2 of 3
2
Europe and the United States
Posted: 20 January 2014 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

Don’t be so sure about that George. You should know enough about me by now that I’m definitely open to research. I will check out those references and any others you may suggest, although I have traveled throughout the US and I have found many culturally and racially diverse communities existing in complete harmony, including my own. Chagon’s book has me interested in the topic however. I just want to see where the research leads at this point.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Thevillageatheist - 20 January 2014 08:08 AM

Don’t be so sure about that George. You should know enough about me by now that I’m definitely open to research. I will check out those references and any others you may suggest, although I have traveled throughout the US and I have found many culturally and racially diverse communities existing in complete harmony, including my own. Chagon’s book has me interested in the topic however. I just want to see where the research leads at this point.


Cap’t Jack

Ok, HERE is one on diverse communities.

Here is another:

welfare2.jpg

Or check out White Flight, largely responsible for the dire state of places like Detroit or Cleveland.

You can also look around the world at all the so-called “religious wars,” which are in fact disputes between different groups of people living in close proximity. Or this, relationship between social spending and racial fractionalization:

welfare1.jpg

[ Edited: 20 January 2014 10:46 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

Thanks for the info and what I found most intriguing is one author’s concept of “Federated neighborhoods” existing in harmony where diverse groups form their own communities, as in late 19th Century NYC. I may add the Clark book to my reading list. The Alms book was very informative and filled in some economic gaps for me.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 08:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

It was a paper, Jack, not a book. He hasn’t published a book since the Alms. I am checking all the time!  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2014 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 20 January 2014 05:42 AM

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

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

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Lois - 20 January 2014 09:16 PM
George - 20 January 2014 05:42 AM

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 05:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6039
Joined  2009-02-26

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.

[ Edited: 21 January 2014 06:03 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 21 January 2014 05:41 AM
Lois - 20 January 2014 09:16 PM
George - 20 January 2014 05:42 AM

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 19 January 2014 02:11 PM

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Lois - 21 January 2014 10:08 AM

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. grin 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?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 21 January 2014 10:29 AM
Lois - 21 January 2014 10:08 AM

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. grin 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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Lois - 21 January 2014 10:41 AM
George - 21 January 2014 10:29 AM
Lois - 21 January 2014 10:08 AM

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. grin 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…

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2