Racism is natural, anti racism is not

When i was like 5 i spent a summer with my father and mother aboard a merchant ship carrying needles (my father was Captain) , we took a long journey to south America visiting several ports .
Half the crew was Greeks and the other half Africans, in general Africans were living in the front part of the ship while my nationals in the back.
I spent several hours every day playing with the Africans, they got me in their cabins , buy me toys and even take me over their shoulders while visiting brothels , my parents never had an issue with race and i didn't see how those people were any different apart from their skin colour.

At the end of the summer we return back and the ship had to undergo some repairs in a small Cycladian island , there my grandparents visited us and my granny asked me why i was playing with the Negroes and that it was dangerous to go into the Negro' s cabins , i asked my mom about it and she told me that old people have stupid ideas.

What i mean to say is that OP's opening post is shit .

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, I don't put it into a separate category. I put it into the exact same category as knowledge from spoken words - and knowledge from anywhere that is not automatically factual. As in, the information category.

No one claimed this either.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
As for the rest of your above statement, I couldn't disagree more. You think of established theories written down as necessary to understand psychology. This is, again, a good example of how you place too much importance on the academic process. You underestimate the individual and his or her capacity for self-study and observation.
I already pointed out that I don't. The reason I mention books specifically, is because that's where you seem to have gained most of your knowledge - and you seem to refer to written theories to back up everything you say. As if pointing to thousands of semi-related words could somehow carry the argument for you.

You simply do not understand what a theory is and that is intellectual sloppiness.
A scientific theory is based on the premise that everything is connected and thus one observation is tied to all it's neighbors. A change in one area creates a ripple effect in surrounding observations. A theory needs to either include all known observations or be adjusted/discarded if it cannot. A theory that stood the test of time have been continuously supported by new observations and continue to predict new experiments before they taken place.

The role of the academia is covering an as wide range of observations of possible, including making others aware of observations a single person have missed.

When you equalize your own personal explanations to this you go beyond most people who are fine with "I do not know". You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Ehm, what? Science as a concept is not exactly a mystery. But why would I need to understand science to understand what I see? How do you think science was established in the first place?

What we see is what we perceive. Perception isn't a video-recorder, it's a computation of data done by the brain. We see what we are prepared to see based on past experiences. The scientific method was invented to bypass this problem.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
but it's also not very interesting to me.

I made a distinction between ethics (which is the point with science) and behavior (which is your objection). This relationship was a key to understanding the relationship. If you aren't "interested" we have no discussion.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Unfortunately, it's not helpful if it happens after the fact - because the students are going to be very confused if they keep hearing different things from different people. As such, it will have to depend on the individual student and his or her desire for truth over the memorisation of text.

People who are interested do not. They do not expect to be served, they seek out their own information.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Oh, but you rule out what people say constantly. That's pretty much all you ever do when you respond to criticism. You immediately put people into some category and then you don't let up trying to make that true.
I think you've placed me in at least twenty categories over the years - ranging quite wide. That alone, is pretty telling. I've only ever placed you in one category - and you've never given me reason to doubt it.

You are a postmodernist. That have not changed.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
What a waste of time. Racism is an incredibly simple concept. What would you need data for? Are you talking about the history of racism or something?

This have already been addressed by Pladio.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Maximised according to the capacity of the individual, under ideal conditions - maybe. But if people are unable or unwilling to understand - it doesn't help to expose them to a flood of alternate viewpoints. Beyond that, there's a social factor which puts all kinds of pressure on the weaker mind. As in, it's not comfortable being challenged or being wrong when in the crowd - and lots of people would rather blindly accept what they're told than start questioning it openly. That's a major downside to the academic process.

The upside is that it brings fruit.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yes, I've gathered that's your approach. You make a lot of claims and you refuse to respond to criticisms clearly and logically. You try to diffuse everything by adding as much irrelevant and semi-relevant information to every response you make. I'm not sure if this is some kind of tactic or you really believe you're staying on topic. You seem to create a fantasy of what people have actually said and you defend yourself against an imaginary opponent who is nothing like the real person behind the criticism and who's said something entirely different than the real person said.

You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.

Originally Posted by JemyM
A false dichotomy means that 2 options are exclusive, if you do A you cannot do B, if you do B you cannot do A. A rule out B, B rule out A.

In pure English, the false dichotomy here is; If someone receive knowledge through books (A), they exclude other forms of knowledge (B). It's false because A and B are not exclusive, you can study books and absorb knowledge through other means at the same time.

That is not a false dichotomy…

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.

In Corwins example he didnt state that the person with experience didnt have book knowledge, but rather that the person with book knowledge didnt have experience. A third option heer would be a person with neither head knowledge nor practical experience, but that option isnt viable.

The strawman is; You believe knowledge through books is all you need. A such position (to exclude knowledge that aren't based on books) is absurd and thus easily refuted. No one have that position, it's a strawman.

In reality studying (through books) is an often necessary compliment to experiencebased practice, used to speed up the process and through words, numbers and data pass on insights others already had.

That isnt straw man. A straw man is traditionally a place holder argument, Answers in Genesis is great for straw man arguments, when someone makes an argument, they give a straw man argument which is absurd and can be easily refuted so that they can come up with something better later down the track. I abhor the practice but there it is.

What Corwin did is somethign else, he mistaken your argument and made a counter point to it which is true to the mistaken argument. That isnt strawman.

The entire concept of "race" is scientifically bogus.

http://www.smm.org/race/

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
The entire concept of "race" is scientifically bogus.

http://www.smm.org/race/

Yes but this thread is about racism, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

This discussion has prompted me to think further about racism, and in particular my initial response of "everyone is a little bit racist".

There's a high concentration of Vietnamese / Chinese people in my suburb, and I am of the opinion that they are - in general - shit drivers. That of course is racist stereotyping, and whenever I say it / think it, I feel ashamed. But I think it nonetheless.

That I would say is pretty harmless racism; I would never discriminate against a person because I had a sneaking suspicion that they suck behind the wheel. But this is why I say "everyone is a little but racist", because I assume that everyone makes these observations about the different cultures in their part of the world.

Am I wrong?

Interesting point. I have been told by asian friends that it was/is common practice for one asian to take a driving test for another asian since to non-asians, all of them look alike. So, your feelings about the quality of the drivers may be correct!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Interesting point. I have been told by asian friends that it was/is common practice for one asian to take a driving test for another asian since to non-asians, all of them look alike.

Hmm.. I'm not asian, but I've never had a problem distinguishing between different asians, and I can usually even tell what nationality they are just from looking.

Originally Posted by JemyM
No one claimed this either.

Yeah, you claimed I put them in separate categories - and I didn't.

You simply do not understand what a theory is and that is intellectual sloppiness.A scientific theory is based on the premise that everything is connected and thus one observation is tied to all it's neighbors. A change in one area creates a ripple effect in surrounding observations. A theory needs to either include all known observations or be adjusted/discarded if it cannot. A theory that stood the test of time have been continuously supported by new observations and continue to predict new experiments before they taken place.

A theory can be many things handled in many different ways. You may have your own standards for what a theory should be - but you certainly don't follow them yourself.

The role of the academia is covering an as wide range of observations of possible, including making others aware of observations a single person have missed.

Again, there are many roles - and there are many practical concerns entering the picture. Unfortunately, the ideal is very far from reality - and these days, it's as much about getting people through as fast as possible so they can go get a job. The funding for educational systems is based on people getting a job - not some idealised version of a super knowledge center. But I understand why you'd want to paint that picture.

When you equalize your own personal explanations to this you go beyond most people who are fine with "I do not know". You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.

I'm doing everything I can to maximise what I know, but I do it in a very pragmatic way. One of the things I've learned over the years of studying human beings - is that we have a limited capacity for understanding. Our resources don't allow us to act like a giant harddisk that can just be loaded endlessly with information - in the hopes we'll be smarter. Far from it.

No, we have to filter the information and we have to accept our own limitations and focus on the vital and most reliable information - so as to get closer to a practical application.

Just studying and researching endlessly will have us go in circles of misinformation and a fundamental lacking capacity to deal with the big picture.

But, I understand that you think it's possible to get "smarter" in your way. I won't try to change that, that's your own choice. But there's no doubt you'll be able to quote a lot more references and probably add a lot of theories to your knowledge center. If you think that's valuable - then I understand your efforts.

That said, if I were in your position - I'd probably try to focus more and spend less time trying to fill my head with as much information as I could. That's not very efficient.

What we see is what we perceive. Perception isn't a video-recorder, it's a computation of data done by the brain. We see what we are prepared to see based on past experiences. The scientific method was invented to bypass this problem.

You really expect this to be news to anyone? We're going in circles now.

I made a distinction between ethics (which is the point with science) and behavior (which is your objection). This relationship was a key to understanding the relationship. If you aren't "interested" we have no discussion.

I'm not interested in irrelevant information, no. I didn't know there had to be a discussion.

People who are interested do not. They do not expect to be served, they seek out their own information.

Would it surprise you to learn that a lot of people who study aren't really interested in everything they're taught? That's why it's so dangerous to misinform as a teacher.

You are a postmodernist. That have not changed.

Another category?

The upside is that it brings fruit.

If fruit is an overexposure to information resulting in equal or less understanding, then sure. Naturally, for people able to filter and apply that information - it's different - but they could have exposed themselves to knowledge in all kinds of places.

You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.

All we have are our own observations. What other people observe can't be transmitted. We can only observe what they say, write or do and interpret.

I'm maximising the efficiency of my observations as best I can. You don't do that by filling your head with information. You do it by following your observations and testing them constantly - until you're reasonably certain. Then you make room for other observations - but you never stop getting back and re-testing them. That's how I do it - but such is the way in which we differ.

I absorb all the information I possibly can about any specific observation - but I don't go beyond what's relevant. That would only diffuse my efforts and water everything down until I forgot what I really wanted to understand.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
The entire concept of "race" is scientifically bogus.

People's belief that race for some reason would be something bad is plain stupid, and it's also racist. Race = adaptation, there are scientifically proven reasons why it occurs too.

No races, no genders.. lol.. such P.C bullcrap.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Hmm.. I'm not asian, but I've never had a problem distinguishing between different asians, and I can usually even tell what nationality they are just from looking.

True, but we're talking about a licence ID photo here!!

[QUOTE=JemyM;1061152948]Yes, and no. -Wall of text edited out.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Sorry for necroing this thread but i somehow managed to miss your response and since you really went out of your to hammer the point home i thought i should at the very least respond
You are ofcorse right. At that stage it is not racism and i was cherrypicking one one reaction out of many and treating that as different when i thought of racism as a way to rationalize our instinctual hostile reaction to "outsiders" when instead as you pointed out it is more a product of enviroment and upbringing.

Well racism is the very important property of nature ;after all it gave birth to so many races. But its we who have negative approach and consideration. The need is to change our view point regarding race's upper and lower level!!

Originally Posted by vurt
No races, no genders.. lol.. such P.C bullcrap.

I do not expect you to understand this article, but it's an interesting read for the rest. While race isn't scientific, low IQ is and behavior correlating with it.

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
That is not a false dichotomy…

Yes it is. The description you copy/pasted is just worded differently.

Read up on Dichotomy first; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

The false dichotomy sets up a dichotomy in a place where there are no dichotomy, which is why they exclude other explanations, including the one in which both positions are viable at the same time.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
In Corwins example he didnt state that the person with experience didnt have book knowledge, but rather that the person with book knowledge didnt have experience. A third option heer would be a person with neither head knowledge nor practical experience, but that option isnt viable.

Or that a person have both.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
That isnt straw man. A straw man is traditionally a place holder argument, Answers in Genesis is great for straw man arguments, when someone makes an argument, they give a straw man argument which is absurd and can be easily refuted so that they can come up with something better later down the track. I abhor the practice but there it is. What Corwin did is somethign else, he mistaken your argument and made a counter point to it which is true to the mistaken argument. That isnt strawman.

Yes it is and it's not necessary used to buy time. A straw man insinuates that someone have a position they do not have, worded to be absurd and easily refuted, giving an illusion of winning the argument when there were none in the first place.

The most common reason why someone makes a straw man is because they have a limited world view and do not understand the opposition. They argue against what they think is rather than what is.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I do not expect you to understand this article, but it's an interesting read for the rest. While race isn't scientific, low IQ is and behavior correlating with it.

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

Old news and largely debunked, but congratulations for once again proving the "merits" of blind ivory tower propaganda.

I'm not sure what's the point of this thread. By the same logic one might say that wetpants is also natural.

Lemme return to the question in the first post:

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
So what do you think about parents teaching their kids and when is it too much? Is it the same as sexism to some extent? I assume so.

Anyone can praise, gorify, preach or practice racism (or wetpants) on the basis of babies' or animals' behavior. I really don't care as I know better - thanks to those from your question - my parents.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Old news and largely debunked, but congratulations for once again proving the "merits" of blind ivory tower propaganda.

It was posted in a context.

Pretty sure personal insults, which JemyM often likes to resort to, is a result of either low IQ or low self-esteem, maybe both.

Races obviously exists, in the medical field race is very much real. As just one example, there's medicine which is speficially made for black people. This proves it can be dangerous or at least disadvantageous to negelect the existance of races.

I truly believe people who thinks "race" must be something ugly and wrong, something we shouldn't even utter are the true racists. Problem is, they're way too proud and self-righteous to comprehend that..

And for the rest, BiDil is not specifically made for "Black People", it have only been tested on african americans.

Originally Posted by vurt
Races obviously exists, in the medical field race is very much real. As just one example, there's medicine which is speficially made for black people. This proves it can be dangerous or at least disadvantageous to negelect the existance of races.

http://www.dagensmedicin.se/nyheter/…rt-for-svarta/

It's only approved for black people, so the scientists and doctors are obviously ok with the existance of races, otherwise it couldn't have been approved for just black people.

You had to put "black people" into quotation marks? Was is to show everyone that you could never have written such a horrible thing? You're a source for comedy sometimes, i'll give you that.