correct. It's about being polite. It's a lot better to be putting our energies towards inspiring and supporting all children, rather than coming up with origin stories for those who manage to be successful -- that merely reinforces the already successful and discourages everyone else.

What if all geniuses tended to be PC Liberals -- would you LISTEN to them then? Wouldn't that really suck for you if you were labelled the "inferior human?" So why don't you take the word of the ACTUALLY superior people (according to your premise), and stop worrying about these little differences that don't make a hill of beans if someone has opportunity, motivation and the right environment to excel? If there is a genetic difference, then people from Kenya would always win every race and nobody should bother practicing long distance running. The other factor, however, is that there's just a lot of running going on, and we have cars.

Stupid Liberal Democrats !
Always denying science.

Politically correct liberals can never address these questions. I get no answers from them. Why is that? Why can't they change their beliefs to fit the facts, rather than deny the facts that don't fit into their beliefs (aka cognitive dissonance)?

haha, you make me laugh.

Do you think all politically correct liberals have a degree in psychology?

You're asking questions that only people with degrees in psychology would really know. (Ii take this back. Half of your questions are founded on completely false premises....no one would be able to answer them rationally, because they simply aren't true.)

Plus you don't even really have a valid question. I don't see any indication/evidence that liberals hate/deny genetics. Unless you're saying, since they can't answer the questions, they therefore hate genetics? which is quite the circular logic.

I'll go ahead and answer your questions, because I DO have a degree....

1. If all our behaviors are conditioned, why was I born with a fear of heights ever since I was a toddler? Who or what conditioned me to have a fear of heights?
It's here where YOU first show your lack of understanding of science and psychology. NO ONE is saying ALL of your behaviors are conditioned. Your premise is completely invalid.
"Why was I born with a fear of heights ever since I was a toddler?" /facepalm


2. Why is there a proven correlation between race and IQ that transcends environment or upbringing? See here:
www.charlesdarwinresearch.org...
www.news-medical.net...
Could it be due to the fact that us whites selected blacks based on their physical characteristics, and killed the ones who were too smart? oh wait, it is.
There's reasons you don't talk about it.....it doesn't matter if it's true or not. You don't talk about it.
It doesn't matter what someone's IQ is anyway.....we're all still equal. YOU of all people shouldn't be judging people based on their IQ. No offense but you've shown yours is very low.

3. Why do adopted children have IQ's that are closer to that of their biological parents than of their adopted parents?
I'd like to see the studies that prove this "fact." A child adopted at the age of 10, probably will be of the same IQ as their biological parents, but a child adopted at the age of 1, should have an IQ closer to their adopted parents, when they grow up.


4. Why do fraternal twins separated at birth develop many of the same habits, personalities, choices and names, as studies show?
They only develop 50% of the traits.....this type of study is EXACTLY how they came up with the 50% number of nature/nurture. 50% of traits come from genetics, 50% from environment.
Those numbers came from fraternal twins separated at birth studies!!!!!

This last question made me laugh the hardest.

reply to post by WWu777

There're differences between the races.

Did you see that news about Michael Johnson:
www.dailymail.co.uk - Survival of the fastest: Why descendants of slaves will take the medals in the London 2012 sprint finals...

Olympic legend Michael Johnson says a ‘superior athletic gene’ in the descendants of West African slaves means black American and Caribbean sprinters will command the sport at the London Games.

The Olympic gold medallist and BBC commentator said: ‘Over the last few years, athletes of Afro- Caribbean and Afro-American descent have dominated athletics finals.

‘It’s a fact that hasn’t been discussed openly before. It’s a taboo subject in the States but it is what it is. Why shouldn’t we discuss it?’
..........

My opinion is that the environmental factors can be changed but the genetics factors are much harder to change. Thus, we should focus on helping poor nations raise their average IQ's through their environment. Keep in mind that both environment and genetics will impact IQ. If people get proper nutrition, education, parenting and whole list of other things, they generally maximize their IQ. This should be our goal. Africa, for example, has a LOT of room to grow. Focusing on the genetics aspect is just an excuse for racism since it's not as easily changed.

Keep in mind that the average IQ of african-americans in the US is not a good measure of their average IQ since the african-american population is still recovering from segregation and poverty. Imagine if the average white caucasion american was as poor as an african-american. But since white americans tend to live in more wealthy neighborhoods, they tend to have more opportunities to enrich themselves and to be their best. We KNOW that poor populations have very low college graduation rates. This may or may not be connected to IQ since success is tied to lots of things, not just IQ. I would argue that poverty stunts developing children and thus keeps their IQ low.

I've seen other studies (one of them was from the 60's and suggested that the habits of intelligent parents and access to wealth was just as important as DNA), but look here:
www.albionmonitor.com - Poverty Lowers IQ, Study Says...

..........
Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.
.........

This study shows there might not be any genetic markers for higher IQ in this case.

IMHO, we all have plusses and minuses. We're a big human family. Help each other. We can't alter some things as easily as others, so we have to focus on things that're more easily changed.

How come every night on my local news when there is a robbery or any violent crime, they are looking for "2 black males".. And they wanna take MY guns away... Pffft.


GS

reply to post by Pinke

If genetics can't be used as an excuse to give up trying for the olympics or be used to elect leaders then why can, on the same token, a person's hard efforts to succeed be used as an excuse to "relax for a few years" or as a reason to elect a leader? The only reason to elect a leader is whether they've PROVEN the ability and show a record of success. How hard someone tries does not - on its own - translate to success, nor does a person's genetics. Case in point: A bear in a business suit. The bear can try as hard as anybody has ever tried, and yet the bear will likely never be as good as another person simply because their DNA is not competitive on this level. Thus, we can see that it's force of will AND genetics that lead to success. Success is the only reliable measurement device we can use when we elect leaders or determine who can and cannot perform the needed duties. When a bear runs for office with a proven track record and leads our country, it'll be a new day for bears around the world. But until then we have to assume it's probably their DNA limiting them the most.

Am I racist against bears? Am I saying they're all genetics and hopeless? Is that prejudice?

We should not use two separate rules when judging both animals and humans. Humans ARE animals. If genetics can affect animals then they can affect humans too. PERIOD.

With humans competing against humans we can say reliably that genetics plays a role just as it does in animals, but the affect is less compared to if a bear tries to compete against humans. How large is the affect? Well, that's what people are trying to figure out. But I already stated in my previous post that since we cannot reliably change DNA yet and because we're all family, it's in our best interests to help each other and to change the things we CAN change to improve the state of this world.

AGAIN, I'll link this (for this who skip past it):
www.albionmonitor.com - Poverty Lowers IQ, Study Says...

........
Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.
........

reply to post by SinMaker

Anyone that signs on to his paradigm might as well tattoo themselves with Hitlers emblems.

Ladies and gentlemen

THERE IT IS!!!

Two pages into a genetic discussion...


GODWINED!!!!!!![/SIZE]


Judges, Tell them what they have won!

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Pinke

 

The only reason to elect a leader is whether they've PROVEN the ability and show a record of success.

You answered your own question above.

I made no dismisal of genetics influencing people. Nature = genetics in my post if you misunderstood. I simply made a case to point out that you have to take the value of the whole person, not some genetic likelyhood.

Am I racist against bears? Am I saying they're all genetics and hopeless? Is that prejudice?

The argument with bears, if I understood it, is just absurd based on my beliefs. In no way was I suggesting to ignore genetics especially not on that ridiculous level. No offense!

Here is what I said:

Every upbringing, every set of genetics, every persons unique situation is special to them. Nature and nurture, not just genetics.

A person should be taken as a sum of their parts, not on just one factor. An average person isn't their upbringing alone any more than they are their biology or skin colour alone. Even physically genetic specisms (Mike Tyson) need other people and factors to be successful.

So unless your intent was agreeing with me or there is a misunderstanding somewhere, I'm not really sure I understood your point?

No offense meant!

Hmm since it has been proved socially conservative people are not as intelligent as liberals www.livescience.com... I find it pointless to respond further to your questions as it is unlikely you possess the mental horsepower to understand what I post. I will offer one piece of advice though, if you want to quote dog studies, why not start with Pavlov? I think there is something in there for you.

Originally posted by kimish


So he's a racist because he was grand wizard of the KKK but the NBPP aren't racist even though there is documentation of them calling out to kill all white babies?

SMH.

Stop being so narrow minded.

PC will be the downfall of western civilization. Look at Detroit. Debate me on that.

I will leave with one quote that a majority of a particular race obide by and it is "It takes a village". That philosophy takes the responsability away from the parents. Add that to Low IQ and what do you have? An extremely high crime rate. (FBI statistics will back that up, again, use your search engine)

edit on 26-10-2012 by kimish because: (no reason given)

First show me where I said anything about the NBPP, or denied that they also have racists, then explain to me how the existence of one racist group, clears another racist group of decades of racism. It doesn't. David Duke and the Klan are racist, regardless of anything the NBPP does.

Saying "BUT THEY DID IT TOOOOO" didn't work in the second grade, and it doesn't work here.

The fact that you instantly assumed I'm cool with the NBPP because I don't like racists like David Duke is pretty strange, it seems like a conditioned response to me. That was a very forced assumption.

It's ironic that you tell me to stop being narrow minded, while endorse racial generalities as if everyone who belongs to a race is the same, and they are equally responsible for the behaviors of the worst people of their race, and your race has no bad or stupid people in it.

reply to post by mahatche


I was making a comparison. If you failed to recognize that then I feel sorry for you. Again, you are projecting your views with emotion, not logic.
Donka.

ETA: a race realist is different than a racist. Rushton, Lynn, Taylor, etc. all have scientific evidence and decades of studies and documents from certified individuals to back their beliefs.

Point being, Their is a difference amongst the races and if we were to acknowledge that and embrace it I guarantee that our school system would be better, crime rate would go down, etc. Because when there is an issue, you have to address it in order to fix it as opposed to putting a band-aid over it, which is what the PC crew does. Prove me wrong

Originally posted by kimish

Point being, Their is a difference amongst the races and if we were to acknowledge that and embrace it I guarantee that our school system would be better, crime rate would go down, etc. Because when there is an issue, you have to address it in order to fix it as opposed to putting a band-aid over it, which is what the PC crew does. Prove me wrong


FROM DENBY -

It is impossible to prove an absolute truth wrong. (IMO)

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Dante2117
For instance, no matter how much I train at boxing or how much I study I won't ever be like Mike Tyson or Einstein.
Why?
Genetics
Though, despite this I will try my best and try attain my own best potential.

Much more than genetics.

Tyson for example had a boxing trainer who was very kind to him and like a father figure to him. When Tyson let himself get in with creepy boxing promoters he turned into, some would say, a failure. He was never the same, and became rude and violent to his opponents more so than most boxers (which is kind of an achievement)

Every upbringing, every set of genetics, every persons unique situation is special to them. Nature and nurture, not just genetics.

If it was all genetics then some children wouldn't turn out to be failures, some wouldn't succeed against all odds, and there would be no black sheep in families.

Fact of the matter is, to a degree you're dealt your hand. Genetics shouldn't be used as an excuse any more than it should be used as a method of choosing our world leaders. As for looking at scientists say ... There is a few things in this thread that do not reflect reality.

1. What scientists are we ignoring?
2. Which backwards liberal group is ignoring reality? (because I see no correlation between political groups and these beliefs)
3. What point are actually trying to make?

It's easy to make a post about how we should follow science, ignore stupidity, etc etc ... when you're using a phantom group that doesn't exist as your bench mark.

The only thing I can take from the OP's post is that they believe David Duke etc is right and everyone else is wrong?

I used the Tyson example because at 5'10 he weighed a lean 225 pounds of muscle and was very powerfully built without using weight-training prior to going to prison. He had an excellent trainer but he also had great genetics for muscle and was extremely quick for his size with fast reflexes.
No matter how good his trainer, he also had tremendous physical traits suited to boxing and this was noted by by his first trainer who spotted him.

I also think you're over-simplifying things here.
Genetics plays a large part but it's obviously not everything, of course with hard work, training or whatever people can beat the odds etc.
But lets face, there are some people that barely even need to study and remember everything....some people that can smoke and drink till they'e 110 and have no problems.....this is because of genetics.

Some people also have an iron constitution and hardly ever get sick...why? Genetics.

reply to post by kimish


Prove you wrong? You say that there are differences among the races, and that we should embrace them. See, that's kinda vague. How do you suggest we 'embrace' them? I'm really looking forward to hearing that, because by skimming over the actual ins and outs of 'embracing' these oh-so discrete and exclusive racial differences, it sounds to me like you're implying social policy reform. In turn, that sounds like you want the state to restrict my freedom and the liberties of others based on our makeup. This is the exact same thing that people accuse the 'PC brigade' of doing: restricting individual liberties. Why should 'race realists' be allowed to get away with it?

You see, the problem with their stance is that, even with their apparently accurate data, outliers do and will still exist. In your view of utopia, what will you say to the brilliant little black girl who aspires to become an astrophysicist (someone mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson earlier, can't argue with that) but will remain undiscovered and left to have brain stifled by boring and barely rudimentary schooling?

According to your comments, some of us should have given up years ago. All of the honors programs, extracurricular activities and intellectual hobbies were for naught. For us, the only fitting occupations should be sweeping roads or scrubbing toilets. Hey, if one of us is lucky, we might get a sports scholarship, riiiiight? No? Oh well... then again, they say crime does pay. Since we weren't born with any morals, shotting crack to kids won't be problem. Not one bit.