Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slightly Off Topic: Ashkenazic Intelligence-disease?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Jambalaia32
    Registered User

  • Jambalaia32
    replied
    Quit Bull****tin' us.

    Originally posted by Deirwha
    I feel a certain amount of envy for someone who measures his mt matches in the thousands. I have 4 at 0 GD, low and high resolution. Within 1 I have all of 15. I am T.

    Y Chromosome not doing much more. 22 at 25 markers within 2 GD, none at 37 or 67, plus now somewhat over 50 members of the Y haplogroup clade of S29.
    Yeah,I'm Lucky,You're not. Not really. Deirwha's are always envious-just because.I only have like 2 exact matches and I haven't been raised near them,never see them,and probably ain't gonna marry one,so I don't know any of these fabulous folks either! (who says their fabulous? They could be quite horrific! ) In that case I'll be glad I never met them!
    Jambalaia32
    Registered User
    Last edited by Jambalaia32; 22 October 2008, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Deirwha
    Registered User

  • Deirwha
    replied
    speaking of off topic but triggered by this post

    I feel a certain amount of envy for someone who measures his mt matches in the thousands. I have 4 at 0 GD, low and high resolution. Within 1 I have all of 15. I am T.

    Y Chromosome not doing much more. 22 at 25 markers within 2 GD, none at 37 or 67, plus now somewhat over 50 members of the Y haplogroup clade of S29.

    Leave a comment:

  • Jambalaia32
    Registered User

  • Jambalaia32
    replied
    sMART jEWS ,sICK gENES

    I'd rather have one of the more intellectual Jobs ,myself-but maybe I'm not smart enough.....I love super intellect.Anyway I thought I had Gaucher's Disease a few months ago because I felt so freekin' weird and ill and my symptoms felt something like the description of Gaucher's I had read about in the newspaper.I looked online and all the Gaucher's places were out-of-state,.But I called one and they told me to ...I can't remember what they told me but,I was lined up for a $500 test.They do ask you if you're Jewish and does anyone else in your family have it-I'm thinking no,but I'm the only one in my family that I know that has Celiac disease as well,so I could be the first for many things.(I THINK MANY CITY PEOPLE AREN'T INBRED- THAT'S WHY THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS DON'T ALL HAVE THE SAME DISEASE,UNLIKE GROUPS THAT ARE MORE CLOSELY BRED TOGETHER,FOR WHATEVER REASON.LIKE,YOU 'ILL EXPRESS THE DISEASE GENES ,BUT NOT ALL YOUR RELATIVES, AS THEY AREN'T ALL MARRIED TO EACH OTHER.) .I postponed persuing GAUCHER'S Testing i,because I had wanted to get a general exam 1st.Months later maybe even two years later I was diagnosed with Sjogren's syndrome/disease.It where the immune system attacks moist body organs,primarily the mouth and eyes and joints,but can affect lungs,brain,muscles,kidneys,bladder,chronic fatigue and so on.I don't know if anyone actually dies from it-I hope not.

    Leave a comment:

  • Clochaire
    Registered User

  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by Clochaire
    Josh,

    Yes, social explanations tend to suit my inclinations.

    I sometimes think of how ironic it is that the long, sad history of Jewish people may have, ironically, created social conditions that prepared them well for what currently seems to be the urban, information-intensive trajectory of modern paradigm.

    Blah-blah-blah, like I know what I'm talkin' about. Just my first thoughts and impressions.
    I should be more careful. I think I meant "LITERATE" instead of "INFORMATION INTENSIVE". What kind of silly notion is 'information intensity'? There are lots of alternative methods for conveying or recording 'information'. Just that maybe they're not ultimately, over the lifespan of a culture or civilization, equally efficient.

    Leave a comment:

  • Clochaire
    Registered User

  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by josh w.
    Jack,
    Yes, the very same Jared Diamond. The U. of Utah hypotheses on Diamond's issue are worth checking out but they have not been tested yet. So far, no one has been able to rule out strictly environmental explanations for Ashkenazi achievement.
    Josh,

    Yes, social explanations tend to suit my inclinations.

    I sometimes think of how ironic it is that the long, sad history of Jewish people may have, ironically, created social conditions that prepared them well for what currently seems to be the urban, information-intensive trajectory of modern paradigm.

    Blah-blah-blah, like I know what I'm talkin' about. Just my first thoughts and impressions.

    Leave a comment:

  • josh w.
    FTDNA Customer

  • josh w.
    replied
    Jack,
    Yes, the very same Jared Diamond. The U. of Utah hypotheses on Diamond's issue are worth checking out but they have not been tested yet. So far, no one has been able to rule out strictly environmental explanations for Ashkenazi achievement. As I mentioned in a different forum, there have been some attempts to relate genes affecting brain structure to IQ, but these results have been seriously questioned on scientific grounds and no one has found a such relation to Jewish IQ.
    josh w.
    FTDNA Customer
    Last edited by josh w.; 22 September 2008, 12:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Clochaire
    Registered User

  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Denning
    because when you start thinking the result its easier to prove

    also when you dont check the sources of people

    its why there are so many matches in europe with askenazi
    \the reason is cause europeans are related to askenazis.
    where is his therory that agrees with dna. e3bs crossed no africa to spain and keltoi crossed the caucusus mts to settle europe
    the druids where ei they too crossed to britain and where the force that beat rome

    i would have to rewatch to be more specific .but why waste that time again
    I admit that I don't recall a lot of the specifics either.

    The thing that I really liked from that book, at least my impression of that book, was that Diamond always seemed to maintain a relatively unbiased approach to huge, complicated phenomena and seemed to find good criteria that would be minimally subjective in evaluating the accomplishments of various peoples.

    That's why I am shocked by the apparent implication that Diamond would find concentration of people in certain specific professions to be indicative of innate intelligence.

    I see now that this paper was supposedly written in 1994. "Guns, Germs and Steel" came out in 1998. So Diamond may have been working on both at the same time. That makes this seem even stranger to me.

    Leave a comment:

  • Jim Denning
    Registered User

  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by Clochaire
    Jim,

    I have both the book and the National Geographic DVD. I am a big fan of both.

    In what way do you feel either were way off?

    Jack

    because when you start thinking the result its easier to prove

    also when you dont check the sources of people

    its why there are so many matches in europe with askenazi
    \the reason is cause europeans are related to askenazis.
    where is his therory that agrees with dna. e3bs crossed no africa to spain and keltoi crossed the caucusus mts to settle europe
    the druids where ei they too crossed to britain and where the force that beat rome

    i would have to rewatch to be more specific .but why waste that time again

    Leave a comment:

  • Clochaire
    Registered User

  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Denning
    i saw the shows and thought he was way off base
    Jim,

    I have both the book and the National Geographic DVD. I am a big fan of both.

    In what way do you feel either were way off?

    Jack

    Leave a comment:

  • Jim Denning
    Registered User

  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by Clochaire
    I am continuing to read and evaluate. But some preliminary challenges may be in order.

    Jared Diamond? The same Jared Diamond who began "Guns, Germs and Steel" with the "Yali's Question" chapter, which seemed to question the assumed causal links between innate intelligence and participation in Western liberal democracies?

    Has he done a 180? Has he suddenly decided that intelligence can best be measured by participation in Western financial and legal institutions? Has he suddenly decided, contrary to his earlier view, that it takes no intelligence at all to survive as a small farmer at the whims of mercurial landlords and magnates, as well as the weather?

    I'll keep reading, but something doesn't smell right here. Maybe a little more clarity is in order ....


    Jack
    i saw the shows and thought he was way off base

    Leave a comment:

  • Clochaire
    Registered User

  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by Rasfarengi
    ....
    A second suggestion, wrote Dr. Jared Diamond of the University of California, Los Angeles, in a 1994 article, "is selection in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive recurrent persecution, and also to make a living by commerce, because Jews were barred from the agricultural jobs available to the non-Jewish population."....
    I am continuing to read and evaluate. But some preliminary challenges may be in order.

    Jared Diamond? The same Jared Diamond who began "Guns, Germs and Steel" with the "Yali's Question" chapter, which seemed to question the assumed causal links between innate intelligence and participation in Western liberal democracies?

    Has he done a 180? Has he suddenly decided that intelligence can best be measured by participation in Western financial and legal institutions? Has he suddenly decided, contrary to his earlier view, that it takes no intelligence at all to survive as a small farmer at the whims of mercurial landlords and magnates, as well as the weather?

    I'll keep reading, but something doesn't smell right here. Maybe a little more clarity is in order ....


    Jack

    Leave a comment:

  • rconn2
    Registered User

  • rconn2
    replied
    Originally posted by josh w.
    No one doubts that there are demonstable group differences. The issue is what factors are responsible for such differences.
    You agree there are group differences, but challenge even the weak assertion "partially due to differences in genes" by suggesting there's a paucity of evidence for a genetic basis and that environment is the determining factor.

    You seem (imho) to be squirming around a conclusion you don't want to accept. That phenotypes are based on genotypes and the influence of environment is well accepted -- except for such traits as intelligence that set off the PC sensitivity alarm. Don't twins raised independently have highly correlated IQ's? Aren't IQ tests stable from early childhood on? Oh that's right... IQ tests are biased or meaningless or whatever. Pick other intellectual traits... musical, math, chess playing ability... I have little doubt these correlate as well. We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Leave a comment:

  • josh w.
    FTDNA Customer

  • josh w.
    replied
    P.S. Herrnstein and Murrary undercut their "highly likely" position by noting that if current trends continue, racial differences (e.g. on the SAT) will disappear by mid-century. They then suggested why trends might not continue, while acknowledging that future predictions are merely guesswork-- a far less extravagant statement.
    josh w.
    FTDNA Customer
    Last edited by josh w.; 9 August 2005, 01:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • josh w.
    FTDNA Customer

  • josh w.
    replied
    My last comments since I doubt that we can resolve our differences. No one doubts that there are demonstable group differences. The issue is what factors are responsible for such differences. Herrnstein and Murrary concluded that it is highly likely that racial differences in intellectual areas are partially due to differences in genes. They failed to mention that there is a complete absence of genetic (genome) evidence that would support such a conclusion- not a single study. Some might think that the differences are so large that genetic factors must be involved. Herrnstein and Murrary failed to mention that it is not at all difficult to find differences of comparible magnitude between groups within the same race. Such differences can even be found between groups of similar haplogroup membership provided there are evident environmental differences. Examples of such research have compared European immigrants to Isreal with Near Eastern immigrants to Isreal and Northern Irish Catholics with Northern Irish Protestants. (Still think that I am politically correct) Such group differences tend to disappear with a reduction in environmental disparity.
    josh w.
    FTDNA Customer
    Last edited by josh w.; 8 August 2005, 03:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • rconn2
    Registered User

  • rconn2
    replied
    Originally posted by dentate
    Obviously no rational person would be able to argue that all humans are born with identical abilities or capacities any more than that they are all born with identical noses.
    Jeff Schweitzer
    I'm glad to hear, because dealing w/ stubborn irrationality is frustrating and disturbing. However, current PC does seek to deny group statistical differences. Like all false philosophies, there are internal contradictions. On the one hand diversity is celebrated; and also denied.

    Using your example, I'd wager E. Asian nose size is smaller on average than W. Euopean. Logic suggests there should be group statistical differences for other genetic traits as well -- regardless of difficulty defining them or their likely polygenic basis. The questions are what traits, by how much, and how groups are categorized.

    Originally posted by dentate
    The fact that "all men are created equal" is stated in the Declaration of Independence may be a statement of political correctness rather than fact,...
    Most understand that the Declaration of Independence means of equal worth to the Creator and of having equal rights. The Founders made a "self-evident" moral statement, not one regarding abilities. They believed in a meritocracy as opposed to an aristocracy.

    Originally posted by dentate
    ...but the idea that pure science unmitigated by social judgment would always serve the best interests of mankind should have died a well deserved death in the last century.
    Science is a mechanism for discovering truth. You're suggesting the search for truth be mitigated (hobbled) to serve the "best interests". I adamantly disagree. You've exposed yourself as unscientific with a seemingly responsible criticism of "pure" science as if there are degrees and gray areas. There aren't... science is what it is. Not to be offensive, but you're PC and your statement makes me cringe.

    OTOH, advocating "pure" science doesn't preclude being tactful, sensitive, and placing the best available known truth in context. But the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, should never be hidden (censored) as per our cherished First Amendment and ultimate faith in the marketplace of ideas.

    Originally posted by josh w.
    The danger is that the interested public will be exposed to Herrnstein and Murray but not to contrasting views and research.
    What danger is that? Apparantly you disagree with Herrnstein/Murray, and that's _your_ opinion. I can play devils advocate and as rightfully argue that it's dangerous to not expose the public to their views, but only contrary ones (as the PC crowd has attempted). [One reviewer wrote at the time of publication that they were wrong, and regardless, their work shouldn't have been published.]

    I think there is much truth in their book that is denied, misconstrued and drowned-out w/ irrational argument by those with an agenda.

    I'm open minded (I don't have an agenda -- I'd rather know truth than hang on to false beliefs... what's the point). But, when I question whether those who debate such topics embrace pure logic any more than "pure science", I find myself wary and cynical.

    The truth will set you free. It's a simple and powerful (self-evident) belief.

    -- rc

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X