# Scientific Racism and Brain Size: I Think I Disproved It



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Feral sheep said:


> @_RobynC_ *i think if you were to go on reddit and ask this question, you might get some really good answers on there.* there is plenty of bs out there. if you were wondering, there is a history of racism in science.


there's a subreddit called r/******* who have countless "scientific" discussions in which they have "proved" this fact - the amount of racism in that sub is beyond a joke. But RobinC should definitely check it out if she wants a "debate". Although, there have been numerous petitions sent to reddit ceos to shut down this subreddit but it persists.

It's the epitome of people projecting their own self-hate on to other people... kinda sad really.


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

@_RobynC_ 






here is an intj dissecting a retarded racist.

i encourage you to get some popcorn.


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

this one makes me cringe.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

endlessnameless said:


> what is the scientific racism? It's been proven that whales have bigger brains, than humans, but it doesn't mean they are more intelligent. Brain size is the metric fact, that has nothing to do with the real inteligence. What really matters is the surface of the brain. More inteligent brains have more creases, while less intelligent have soft surface.


"It is an article of passionate faith among "politically correct" biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway." - Richard Dawkins


----------



## Grau the Great (Mar 2, 2012)

RobynC said:


> I remember some scientists pointing out that African Americans have a smaller brain than Caucasians or Asians and then I thought about something.
> 
> The size of the brain is proportional to the body. Men have bigger brains because they have bigger bodies, and women have smaller brains because they have smaller bodies _(there are also structural differences too)_.
> 
> ...


Oh well good then! This should clear up the whole stereotyping problem real nicely! Such official data that's definitely not totally made up--complete bullshit pulled out of a single person's ass--should be just what we need to settle this contentious societal issue.

I'll be sure to write a letter nominating you for the presidential medal of freedom. NSA tracker beacon and all :3


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

endlessnameless said:


> what is the scientific racism? It's been proven that whales have bigger brains, than humans, but it doesn't mean they are more intelligent. Brain size is the metric fact, that has nothing to do with the real inteligence. What really matters is the surface of the brain. More inteligent brains have more creases, while less intelligent have soft surface.


Actually, whales have more surface area of the brain than humans as well, simply by having a massive brain. What really matters is the brain structure. Fore example, whales have only 5 neocortical layers compared to a human's 6. Also, whales only have less neurons than humans.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Personally, the issue that concerns me the most is that certain political elements love throwing things like "racist", "fascist", "sexist" or any other rhetorical Molotov cocktail at any research that doesn't conform to social Marxism. 

It's an interesting idea, but the unfortunate logical consequences of it is that the concept of "talent" has to go. If we buy the conclusion that biological differences do not result in differences in intelligence, strength, speed and agility, then every human being should be able to come up with the theory of relativity and/or run a 100m race as quickly as Usain Bolt.

If we also consider the concept of natural selection as it would have applied to isolated human groups over hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. Add to that the various contexts those human groups lived it, would it not followed that certain traits would be favored over time and as a result people within that group would largely be descendants of those who had those traits? 

If you can say that a group of humans may be genetically stronger, taller, predisposed to certain types of illness, weight gain, ability to put on muscle, to run more efficiently or faster, to be more nimble, to have small or big feet, and so on, why is intelligence excluded from this?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm pretty sure that we decided that the "science" that led to the justification of Jim Crow laws and the legal racism in America not only against blacks, but also Asians and Indians, was retarded when a dude named MLK was able to change the policies of the United States without killing anyone. That's like strategy hard-mode. 

No, any seeming differences in intelligence were due to different histories and backgrounds of understanding that arose from the environments each group was in. They still are. This is similar to the cultural bias of an IQ test.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I'm pretty sure that we decided that the "science" that led to the justification of Jim Crow laws and the legal racism in America not only against blacks, but also Asians and Indians, was retarded when a dude named MLK was able to change the policies of the United States without killing anyone. That's like strategy hard-mode.
> 
> No, any seeming differences in intelligence were due to different histories and backgrounds of understanding that arose from the environments each group was in. They still are. This is similar to the cultural bias of an IQ test.


The pendulum as it often does swung too far, driven by zealots who rejected the previous overly dogmatic view with an equally dogmatic view to the other side. It went from "It's all about biology" to "It has nothing to do with biology what so ever, every human being is a blank slate with identical capabilities".


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> The pendulum as it often does swung too far, driven by zealots who rejected the previous overly dogmatic view with an equally dogmatic view to the other side. It went from "It's all about biology" to "It has nothing to do with biology what so ever, every human being is a blank slate with identical capabilities".


I agree, but I prefer the latter swing to the former, if we have to have one. Any social caste creation from something that you cannot control is not going to end well.

Education and emphasis on cultural values can account for a lot of the differences we might otherwise have.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

tangosthenes said:


> I agree, but I prefer the latter swing to the former.


As long as we're clear that you're making a value judgment, I couldn't care less.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> As long as we're clear that you're making a value judgment, I couldn't care less.


Yep. It's largely irrelevant what the facts are when you are controlling for irrational individuals. Keep the works stopped up in the most optimal form, because they gon be crazy when it goes loose.


----------



## Killbain (Jan 5, 2012)

I think it's not relevant. Oscar Peterson was African American and probably (IMO) the most talented person who ever lived.....so I'm pretty sure his brain was bigger than mine....or at least used more efficiently!


----------

