There is a great chasm between ideas and ideologies. Ideas are limitless; ideologies are nothing but limits on limits, either an idea fits the ideology or it must be forbidden as the ideology must be a monopoly. If its not a monopoly, then people will have a choice as to which to follow, which is a choice of whom to follow, which is the choice of whom to remove. So ideologies seek to control the state and have total control, so that they can be the only market for ideas so that everyone has to come to the lords of ideas in order to have approval for a thought. Only the state, the owners of the monopoly of force, can impose a monopoly on ideas. Groups through aggressiveness can push forth such for a while, but ultimately without the power of the state not inhibiting them, they end up being heard as if they are the keepers of ideas.
Recently, there has been a lot of brouhaha about race, and because of lack of understanding, censorship, and a host of other negative acts having nothing to do with the validity of the premises have now been put in play.
We have entered a bad place because we no longer can accept facts that we dont like, or have been told not to like, or are being forced by fear of potential consequences to avoid.
We have the situation where the position you take is either representative, of loyalty to the truth, or loyalty to the ideology.
There is a story of a Chinese lord who one day called all his generals to an important meeting. The meeting went as these meeting usually do, till the lord stood up and asked the generals to see the new and wonderful horse. So they all walked outside, and went to view the beautiful horse that the lord had waiting for them. They all looked at it and all could see that it was truly a great animal. Then the lord asked them all to tell him what they thought about his purple horse. Purple horse, the generals wondered. What purple horse. So each general told the lord what he thought about the purple horse.
The next day the lord again called all his generals forth to discuss state matters, and issues, and when they all arrived, they found that many of the other generals were gone. They had been dispatched with in the middle of the night. Each of the remaining generals could easily tell why they were there, as each heard what each had to say about the purple horse. All those that saw and said the horse was purple, survived, for all those people were completely loyal to the lord no matter what.
So where does that lead us to now?
Well recently the writing appeared on the wall, and the wind blew, and everyone learned which way it blows. When Watsons lifetime work was destroyed by saying what he thought was the truth, they didnt just shut down one mans voice and deny him his constitutional right to free speech without consequences (for such consequences are in effect a punishment that favors one speech over another).
It was not a week gone by before top names in genetics started crowing arbitrarily. Now one can see how researchers having anything to do with genetics crowing arbitrarily. THERE AINT NO SUCH THING AS RACE.
Meanwhile, they are using RACE, to prove their point. I offer up as an example another article in which a person is declaring RACE to be dead.
Human variation chalked up to natural selection: study
Scientists have found more than 500 genes that account for variations across human populations including skin color, height, and vulnerability to disease, according to a study released Sunday.
By comparing millions of fragments of genetics code from individuals in four groups — from Nigeria, China, Japan and northwestern Europe — they showed that natural selection has played a key role in these differences, according to the study.
The findings hold particular promise for understanding the genetic underpinning of certain diseases.
The researchers, led by Lluis Quintana-Murci of France’s National Centre for Scientific Research pinpointed, for example, the tiny genetic variation in the CR1 gene that has made 85 percent of Africans highly resistant to malaria.
Most other populations in the world do not share this variant, and are thus more susceptible to the mosquito-borne disease.
Other genetic variations — called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs (pronounced “snips”) — identified by Quintana-Murci and his team could help explain why rates of diabetes, obesity and hypertension differ from one region to another.
Once the specific bit of genetic code responsible for a predisposition to a certain illness or condition has been identified, scientists can then set about trying to find a drug to treat it.
SNPs occur when one of the four chemical building blocks of DNA varies in a particular segment of DNA as compared to other members of the same species.
Some of these genetic mutations have happened through positive selection, which means they provide an advantage in the struggle to survive.
Being resistant to malaria is more useful in sub-Saharan Africa than in Norway, for example.
Others are driven by negative selection, the process by which genetic traits are forced out of a species because they impede survival.
The study, based on the international HapMap catalog of genetic variants within and among populations around the world, found SNPs that account for differences in eye and hair color as well.
“These genes played a role in adapting to our environment, and their mutation gave rise to certain advantages,” said Quintana-Murci.
“But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of ‘race’ from a genetic standpoint has been abolished,” he added.
Genotype is the genetic blueprint contained in DNA, while phenotype is the individual organism brought into being based on the instructions contained in that DNA.
The study, published in Nature Genetics, identified 582 genes that mutated through natural selection, probably between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago.
Let me bring into highlight the assertion with no explanation (they have none).
“But the genes that explain the phenotypic differences between populations only represent a tiny part of our genome, confirming once again that the concept of ‘race’ from a genetic standpoint has been abolished,” he added.
This assertion makes no sense. It makes even less sense when he selected his types from RACE GROUPS.
By comparing millions of fragments of genetics code from individuals in four groups — from Nigeria, China, Japan and northwestern Europe — they showed that natural selection has played a key role in these differences, according to the study.
Notice which WORD he selected to use though: abolished not disproved, not refuted.
dis·prove - to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate:
a·bol·ish - to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void
The two concepts are very different, and we dont get to scientific truth through “Aboslishment”.
What he is trying to assert without actually saying it clearly is that all the differences between humans are generally cosmetic, and because of all the SAMENESS in us, these cosmetic things amount to nothing, and so race, must be based on cosmetic things, and so amounts to nothing.
The problem is that our definition of race does not fit what race really is in genetic terms. With a valid definition in genetic terms comes an understanding of what things are.
All of this is actually very stupid. There I said it. Its STUPID. The reason its so stupid is that the problem isnt with the fact, but the problem is what you DO with the facts. What conclusions do you draw, and what do those conclusions lead you to decide.
We are trying to declare something from information that we barely understand yet. Thats something that only ideology can do, since ideology is mapping out the reality that the real world HAS to conform to, or ELSE. by the way, we the people are the or else that ends up being tortured and our lives destroyed by this or else. the people pushing this are already disconnected from reality and are more blindly loyal than anything else.
They are trying to anticipate what the results will be, and so like lysenkoism they will color the results. EVEN if those results are 180 degrees opposite of what they actually say.
Hopefully I can lend a bit of light to this problem.
RACE does exist and the problem is that the definition of RACE is old and needs to be upgraded to reflect what we know.
As humans have moved and have intermingled the definition of race as we knew it before no longer holds water, as it no longer explains what we see and know.
In the old days race was tied to skin color, and so we have this legacy with it. also race was tied to a presumption that skin color would result in lower fecundity and so their numbers would always be lower.
Now in the modern era, this definition no longer suffices. Race is no longer just skin color (Ashkenazi jews can be seen as a different race with the same skin color as Europeans of different descent). Races presumption of numbers, disenfranchisement (at the hands of other races), and lots of other things, are now arbitrary and capricious.
So we have rare populations who happen to have light skin colors dying out because they are not considered a race. You have groups who are considered a race, but because the assumption is for low population, and we give out prizes based on this none definitive absurdity.
So here is my attempt to lead to a more scientifically correct definition of RACE. I will leave it up to the English majors to make is short and sweeter.
What race represents is actually a real life process in action. Race is the incomplete process of speciation.
When two groups of living things are separated, they speciate. That is there development diverges, and they evolve different solutions to different problems. Sometimes they may even hit upon the same solutions, or sometimes, as with skin color, the solutions are mutually exclusive. You can have protection from the sun at reduced vitamin D production, or you can have lots of Vitamin D production, but have little protection from the sun.
To deny RACE, is to deny speciation, and then to deny evolution, as speciation is key to having all this DIVERSITY. Each new benefit doesnt get incorporated free and clear, it comes with problems that over time have to also be solved.
So sickle cell anemia, helps solve the problem of immunity to malaria, but those that have it, have the immunity that preserves the value and its existence, but they have yet to separate out the bad effects. Over many generations, eventually, the bad will become more benign and the good will come out in higher relief.
In order for this all to work though. Qualities are kept and traded in bunches.
In a previous article I used card shuffling to describe whats going on.
Take a blue deck of cards and shuffle it, and take a red deck of cards and shuffle it, then randomly mix them together to get two new cards. This is what our genome is doing. think of the card color as having tagged the source of the genetic qualities.
As any card sharp or magician can tell you, moving one card, or quality around is hard. While moving them as a part of a bunch is easy.
So when we mate we mix and match qualities, and how they mix and match depends on this bundling. The qualities are not separate, but they are also not indivisible.
This is where our definition falls apart because we never actually maintained the divisions between races AS INDICATED BY SKIN COLOR, and so are not maintaining the divisions in the quality groups.
Race is an in between process, where we have diverged or speciated enough to have lots of different qualities that are shared by everyone in the local group, but have not stayed apart long enough for these qualities and things to be seen as being much different than the qualities we also have that varies us as individuals in a local group.
So through this, race is a temporary condition. Race is also an important thing in the development of better and better creatures that are more robust.
As the barrier that separates us from another group is removed, we remix, and then we start not selecting incremental improvements, but the big improvements in each races different line of questioning.
To step back and take a look at this process, you have something that looks like a tapestry being woven, in which groups of threads divide, and combine with other groups of threads.
Race is real because the groups have to meet and combine or else these qualities will forever remain separate (unless they invent them separately). Race as we thought about it in the past is not the valid definition it once was, since the definition was relying on a situation that was temporary, but to them seemed permanent.
What this means is that groups who have been separated from other groups WILL have qualities that are unique to that group. So the Inuit can eat lots of fat and not get ill, but half the Chinese cant drink alcohol since they are missing the code to let them processes it. Red heads need more anesthetic, and Africans need different blood pressure medicine.
So we are on the border of the old definition working for a while, but our ideology is forbidding us from coming up with an IDEA that can describe things correctly, and then lead to merit of action.
THIS is what Watson was really lamenting about but was not so eloquent in saying. He was hitting on the TRUTH that if our ideas dont match reality, we will be putting band aids on in the wrong place, and will be totally ineffective.
It doesnt take a genius to figure out that social programs take money away from other people, and so cause social harm. If the result of the social harm they cause is ineffective use of resources, and incompetence (except when lucky), then the harm is exponential.
As the populations on the planet mix, and marry (if the state lets us rather than destroying marriage and such), then what will happen is that races will stop being important.
Each quality we have has a specific track able lineage, and the qualities moved in groups (other wise group things like eyes would not be possible), and they are mixed in groups.
So until we mix it up more, Race will have validity, but not the current definition of race.
There will be qualities that we will find prevalent to groups till those groups intermingle enough that these qualities then are spread out and others fade away.
This process though is slow, and takes a long time. while not taking anywhere as long as it took to develop all these answers to life, it will take thousands of years of allowing us prosperity and freedom to mix, and develop.
Declaring race as being gone is asking the question of the group
Who likes my purple horse
And then promote on that, rather than merit.
Such behavior put a chill on Russian sciences that spanned from 1920-1964, and crippled everything during that time. In fact, most of all the work, if not useful otherwise, ended up being a total waste.
It creates repressiveness in science that created a dark age. Our current ideological declarations will be no different than the catholic churches repressive outbursts (of which I was cured of a long time ago as it has grown up), where they marched heretics in the street for talking against their ideology.
Is there any doubt to the more intelligent and nuanced among us that we are doing the same thing today, that any one that is willing to see what doesnt tow the ideological line will be declared a heretic. Though the true heretics are the leaders who know that what they are telling people is untrue (or else they wouldnt know what to protect).
We are about to see all this get twisted up. Students in science now know they HAVE to lie to succeed. This makes it easy to lie to get a grant. This poisons the fountainhead of our wealth of ideas and our wellspring of productivity.
The truth is that its better to live with an uncomfortable idea that reflects how things are, than it is to live a lie, so that one keeps tripping over uncomfortable ideas as if they were land mines that keep cropping up blowing the legs off of some poor soul, like Watson.
The fact that you can find useful idiots and fellow travelers declaring something with no proof shows that the wheels of control are turning. That they are now all willing to lie and to ignore reality. To shove reality to the side to protect the ideology so that they are not seen as individuals who can see the white horse, but seen as a herd that sees whatever the leaders tell them to see.
How many fingers do I have up Winston? Or is it Watson?
2 Responses
To deny RACE, is to deny speciation, and then to deny evolution, as speciation is key to having all this DIVERSITY.
Then I guess I deny race, because evolution (in the “macro-evolution” sense) is a load of nonsense.
Posted on February 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Race is just a grouping of qualities that we believe we can ’see’, and when we cant see them, we deny that they exist.
what i am trying to point out is not that race in a proper definition is bad, but that what we do with the information is the key.
denying cancer, doesnt help cure cancer.
denying race, doesnt help cure race, because obviously only an idiot will ignore whats in front of them and say there isnt a difference.
what they are saying is “i dont believe that the differences count”. which totally shuts the door if they do.
what we are doing is arbitrarily saying that certain qualities are beyond discussion.
people from sub sahara africa have qualities that are bundled to them that represent their divergence from a common group before them.
if one wanted to examine this mathematically waht you ahve is a sorting operation in which the system can mix and cut the deck. it works precisely because its not that selective.
we have and do use this VERY powerful mathematical operations to solve problems today that we cant solve by design.
the stuff i am talking or alluding, or however you want to put it, are the mechanisms that are above the simplest core process. so we need to set up the whole thing and isolate it to get results. we have not figured out yet how to generalize the problems so that we dont have to specificate to such a degree.
this requires to look at ourselves in a supposition of states. we are individuals, but we are also part of this unbroken series of chains. a mathematical front in which every living thing is exploring EMPIRICALLY what is ‘good’ or not.
if one were to look at this from a systems approach, which is what i am attempting to do.
one can see that the entity, is incomplete. that the earlier parts of the entity, its cellular developmental lineage, are more defined, and so less goes wrong with them… and as you become you, from the cells that divide and such, each creating a lineage that is grafted like a flower onto the other lineages.
well, what happens when the difinitions run out?
you get old age… cancers come with benifits… and as the bundles of qualities in the budding local group of cells speciate in old age…
we are uncovering those processes, and more… the next 50 years is going to blow your mind.
from the view of an individual, cancer is an illness, and an evil. from the view of species, such a thing over many entities, over many times, is the development of solutions.
its a change in perspective that comes from understanding.
the earth as center of the solar system is not a WRONG answer. you CAN work out the matha nd such from that perspective. however its much much harder as the orbits become somthing akin to a spirograph… (there may be truths in looking at it that way that may have bearing on the three body gravity solution, but heck, its wrong, so why look).
using the largest gravitational source as a cetner point is not more right, its just easier if what your goal is is to project what you know and learn more. progress in the group that does this will be much faster.
both are valid ways of looking at things, both can be recasted into each others systems, and so are mathematically equivalent.
well, genomics and things will lead to such a change in perspective. and it will also lead to a whole lot of ideological assertions and peg fitting because we have hitched our horse to a lot of things.
in this case, the defintion of race needs to evolve…
race exists on a spectrum in which the threshold of differences is enough in which a group can be identified as having those differnces…
thats all it is… nothing more… thre is nothing heinious in noting that people in one group have red hair, and people in another group NEVER have that.
the problem i think you may be missing is when you start taking that niformation, and then hitching things to it that it just cant pull.
to not like the fact that we are all not equivilently smart, is like not liking the fact that we all dont have red hair.
its silly… since you cant point to one quality that makes an ovewhelming difference in the real world to the INDIVIDUAL. though as an aggregate in a false grouping that is arbitrary, of course your going to get differences.
if the qualities that mediate this differnce are bundled with other qualities, then whats going to happen is that this quality will also go along for the ride. just as sensitivity to anethetic has gone along for the ride with red heads.
different tightness in bundling will lead to different proportions of how hard this quality appears… loose bundling and the quality will quickly get sorted out… tight buncling and the quality will take a long long time to separate, and will come along for the ride for a longer time.
to use the span of the spectrum to deny the existence of this mathematical fact in how informatino is stored, conserved, remixed, and worked on, is to deny that there are engines that we are not going to like that are there.
in fact, its a testment to the neutrality of life and reality that such things exist. its also an inner call to a god to try to dispell that such things that we cognitively believe from our limited perspective are the way we belive and not the way that they are.
ID or not is a dumb argument, as complexity is not a provnig point. just as with femninism, physical equivalence is not a valid point either!
ideology declared answers before we know them!
and now we are trying to fit what we are finding out into the ideology, rather than come up with new views that fit with how our perspectives change when we discover more about the reality we live in.
feminists validity doesnt coem from the blind assertion that we are the same, its a null point that clouds everything sicne its a blind ideological procrustean point.
one can make equivalent arguments on both sides of id, and so, the line of argument will never lead to anything… it devolves into an ideological war in which the strongest political group will be able to force the state to have others minds comply.
thats the same thing your asking for in your assertion.
perhaps how they talk about macro evolution and such is not valid… but the concept is… or visa versa, or something else.
i would rather hear you REFUTE race, and explain it, rather than DENY race and miss the point that Abolishment is an ideological action of polticial force and will, not a force for discovery and validity (except when lucky)
you deny speciation… fine.. thats opinion, as you cant sit here and reason eithe direction witout mroe information. and we are in the process of doing that.
there is a lot in the papers that has yet to tricle into the public sphere. in many ways living inside the emperical data and in the real world is like walking in two totally different places.
in the ‘real’ world (which is not real), women make 75 cents for every dollar men make.
int he ‘unreal’ empiricle world (which is real and tested), women make on a par with men when ALL inputs and outputs are accounted for.
in the ‘real’ world, menopause doesnt start till your 40
in the unreal world, perimenopaus starts at 28, and fertility declines from that point on.
in the real world, men as a group aggregate are so bad that we are contemplating their extinction through technology
in the unreal world, some men have conditions and such that make them bad additions to sociaety as a whole, while other men have other things to contribute that are better for society as a whole
in the real world, race is based now on false assumption of numbers contrary to what we know, and race is based on using a physical quality that has less bearing as we mix as the qualities may not travel with each other.
in the unreal world, race is not a numerical thign at all, unless one is trying to preserve an arbitrary group and ignore lifes decision processes, and race cant be as tightly correlated with other qualities that are politically sensitive.
you see… two very different worlds… one is more and more contrived and farther from empiracle reality (which causes mental problems, no? as the dissonance between thought and action cant be resolved), and so one is forced to live in a delusional state we call normal in which our senses and intelligences are denied in favor of canned and politically correct thoughts.
evolutionary mechanisms are mathematical, given that my education is physics at bronx science, i see the math behind things..
your education is not so mathematically based, not so focused on equivalences that are HARD.
you deal with the mind… a system that is self referentiol but not self consistent…
most forget that our mind is functioning in an artificial construct that it beleives represents the world. our minds do not act on the real world, but let the real world adjust the model, then compute outcomes based on that models veracity to empirical reality, and then act on them.
the 150 millisecond delay is this modeling and then more to action
instinct operates on real world information, and so instinct cant be subsumed, its heuristic.
our higher functions are from running the model and working on that, THEN operating in the real world.
fractally speaking its self similar structures abstracting outwards. so the internal mechanisms that we have to adjust our models, is extended outwards and becomes the mechanisms for science vs ideology (religion).
we can internally adjust our models by folding our beliefs back into themselves and not adjust them by correletign them with the real world *(operating from ideology),
or we can internally adjust our models by testing and incorporating what we learn from outcomes.
chrisitianity as an ideology is better than socialism because not one single tenet outside of the acceptance of god, is out of bounds. (and given that god is an act of faith and faith is what cant be proved, all the argumetns are a waste of time as they hinge on nothing but an opinion as to what one believes. and either opinion changes the beleive, or the bvelieve mitigates opinion, but neither side can declare knowing as knowing requires imperical knowlege.
intelligence is a function of that model… in our current level of what we are, we are biased toward heuristics… because heuristics are our laboratory as to whether to incorporate rules into our schema (you know, our model)
and we can accept rules from other people rather than suffer the tests ourselves.
thats where the weak spot in the machine is. thats where our dependence on more and more second hadn information allows us to incorporate false ideas into our model
this is why stalinists revision history, and why ideologies lie.
they are not trying to give you truth, they are trying to modify your mental model so that your actions operate based on the reality in the model, not based on the reality you exist in and operate in.
in other words, ideology is a mechnism for building a false model (a real model doesnt need an ideology or system to cast into). the purpose of that false model is to allow those who create and maintain the ideology to control or manupulate those who incorporate that into their world model.
so if you have a world model that says
“there is no race” then what are the outcomes? have you analysed the REAL WORLD outcomes of both assertinos in light of potential outcomes.
you know… boolean logic… model on one side, real world on the other.
when you do this, boy do you get some interesting actions and outcomes and understandings.
model: True :there is no race
against
real world: true there is race
now what is the outcomes from that premise…
then do this for true false, false false, and so forth.
you will find that you can break down everyones position and plug them into that proportionally.
you will also find that this table will be skewed based on how much the person operates in the real world or operates in the contrived world.
the people hirign and firing and workgin with individuals have a different self sorted group than say a researcher or a doctor like you squiggy.
you operate more in the contrived world because your opinions on race, dont impact the outcomes in your world.
but if your a person who is entrusted and their job depends on results and those resutls are not reachable in the real world… then what?
you ahve a choce to quit, or a chioce tokeep your job and act on the false…
we are an impatient lot…
we want to know before we develop knowlege of actual knowing..
thats our speciation forces at work in which the ones with a more valid model and knowing, do better, and so each make their ‘bets’ as early in the race as possible so that they can benifit as early as possible (they risk the opposite in doing this).
in every herd, there has to be an individual that executes an action and has a result. so even in the most homogenous herd of exactly the same creatures (to us), there is a mathematical churning in which the real and knowing leads to operational benifit… and the unreal and imagining leads to operatinal failure.
we cant exist at either extreme, and not be either instictual or so delusional we cant operate.
as with anything, the power we have to do what we do comes from the proper mix of imagination to model outcomes, and a good mix of real world knowlege.
these ideolgoical things cause such great harm bcause reality is more complex than a simple set of confucian rules can handle.
and its that complex and we know it because we exist inside our mental models that exist inside the world. (its how we can adapt to any environment rathe than get loced into one).
the more our inner world matches the outer world the more competent we are, the less anxious we are, and the more in control of outcomes we become.
the less our inner worlds match, the more our every desire and attempts are fouled by the model
given that we have accepted ideology as a model adjuster, we are loath to throw it out and start doing the harder work ourselves, it goes against our efficiencies.
so a schizophrenic whose model machinery is broken is ineffective in the world.
but a person who incorporates an ideology is just as schizophrenic.
the degree of how far is only in how far their ideolgy has adjusted their model away from reality.
so radical islamics models have been adjusted to accept and categorize real world events differently than say someone like me whose every view is so nuanced as to make all my friends heads hurt when we decide to dig for details.
two extremes… one is for the weak, one is for the mentally stronger… which you go for depends on how hard your mind has worked and how much its built up and how successful the adjustments are.
its the difference between REAL inductive knowing, and DELUSION as inductive knowing.
catch ya lter… i probably went all over too much… this subject is huge and requires a hell of a lot of real world information, and if one isnt willing to invest all that time on both sides of the issues, then one is only going to take a shortcut, declare the data nonsense, and deny its validity
that doesnt make it so, that just tells me the mechanisms you use to filter and to what they are applied to.
Posted on February 12th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Add A Comment