It was a paper, Jack, not a book. He hasn’t published a book since the Alms. I am checking all the time! 
It could be a good thing (though I am not sure) if the groups (both socioeconomic and racial) mixed one with another, but they don't. Look up Gregory Clark's "social mobility" and go to Razib Khan's website to learn that racial groups don't mix all that much at all. And if you are surprised to hear that diversity is usually not a good thing, I doubt I could convince you otherwise. The proof is all around you and if you don't see it now, you probably never will.Individuals from different groups and races do eventually get together, fortunately for the continuation of the human race. Such hybridization prevents many defects caused by inbreeding. If groups stayed "pure" humans might die out. We have evidence of the results of inbreeding--for example genetic diseases are more prevalent in inbred groups (Jews, Amish, Africans, royal families, most likely close knit Muslim groups and others where marriages are arranged and tightly controlled.) Lois
It was a paper, Jack, not a book. He hasn’t published a book since the Alms. I am checking all the time!You're right. The book I was looking into is titled Social Mobility and Modernization, edited by Rotberg. Several authors contributed chapters including Clark. It focuses on the economic and historical period from the 18th through the 19th centuries. Have you heard of this book? I may get a copy just out of curiosity. It sounds interesting anyway. Cap't Jack
It could be a good thing (though I am not sure) if the groups (both socioeconomic and racial) mixed one with another, but they don't. Look up Gregory Clark's "social mobility" and go to Razib Khan's website to learn that racial groups don't mix all that much at all. And if you are surprised to hear that diversity is usually not a good thing, I doubt I could convince you otherwise. The proof is all around you and if you don't see it now, you probably never will.Individuals from different groups and races do eventually get together, fortunately for the continuation of the human race. Such hybridization prevents many defects caused by inbreeding. If groups stayed "pure" humans might die out. We have evidence of the results of inbreeding--for example genetic diseases are more prevalent in inbred groups (Jews, Amish, Africans, royal families, most likely close knit Muslim groups and others where marriages are arranged and tightly controlled.) Lois No, they don't "get together." Some do, but most don't. No idea where you are getting this information from. And the topic here is not genetic diseases. Except for Europe and a very few other places, inbreeding is still pretty much the norm around the world. In the end, this very phenomenon might very well be what separates Europe from everyone else. Society is a bottom-up structure and biology must be that bottom. That's why trying to change culture of a given group, the top of that structure, is a futile process.
George are you not discounting the economics of racial inequalities, such as poverty in groups due to exclusion from the general economy. IOW a socially ceated condition?
In the US there was no problem with “welfare” for black people, they were mostly slaves and property of white people, ie. full employment albeit without pay and the occasional use of the whip to make them work a little faster. Today blacks are free, but except for some athletes and a few intellectual exceptions they are not considered socially equal by a great number of people in the US.
The graphs have nothing to do with racial inequalities. What it shows is that people don’t care (or care less) for people of different races. A Swede is more likely to share his wealth with a poor Swede than a white American is to share his money with a poor black American, or a white American is more likely to share his wealth with a poor white American than he is to share his money with a poor black American.
It could be a good thing (though I am not sure) if the groups (both socioeconomic and racial) mixed one with another, but they don't. Look up Gregory Clark's "social mobility" and go to Razib Khan's website to learn that racial groups don't mix all that much at all. And if you are surprised to hear that diversity is usually not a good thing, I doubt I could convince you otherwise. The proof is all around you and if you don't see it now, you probably never will.Individuals from different groups and races do eventually get together, fortunately for the continuation of the human race. Such hybridization prevents many defects caused by inbreeding. If groups stayed "pure" humans might die out. We have evidence of the results of inbreeding--for example genetic diseases are more prevalent in inbred groups (Jews, Amish, Africans, royal families, most likely close knit Muslim groups and others where marriages are arranged and tightly controlled.) Lois No, they don't "get together." Some do, but most don't. No idea where you are getting this information from. And the topic here is not genetic diseases. Except for Europe and a very few other places, inbreeding is still pretty much the norm around the world. In the end, this very phenomenon might very well be what separates Europe from everyone else. Society is a bottom-up structure and biology must be that bottom. That's why trying to change culture of a given group, the top of that structure, is a futile process. Any attempt to change or interfere with the culture of any group to say nothing of all of mankind is a futile process. Nobody is ever going to be able to change how man or society operates. We might as well take that as a given.
There are more people on both sides of the IQ bell curve in the U.S. than there are in Europe. By Europe I am referring to Western Europe. And yes, the U.S. is a lot more diverse which has never been a good thing.Every bell curve is a graph of how a population behaves or what characteristics it has. It doesn't matter how many people are in it. It's always the same--the majoity of the people will always be in the middle no matter which population you are referring to. That's what a bell curve is. It shows normal distribution and that's all it shows. There can't be more people on each side, no matter what you are trying to show. The distribution within any bell curve is always the same. Lois
Any attempt to change or interfere with the culture of any group to say nothing of all of mankind is a futile process. Nobody is ever going to be able to change how man or society operates. We might as well take that as a given.Now that you agree with me maybe I can disagree with you. :-) It's actually not completely futile at all, but it takes time, a lot of time. Change Jews' culture, and they will eventually become the smartest group of people. Accuse them of killing Christ to make sure they don't think they are equal to the Christians, allow them to charge interest so that you can do banking with them (and they with you), don't allow them to do any other job so that they are obligated to survive on banking, do the initial banking using Roman numerals to make it as difficult as possible, and in a few generations only the "fittest" (that is, the descendants of those who had what it took to survive) will, well, survive. I was never sure if what Europe did to the Jews would count as natural or artificial selection. Which one is it?
Any attempt to change or interfere with the culture of any group to say nothing of all of mankind is a futile process. Nobody is ever going to be able to change how man or society operates. We might as well take that as a given.Now that you agree with me maybe I can disagree with you. :-) It's actually not completely futile at all, but it takes time, a lot of time. Change Jews' culture, and they will eventually become the smartest group of people. Accuse them of killing Christ to make sure they don't think they are equal to the Christians, allow them to charge interest so that you can do banking with them (and they with you), don't allow them to do any other job so that they are obligated to survive on banking, do the initial banking using Roman numerals to make it as difficult as possible, and in a few generations only the "fittest" (that is, the descendants of those who had what it took to survive) will, well, survive. I was never sure if what Europe did to the Jews would count as natural or artificial selection. Which one is it? Everything that happens is "natural." If something interferes with a natural process, the response is also natural. Lois
Any attempt to change or interfere with the culture of any group to say nothing of all of mankind is a futile process. Nobody is ever going to be able to change how man or society operates. We might as well take that as a given.Now that you agree with me maybe I can disagree with you. :-) It's actually not completely futile at all, but it takes time, a lot of time. Change Jews' culture, and they will eventually become the smartest group of people. Accuse them of killing Christ to make sure they don't think they are equal to the Christians, allow them to charge interest so that you can do banking with them (and they with you), don't allow them to do any other job so that they are obligated to survive on banking, do the initial banking using Roman numerals to make it as difficult as possible, and in a few generations only the "fittest" (that is, the descendants of those who had what it took to survive) will, well, survive. I was never sure if what Europe did to the Jews would count as natural or artificial selection. Which one is it? Everything that happens is "natural." If something interferes with a natural process, the response is also natural. Lois I think I agree. I was never a big fan of the term "artificial" selection. And one more thing...maybe we could actually help the third world countries to move towards prosperity. If I am right and inbreeding is one of the major problems, let's tell them. According to Scott Atran, kids all over the world admire American action-movies heroes, like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, etc. Start making movies where the Schwarzeneggers and Stallones not only kick ass, but also refuse to marry their cousins. Also, these days when there are Facebook and YouTube, setting the trend should be a lot easier than ever before. Facebook is already planning to get most of the world online...
There are more people on both sides of the IQ bell curve in the U.S. than there are in Europe. By Europe I am referring to Western Europe. And yes, the U.S. is a lot more diverse which has never been a good thing.Every bell curve is a graph of how a population behaves or what characteristics it has. It doesn't matter how many people are in it. It's always the same--the majoity of the people will always be in the middle no matter which population you are referring to. That's what a bell curve is. It shows normal distribution and that's all it shows. There can't be more people on each side, no matter what you are trying to show. The distribution within any bell curve is always the same. Lois Yes, the majority will always be in the middle, but that doesn't imply the bell will be shaped the same way in all occasions. Some bell curves will be taller and narrower than others and their centre will fall in different places on the spectrum.
The graphs have nothing to do with racial inequalities. What it shows is that people don't care (or care less) for people of different races. A Swede is more likely to share his wealth with a poor Swede than a white American is to share his money with a poor black American, or a white American is more likely to share his wealth with a poor white American than he is to share his money with a poor black American.Now that we are in agreement about persistent racial seperations and its resulting economic inequality, we can cite the phrase "all men are created equal" which is the fundamental principle of the United States Declaration of Independence, don't you agree?. wiki;
The quotation "All men are created equal" has been called an "immortal declaration", and "perhaps [the] single phrase" and popularized as "theory of prediction" of the United States Revolutionary period with the greatest "continuing importance".[1][2] Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence. It was thereafter quoted or incorporated into speeches by a wide array of substantial figures in American political and social life in the United States. The final form of the phrase was stylized by Benjamin Franklin.That noble concept sounds a little hollow, when you cite a Swede favors Swedes, and then compare it to White Americans favor White Amerians over Black Americans. Aren't all Americans, Americans as all Swedes are Swedes, black or white?
I think what Jefferson meant to say is that all men (except for his mistress) should have the same legal rights. Men are obviously not created equal.
I think what Jefferson meant to say is that all men (except for his mistress) should have the same legal rights. Men are obviously not created equal.I agree, but then the question arises if all the rich are more than equal to all others or if the focus has shifted from respecting legal rights to ignoring legal rights of others regardless of racial preference or ability. Examples may be found in the Halliburton Loophole to air and water regulations (and getting richer), while ignoring the legal rights of al other neighboring people, black and white alike. Is that a matter of natural inequality, or inequality in the observance and exercise of legal rights. IMO, if the current news from New Jersey about possible "quid pro quo" governance is or becomes the interpretation of legal equality, we no longer have a democracy but an autocracy and the concept of equality, legal or otherwise, becomes moot. And I am sure that the recent statistic in the rate of incarceration of black people over white people for the same offense does not speak for legal equality either.