Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Can anyone name even one single benefit to diversity? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Jim Raynor[/m] at 9:11 am on June 28, 2012[quote][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Esu8wYWOo[/youtube] inb4 "TheTruePooka is a gold grubbing kike" I know you want to say it.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post kidd rune Posted at 11:05 pm on June 26, 2012 Can you think of one benefit to having a multi-racial nation as opposed to each racial/ethnic group having its own living space and government?

Replies kidd rune Posted at 4:05 pm on July 9, 2012 Actually, there is very little genetic diversity among dogs due to intense artificial selection and the reason that humans have a low amount of genetic diversity is because of a geologically recent bottleneck. A Fst value of 0.16 is quite low. 0.16 isn't low, these are qualitative guidelines suggested by Sewall Wright for interpreting FST: "The range 0 to 0.05 may be considered as indicating little genetic differentiation. The range 0.05 to 0.15 indicates moderate genetic differentiation. The range 0.15 to 0.25 indicates great genetic differentiation. Values of FST above 0.25 indicate very great genetic differentiation." Borderline moderate-great is not "low" Also, there is more genetic diversity within human groups than within dog breeds. This means that your analogy is flawed No it doesn't, it simply means that human populations aren't as inbred and humans are very genetically diverse. Hence why race mixing doesn't really produce hybrid vigor, and this doesn't weaken the argument of genetic incompatibility either. A 250% increase is very low since the prior risk of heart attack is low to begin with. The point is that, due to race mixing, it increases the Black risk by 250% but only 16% for populations that have co-evolved genes to counteract it. It's definitely not a good thing at all. And heart disease is the #1 cause of death in America IIRC, if not then it's #2; prior risk is definitely not low... I tricked you into a contradiction it seems. If you think human populations are very heterozygous, then of course there cannot be the case that there exists genetically distinct populations that could reasonably be called "races". That's not a trick at all, races don't have to be inbred to be distinct. The fact is that there is a wide variety of variation in the human species and this, if anything, supports the notion of races. In fact, the genetic distance between Whites and Blacks is 2x larger than the distance between chimps and bonobos. The genetic distance between Whites and Blacks is also larger than the distance between humans and neanderthals as well as humans and homo erectus. So to suggest the races do not exist is absurd, one could easily make the argument that they are different species! Furthermore, racial groups match different genetic profiles with very high accuracy - over 99% of people tested in some studies have been grouped into the correct racial group based solely on genetic markers. So you are left with a decision. Either there are distinct genetic human populations, in which case hybrid vigor is an excellent counterargument, or human populations are very heterozygous, in which case the notion of distinct genetic populations among humans cannot be maintained. Those aren't the only two options. Hybrid vigor is essentially heterozygosity, yet humans are highly heterozygous anyway so it doesn't really make a difference. Also, mixed children have more health problems than single-race children, and race mixing also causes higher rates of spontaneous abortions for males. One only needs to look at Haldane's rule. Although Black-White mixtures aren't sterile, they still apply because they have higher rates of spontaneous abortions. See this: http://tinyurl.com/7pkhvch According to Haldane's rule, "when in the offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterogametic [XY] sex." - ergo, the higher rate of female births basically proves the fact that Blacks and Whites are genetically distinct enough to apply to this rule. As for no distinct human populations, this is inconsistent with genetic profiles: http://golivewire.com/forums/peer-ytyypnp-support-a.html Moridin Posted at 2:48 pm on July 9, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 12:22 am on July 10, 2012 FST for humans is around 0.155 which is about the same as dogs at 0.154. And look at the diversity of dog breeds! Actually, there is very little genetic diversity among dogs due to intense artificial selection and the reason that humans have a low amount of genetic diversity is because of a geologically recent bottleneck. A Fst value of 0.16 is quite low. Also, there is more genetic diversity within human groups than within dog breeds. This means that your analogy is flawed. A 250% increase is very low since the prior risk of heart attack is low to begin with. I tricked you into a contradiction it seems. If you think human populations are very heterozygous, then of course there cannot be the case that there exists genetically distinct populations that could reasonably be called "races". So you are left with a decision. Either there are distinct genetic human populations, in which case hybrid vigor is an excellent counterargument, or human populations are very heterozygous, in which case the notion of distinct genetic populations among humans cannot be maintained. kidd rune Posted at 2:22 pm on July 9, 2012 You can't just ignore my arguments because you don't like them: http://golivewire.com/forums/peer-eonyepy-support-a.html That is only relevant when populations are far from each other. The fixation index for humans is about 0.12 (fixation index measures population differentiation, where 1 is complete differentiation), making your argument about genetic incompatibility unpersuasive. FST for humans is around 0.155 which is about the same as dogs at 0.154. And look at the diversity of dog breeds! Clearly human races are very diverse and, like dogs, have different collective behavioral and mental traits. Furthermore I gave examples of genetic incompatibility in my thread, one of which causes a 250% increase in heart attack risk for Black Americans (who are 20% White) due solely to race mixing. In a similar fashion, I might as well mention heterosis (outbreeding enhancement). It is the common case when the offspring is genetically superior due to mixing of genetic contributions between parents of different groups. For humans, examples include height and intelligence. Clearly you have no understanding of hybrid vigor. Humans are already very heterozygous, moreso than dogs 0.776 vs 0.401. So I don't think hybrid vigor would really apply as much to human populations as it would to inbred populations like dogs. Humans are not inbred, races are very diverse already. Mixed children have an across-the-board higher incidence of health problems as shown in my thread anyway, so clearly there isn't much vigor in these hybrids. It seems that genetic incompatibility problems far surpass any supposed heterosis benefit. So in other words, heterosis serves as multiple examples of the benefits with mixing different populations, such as during urbanization. Heterosis does not imply race mixing, in fact, the benefits would probably be greatest (with low genetic incompatibility) inside the same race, such as with a half German half British child or Dutch and Swedish. The totality of evidence suggests that mixing races produces less healthy children, and we have even found genetic incompatibilities that we can point out to support this fact. Moridin Posted at 1:19 pm on July 9, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:26 pm on July 9, 2012 My mistake on 1st cousins, but your argument falls flat on its face when you fail to take into account genetic incompatibility. That is only relevant when populations are far from each other. The fixation index for humans is about 0.12 (fixation index measures population differentiation, where 1 is complete differentiation), making your argument about genetic incompatibility unpersuasive. In a similar fashion, I might as well mention heterosis (outbreeding enhancement). It is the common case when the offspring is genetically superior due to mixing of genetic contributions between parents of different groups. For humans, examples include height and intelligence. So in other words, heterosis serves as multiple examples of the benefits with mixing different populations, such as during urbanization. kidd rune Posted at 11:26 am on July 9, 2012 Quote: from Moridin at 11:11 am on July 9, 2012 Actually, that study reported on 3rd cousins, not first cousins. Furthermore, you have to weight increased fertility with the accumulation of heritable diseases. If you had to chose, would you rather that your offspring was more fertile and had a higher risk of, say, Huntington's?. My mistake on 1st cousins, but your argument falls flat on its face when you fail to take into account genetic incompatibility. See my massive thread on the subject, with multiple arguments and examples showing that race mixing is unhealthy for the offspring: http://golivewire.com/forums/peer-eonyepy-support-a.html In other words, you are confusing benefit on an evolutionary level with benefit on the level of an individual. At the individual level, mixed children are less healthy than unmixed children, so I don't really see your point. There is not one single benefit to race mixing at the individual or collective level. Not one. Moridin Posted at 8:11 am on July 9, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 11:47 pm on July 8, 2012 In fact, the highest fertility of couples in Iceland is 1st cousins, which are about as genetically similar to you as any other random co-ethnic of the same sex. Actually, that study reported on 3rd cousins, not first cousins. Furthermore, you have to weight increased fertility with the accumulation of heritable diseases. If you had to chose, would you rather that your offspring was more fertile and had a higher risk of, say, Huntington's? In other words, you are confusing benefit on an evolutionary level with benefit on the level of an individual. And you are also spewing lies to back up your racial rhetoric. Jim Raynor Posted at 7:28 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from kidd rune at 6:17 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from Laurence at 3:30 pm on July 8, 2012 Diversity is an essential component of evolution. Without diversity we would all have remained single celled amoebas and not be discussing this topic on an internet forum. There is enough diversity inside of ethnic groups. With too diverse of a population, it's very difficult to select for positive traits and select against negative ones. In fact, the highest fertility of couples in Iceland is 1st cousins, which are about as genetically similar to you as any other random co-ethnic of the same sex. So really, the ideal level of diversity for highest fertility and best health in your children is someone of your same ethnicity. I'm sure you're Icelandic kidd rune Posted at 1:47 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from Laurence at 3:30 pm on July 8, 2012 Diversity is an essential component of evolution. Without diversity we would all have remained single celled amoebas and not be discussing this topic on an internet forum. There is enough diversity inside of ethnic groups. With too diverse of a population, it's very difficult to select for positive traits and select against negative ones. In fact, the highest fertility of couples in Iceland is 1st cousins, which are about as genetically similar to you as any other random co-ethnic of the same sex. So really, the ideal level of diversity for highest fertility and best health in your children is someone of your same ethnicity. kidd rune Posted at 1:45 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from Silico at 3:57 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from Jim Raynor at 9:11 am on June 28, 2012    inb4 "TheTruePooka is a gold grubbing kike" I know you want to say it. He is totally avoiding the questions he brought up himself and just talking out of his ass. Look at his comments and how he replied to people on the video. Obviously has no idea what he's talking about. That guy is an idiot that gets utterly demolished in this video: Silico Posted at 12:57 pm on July 8, 2012 Quote: from Jim Raynor at 9:11 am on June 28, 2012 inb4 "TheTruePooka is a gold grubbing kike" I know you want to say it. He is totally avoiding the questions he brought up himself and just talking out of his ass. Look at his comments and how he replied to people on the video. Obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Laurence Posted at 12:30 pm on July 8, 2012 Diversity is an essential component of evolution. Without diversity we would all have remained single celled amoebas and not be discussing this topic on an internet forum. kidd rune Posted at 12:12 pm on July 4, 2012 The part you claim would interest me is simply an interpretation of the data which fits your world view but may or may not correspond to reality. I was under the impression that you said many times we cannot pretend to read other people's minds regarding feelings of racism for example. So what makes you think we can correctly interpret feelings of positivity or negativity regarding diversity. It's called a questionnaire, and there seems to be a strong correlation between ethnic diversity and "Racist" feelings. The least diverse community tested had the least "Racism". It's not my interpretation of the data, it's what the data actually shows. Can't you see it? I do not think you understood my post since you mention North Dakota being least diverse and least racist. I made absolutely no mention of any area's propensity to racism or not. What I mentioned was their community identity, their lifestyle which is less conducive to TV watching and more conducive to community living. The author of the study seems to link this to the lack of trust in a community and a lack of feeling of well-being in a community, which seem to be largely dependent on the ethnic diversity of it. Thus a rural community would indeed be at the same time less ethnically diverse and more community oriented because of its rural nature but not necessarily because diversity would de facto prevent a strong community feeling or encourages TV watching. You're right, luckily the author tried to control for these types of confounding variables. I really don't see where you're going with this. Pretty much every negative measure is increased with diversity, it's clearly not a good thing at all... Laurence Posted at 1:13 am on July 4, 2012 The part you claim would interest me is simply an interpretation of the data which fits your world view but may or may not correspond to reality. I was under the impression that you said many times we cannot pretend to read other people's minds regarding feelings of racism for example. So what makes you think we can correctly interpret feelings of positivity or negativity regarding diversity. I do not think you understood my post since you mention North Dakota being least diverse and least racist. I made absolutely no mention of any area's propensity to racism or not. What I mentioned was their community identity, their lifestyle which is less conducive to TV watching and more conducive to community living.   Thus a rural community would indeed be at the same time less ethnically diverse and more community oriented because of its rural nature but not necessarily because diversity would de facto prevent a strong community feeling or encourages TV watching. kidd rune Posted at 11:25 am on June 29, 2012 The fact that these events occur at the same time does not necessarily mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two. Correlation is not causation. Yet we fully understand the mechanism behind it, and have yet to see any evidence on the contrary. We just "Did" diversity and expected it to work, and of course there have been many many problems. You would need more evidence and different control groups in other parts of the world to make such a conclusion. As is it this claim only mentions "likelihood." How was this "likelihood" measured? Other parts of the world? It was all in the USA because it was about the USA, that was the point. Americans and American culture, does diversity work? Nope. You mean for less likelihood to vote? It asked people if they voted... Did the makers of the study compared the attitude of respondents themselves prior to moving into a diverse community? Most of them were probably born there. It's not really an important factor, it would have been impossible for them to do that without a time machine.   Did the makers of the study compared the attitude of respondents themselves prior to moving into a diverse community? Did they actually ask the respondents why living in a diverse community would dissuade one from contributing to charity? As I mentioned I have noticed more European immigrants contributing to charity whne moving to the US where such practices are more common than in Europe.   Did they actually ask the respondents why living in a diverse community would dissuade one from contributing to charity? As I mentioned I have noticed more European immigrants contributing to charity whne moving to the US where such practices are more common than in Europe. There is a total "hunkering down" in a diverse community. They're just a lot less friendly, a lot less social, there is less trust and cohesiveness at the community level, all these play into it. There is not one single benefit to a racially diverse community over an ethnically uniform one. Also what you noticed doesn't really mean much unless you give some statistics. As it is the list you make seems to take at face value to conclusion that racial diversity causes this phenomenon directly. However there is a possibility that non diverse communities are more isolated and more rural thus are more likely to have a strong community based system. There is a possibility that such rural communities are less likely to use TV as a major mode of entertainment and have a lower crime rate. Is this truly because they are ethnically homogenous or because their rural status encourages more outdoor play and community based living? f so is it truly because their homogeneity really encourages less TV watching or is it because their own culture (see Amish or Japanese) does so? Not really, "Rural South Dakota" was both most ethnically uniform and most trusting of other races (least racist). Also the study claims to have controlled for a number of these things: These first two methodological objections can be dealt with most efficiently in the context of multivariate analysis. In our 'standard model' we have included simultaneously controls at both the individual and the census tract level for: Age Ethnicity Education Affluence/poverty Language Residential mobility Citizenship Commuting time Homeownership In addition, we control for region of the country; the respondent's gender, financial satisfaction and work hours; the population density and the Gini index of income inequality in his or her census tract; and two measures of the crime rate in the respondent's county. Diversity has the strongest correlation with the negative effects, and there's an obviously clear reason why. You know for a fact if it was the opposite, and diverse cities somehow had more positive traits, even if only very slightly, liberals would be all over making it a goal to mix up all the cities and towns. Maybe this part will interest you: Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. Note that this pattern encompasses attitudes and behavior, bridging and bonding social capital, public and private connections. Diversity, at least in the short run, seems to bring out the turtle in all of us. Laurence Posted at 12:39 am on June 29, 2012 The fact that these events occur at the same time does not necessarily mean that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two. Correlation is not causation. You would need more evidence and different control groups in other parts of the world to make such a conclusion. As is it this claim only mentions "likelihood." How was this "likelihood" measured? Did the makers of the study compared the attitude of respondents themselves prior to moving into a diverse community? Did they actually ask the respondents why living in a diverse community would dissuade one from contributing to charity? As I mentioned I have noticed more European immigrants contributing to charity whne moving to the US where such practices are more common than in Europe. As it is the list you make seems to take at face value to conclusion that racial diversity causes this phenomenon directly. However there is a possibility that non diverse communities are more isolated and more rural thus are more likely to have a strong community based system. There is a possibility that such rural communities are less likely to use TV as a major mode of entertainment and have a lower crime rate. Is this truly because they are ethnically homogenous or because their rural status encourages more outdoor play and community based living? Is there any evidence to suggest that urban ethnically homogenous communities do watch less TV? If so is it truly because their homogeneity really encourages less TV watching or is it because their own culture (see Amish or Japanese) does so? Most recent 15 of 89 previous replies displayed.