Other findings included:
* Rates of diabetes among the South Asian (8.1 per cent) and black (8.5 per cent) groups were twice as high as among white (4.2 per cent) and Chinese (4.3 per cent).
* Obesity was five times more prevalent among white (14.8 per cent) and blacks (14.1 per cent) than Chinese (2.5 per cent). The prevalence of obesity among South Asians was 8.1 per cent.
* Black women were more likely to be physically inactive and obese than the overall population.
* South Asian and Chinese women were also less likely to participate in daily physical activity than the overall population.
In related racism…
Dorothy Roberts must be so proud of her campaign; now Black-Americans with cardiac disease can sleep better at night knowing that a Law Professor is watching over them…
If there are biological differences in the races (which are obvious to, say, coroners in high murder rate areas), then could it be that their brains MIGHT be different too?
Heaven forbid.
Of course, minorities who are “physiologically disadvantaged” will now be able to milk the government for more race-related health coverage.
The key factors in the results of this study are sociocultural food and behavioural habits.
Diet is a major factor, and one has to consider, for example, that the Chinese diet is based around fish, rice and vegetables. Chicken is second to fish, and red meat is rarely if ever used, as are milk, cream, butter etc.
Exercise for the sake of the body rather than within a sport is a western and N. American phenomenon and is indeed heavily confined to ‘whites’.
One also has to consider dietary changes. With the changing diet, for example, of the Inuit who are moving from their traditional fish based diet and who had lower cardiovascular and diabetes rates… to western packaged foods, the rate of Type 2 diabetes in that population is increasing, particularly among the young.
“In 2001-2002, 65% of the Nunavummiut living with diabetes were between the age of 20 and 59 years which is significantly different than the national level where only 15% of Canadians in those age groups have diabetes.”
http://www.gov.nu.ca/health/Diabetes_pdf_english_low.pdf
“Much of its financial failure is because of controversy over its approval for use in black patients only.”
Before all the racial sensitivity in America there was a pretty cool product marketed exclusively to Black people (and maybe Gino Vanelli). No one complained about that?
I liked it better when black people were proud of themselves and not just a bunch of malcontent race-sensitive buffoons like Al Sharpton and Barry Obama.
The problem is, Kathy, that a South Asian or a ‘black’ or a ‘white’ is not a ‘race’. You haven’t ever, to my knowledge, defined the term. Why don’t you do this?
I’m sure you are aware that there are enormous physiological differences in body type, height, mass, bone structure etc..among ‘all the blacks’. And, among ‘all the whites’. etc. So, how do you then categorize them as all within one ‘race’?
Second, you cannot show that body mass, height, digestive ability etc, is related to brain cognitive networking. Have you tried to do this?
And your support for national IQ’s is both empirically and logically unscientific. As I’ve said before, to declare that a population has an IQ is nonsense, for IQs are individual. To declare that a group has a homogeneous IQ is equally empirically unsubstantiated.
To declare that, N. American Natives have an IQ of ’87’ and SubSahara of ’67’ (all non-homogeneous populations) is sheer pseudo-science, untested, unsubstantiated and illogical. Why is it illogical? Apart from the insistence on homogeneity, apart from the opinion that an IQ is a group attribute…no population could function with such overall low IQs.
What you totally and completely ignore is the economic causes of stability and change in a population – and you ignore that areas of the world that are not conducive to support large populations will not, rationally, change their technology but will maintain a stable and low population. Ah well.
The only cultural influence at work here, ET, is a culture within academia that contends that the forces of evolutionary selection apply to all living organisms except humans.
“Black women were more likely to be physically inactive and obese than the overall population.”
I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell them that.
None of this is news to the medical community. This is a well known and well studied area(every where but Canada that is).
Different populations have different facial structures, different skin colour, so it is no shocking surprise they have different rates of obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis etc. assuming a similar diet and environment, such as we find in the US/Canadian situation.
Culture surely plays a part, but by the time you get to third generation Canadian it plays much less of a part than in the new immigrant.
Additionally, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that certain types of heart disease and diabetes are hereditary. For example in certain Southwest Indian tribes I’m aware of, obesity and diabetes are double digit percentage more common than in the general population.
However.
I have yet to be convinced of Kathy Shaidle’s point about brains differing by race. It doesn’t show up anatomically, it doesn’t show up neurologically, the only evidence for it is relative crime rates and school results. Plenty of room for cultural confounding there, not to mention bad science.
Then there’s the whole brain plasticity, neurological adaptation issue to be considered, which I have yet to hear any of these “racial IQ” types talk about. Since the brain -physically changes- its own neuronal pathways in response to training and use, and changes them in a big way which can be imaged with PET and SPECT scans, I strongly doubt there’s any significant difference in the average potential between races.
When somebody starts identifying structures in the brain unique to black people, white people, homosexuals and what have you, then maybe Kathy’s argument will have some more weight.
However as to some races being over-represented in crime rates, that’s absolutely true. Its entirely possible to be an a-hole all on one’s own by choice, no genetic predisposition needs to be assumed.
ET,
You’re wrong in so many ways:
– White, black, chinese/asian, indian/asian are pretty good examples of race, or at least racial groups. Or are you stating that there is no such thing as race at all? (If so, how can there be racism?)
– Even if there are differences between individuals, it is perfectly ok to define people with certain characteristsics as belonging one specific race. Or nationality. Or gender. Or…
– Who says one complete population has one and the same IQ? What one can measure is individuals characteristica, and then calculate the average, SD, etc, for some sub-set of that group of individuals, such as Swedes, Canadians, men, women, whites, blacks, whatever. Done all the time in all kinds of circumstances.
– The “economic causes of stability and change in a population” are the results of the various activities and decisions of the individuals in a particular population. Which in turn has many reasons, such as…
Look at it this way Johan. Social Darwinism and racial IQ were the global warming of the late Victorian and Edwardian era. Lots and lots of really, really bad science steered by people with ulterior motives.
Hitler’s Germany was the ultimate expression of the Social Darwinism movement. One of the main non-military reasons why Hitler failed is that his social policies were complete bullsh1t, didn’t work, and pretty much strangled the economy with waste motion and counter productive behavior.
Its just another stupid idea that won’t die because demagogues find it convenient. Like global warming. Or Communism. Or human rights tribunals. Or gun control.
The problem is, Kathy, that a South Asian or a ‘black’ or a ‘white’ is not a ‘race’. You haven’t ever, to my knowledge, defined the term. Why don’t you do this?
I’m sure you are aware that there are enormous physiological differences in body type, height, mass, bone structure etc..among ‘all the blacks’. And, among ‘all the whites’. etc. So, how do you then categorize them as all within one ‘race’?
Second, you cannot show that body mass, height, digestive ability etc, is related to brain cognitive networking. Have you tried to do this?
And your support for national IQ’s is both empirically and logically unscientific. As I’ve said before, to declare that a population has an IQ is nonsense, for IQs are individual. To declare that a group has a homogeneous IQ is equally empirically unsubstantiated.
To declare that, N. American Natives have an IQ of ’87’ and SubSahara of ’67’ (all non-homogeneous populations) is sheer pseudo-science, untested, unsubstantiated and illogical. Why is it illogical? Apart from the insistence on homogeneity, apart from the opinion that an IQ is a group attribute…no population could function with such overall low IQs.
What you totally and completely ignore is the economic causes of stability and change in a population – and you ignore that areas of the world that are not conducive to support large populations will not, rationally, change their technology but will maintain a stable and low population. Ah well.
I have a peculiar if non-threatening disease that occurs very, very rarely outside of Irish/Scottish/Northern European populations. My blue eyes and my lifelong medical concerns are directly thanks to Vikings getting their rape on in certain coastal areas.
Since brief genetic swishing dating back 12 centuries has produced very real physical traits, I see no reason to believe that my brain and personality has also been affected.
Relatives who have gone back to the ‘old country’ that we were kicked out of centuries ago are astounded at how many distant relatives were absolutely, exactly like their counterparts in the new world.
…and by that I mean that I have many reasons to believe that my brain has also been affected… though I think the lack-of-coffee is affecting my editing skills even more.
Phantom,
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with this.
There is something called an individual’s IQ (where IQ is defined by the IQ testers), do you agree?
Hence an individual’s IQ can be measured.
Hence for any population (any sub-set you can think of of the total population) can be assigned an average IQ (e.g., or average shoe size, or average whatever).
It’s a simple concept, really.
Sorry about the double post; I was gone for an hour, returned, and it still showed as not posted.
Kate – I think you’d have to define what you mean by ‘evolution’ within our species. I’m not aware that we have physiologically ‘advanced’ over the thousands of years. But our knowledge certainly has advanced. But our knowledge is not genetic.
I certainly don’t agree with neodarwinism’s ‘natural selection’ which is a random/mechanical action and therefore, wouldn’t be able to explain how a random ‘smarter brain’ emerged in one population and not in another population..and how, interestingly enough, the ‘smart brain’ was found in an ecologically rich biome and the ‘dumb brain’ in an ecologically impoverished biome.
The reason why biological evolution doesn’t apply to the human brain is because of the unique nature of knowledge generation in homo sapiens. It’s all LEARNED knowledge. Therefore, each generation builds on..not genetic change..but knowledge change, which is generated by individuals and stored within the community. NOT stored within the genes.
You cannot scientifically equate genetic knowledge to learned knowledge. The two have NO relationship – and yet, that is exactly what Kathy and others are doing!
I agree with Phantom; there’s no proof of neurological differences in the brain between the ‘races’. Different crime rates etc, are due to cultural and parental and peer environments.
johan – your argument is illogical. Because ‘racism’ exists doesn’t mean that ‘race’ exists. Because people are afraid of ghosts and goblins doesn’t mean that ghosts and goblins exist.
Yes, in my view, there’s no such thing as ‘race’. There are certainly physiological differences, vast differences, in our common species…whether it be in the red-haired Irish versus blonde haired Nordic or the tall Nilotic versus the short Bantu..and so on. But those differences don’t define us as separate species! And there’s no evidence of brain differences.
Since our knowledge is not genetic but learned, then you can’t declare that an individual who can repair a computer is smarter than someone who has never seen or heard of a computer.
Certainly one can define people as belonging to one nationality! Or gender! That’s what a passport does! But this doesn’t mean that they are a separate RACE!
Again, I don’t see any evidence of brain cognitive capacity as related to physiological type.
Well yes Johan, it is a simple concept. But its a wrong concept.
Were you aware that an individual’s IQ can -change-? It can. It can go up or down based on diet, mental activity, training, disease, even mood. Significantly. Like by 10 points or more.
It is also the case that individuals within a population can differ in IQ as much or more than individuals from -other- populations.
Furthermore, IQ doesn’t really measure intelligence. It is a paper and pencil test, it measures one axis only of human ability, if you like. Plenty of skills and abilities exist that don’t show up in IQ, that’s why Kalahari Bushmen test at IQ 87 but perform at IQ 140 in their normal environment. That’s ET’s point.
Finally, people who have had significant brain damage will often test at or near their pre-injury IQ. It depends on the area of the brain that gets damaged, and how hard the person works at their recovery, and a few other things.
So from a purely neurological and medical perspective its hard for me to take “racial IQ” seriously. It doesn’t measure anything, it doesn’t reflect our experience in life, its just a statistical exercise done for political purposes.
The Phantom: “Social Darwinism and racial IQ were the global warming of the late Victorian and Edwardian era. Lots and lots of really, really bad science steered by people with ulterior motives.”
So what might Kathy Shaidle’s ulterior motives be?
Davenport, your question assumes she’s one of the ones steering the research. Which clearly she is not, given that the research to which I refer took place in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The current flag bearer is a Mr. Rushton of “The Bell Curve” fame, I believe. I don’t know his motives. Attention and grant seeking perhaps, or he may merely be an idiot.
Nice try though.
Johan: “Hence for any population (any sub-set you can think of of the total population) can be assigned an average IQ…”
Sure, it can technically be done, but that doesn’t mean the results would be meaningful in the real world.
ET & Phantom,
1) As I said, IQ is defined by whomever defines the test for it. Just like a math or English test.
So IQ tests measure IQ (of individuals). Simple.
2) The IQ distribution is likely to be Gaussian in any large enough population measured. So of course most two sub-sets would overlap, probabably, as in the case of men-women, Swedes- Canadians, whites-blacks, etc, the average might differ somewhat, but there is a very significant overlap (as the spread of IQ within a large population is significant). Right?
3) If one does not accept that something like IQ exists, then of course any IQ comparison becomes meaningless. However, if one accepts IQ as a valid concept, then also IQ comparisons are valid (incl for race (defined in some way), gender, whatever.
4) ET, so are you really claiming that there is no genetic component in IQ (learning & analysis capabilities), only environmental factors?
How could that possibly be the case since so many other aspects of a persons characteristics are (genetically) inherited? Why would be the brain be different from the rest of the body.
The Bell Curve was written by Herrnstein and Muarray (I am a show-off).
ET, I always think you’re great, even when I disagree, but it seems to me that saying “there’s no such thing as race” is akin to saying “there’s no such thing as a family, because we’re all related if you go back far enough”.
That being said, I’m very ambiguous about IQ tests for a variety of reasons. My interactions with actual live humans have never borne the idea that racial differences in hard-wired intelligence exist.
Johan you’re doing fine up to number three. IQ is a legitimate measurement of a real ability, just as temperature is a legitimate measurement of a physical phenomenon. So far so good.
Now lets take our thermometer and put it out in the parking lot next to the air conditioner exhaust. If what I’m trying to measure is the temperature in that location, I’m still fine. But if I’m pretending that temperature is representative of twenty square miles of farmland, then I have a problem.
If you want to know the IQ test result for a Bushman, that’s fine. It tells you he sucks at paper and pencil tests. If you’re going to assume that test result says anything at all about his overall intelligence, ability to function in his normal environment, or worse yet his physical brain structure, THEN you’ve got a problem.
Which is why Mr. Rushton is, IMHO, an idiot. He’s using IQ to measure “national” intelligence, which is an order of magnitude stupider than what I said above. Its global warming stupid.
It may well be possible to measure individual intelligence and functional ability with some kind of multi-axis testing regimen, but first we would have to understand what human intelligence actually -is-, which to date no one has really done. We can’t even measure levels of awakeness (arousal) and attention very well.
Thus it isn’t really possible to parse out the answer to your question #4. There probably are genetic factors, but they are probably small compared to the environmental component. This is because as ET said, the human brain is our organ that allows us to adjust to the environment and store knowledge about it.
Kind of like how humans all have feet, and feet don’t differ more between races than they do between individuals of the same race, assuming the people being tested all wear the same kind of shoes and do the same kind of job.
I live in the GTA. I could have told you all those things and you wouldn’t have needed a multi-million dollar study.
Many factors influence ones health. Genetics and lifestyle choices being the obvious ones; however, personality and temperament also play a significant role IMO. Combination of nature and nurture.
I agree with Phantom that IQ tests are not a reliable predictor of intelligence or success, and I would goes as far as to say they can actually limit a child or adults chances of success; especially in the educational system.
Since the 80’s it has been theorized and increasingly accepted, that there are multiple intelligences. Emotional intelligence is also being recognized as an important contributer to success.
“The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:
Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”):
Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)
…Unfortunately, many children who have these gifts don’t receive much reinforcement for them in school. Many of these kids, in fact, end up being labeled “learning disabled,” “ADD attention deficit disorder,” or simply underachievers, when their unique ways of thinking and learning aren’t addressed by a heavily linguistic or logical-mathematical classroom…
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
“I agree with Phantom that IQ tests are not a reliable predictor of intelligence or success.”
I guess being a member of Mensa doesn’t mean much then, huh?
Debates like this really get boring in their regularity of running in circles.
“ Stupid is as stupid does”.
The world sees clearly where the stupid lay’s within and outside of its communities. You can make all the bleeding heart arguments you wish about other races and cultures, but at the end of the day it’s clear which ones are a benefit to your own and which are not.
It’s does keep the non producing intellectuals in meaningless jobs in our society, and the pseudo intellectuals up all day on their home keyboards……………………
“Now lets take our thermometer and put it out in the parking lot next to the air conditioner exhaust. If what I’m trying to measure is the temperature in that location, I’m still fine. But if I’m pretending that temperature is representative of twenty square miles of farmland, then I have a problem.”
– This has nothing to do with IQ tests or their validity, only poor measuring/testing methodology.
“If you want to know the IQ test result for a Bushman, that’s fine. It tells you he sucks at paper and pencil tests. If you’re going to assume that test result says anything at all about his overall intelligence, ability to function in his normal environment, or worse yet his physical brain structure, THEN you’ve got a problem.”
– IQ tests measure IQ, and IQ is defined by whomever defines the test for it. So your observation above is irrelevant to this topic. Why would we use an IQ test to test something else than IQ?
“the human brain is our organ that allows us to adjust to the environment and store knowledge about it.”
– And IQ is one attempt to measure how well we can do this. This should be totally non-controversial.
In conclusion, why is it not “allowed” to figure out the average IQ of a population, while it is perfectly ok to measure the average height, income, education level, obesity rate, crime rate, etc?
And the troll defaults to name calling. Thanks for playing “spot the troll”.
Whatsamatta Davenport, racist red neck conversation not meeting up with your expectations?
But tell me old bean, do you think a high IQ predicts anything about the ability to drive a car? How about driving a nail? Or ability to avoid lions?
And do you think brain function would reasonably vary as much between populations as might the long term cardiac response to a high fat, high carb, high protein diet? If so, why?
Or do you need me to explain the word “protein” to you?
“If there are biological differences in the races (which are obvious to, say, coroners in high murder rate areas), then could it be that their brains MIGHT be different too?”
Studies have shown that their brains are different. Blacks have a lower IQ than whites.
…and Asians have a higher IQ than whites.
“And the troll defaults to name calling.”
Name calling? By all means, please indicate where I called anyone a name.
ET – I think we have changed physiologically over the last 1000 years. I’m pretty sure that people are much bigger now than a long time ago (it could be due to nutrition or whatever) because you can just go to a museum and see the suits of armour and various outfits. I agree with you in terms of psychology though because if you look at ancient writings and that you see that they are worried about the same stuff, have the same passions, same goals, etc. – so nothing has changed there. So I think there is a lot adaptation and solid evidence for that. Have we actually seen real evolution occur or reproduce an evolutionary change – that is not man made – in a lab environment to absolutely prove it? No. So it is still a theory and a belief system. Now Dawkins theories and obviously Darwin’s theories are important but (and just like this global warming razmataz) show me the money.
Also, in Toronto at least, you are seeing a lot of inter-marriage between various peoples. This is not a first generation thing but after a generation or two you see this happening big time. So I think you are going to continue to see this expand worldwide.
Johan said: “…IQ is one attempt to measure how well we can do this.”
Yes it is, and it predicts one narrow aspect of intellectual performance at one instant in time. Which like I said is fine, so long as what you want to know is something about that intellectual ability, right then.
But you can’t use a thermometer to measure weight. That’s the point.
IQ tells you zero predictions outside its narrow focus. Which is why people who test at moron level in IQ are 100% functional and successful in their home environment. People in the Kalahari simply don’t do the kind of symbolic manipulation that IQ tests for. They suck at it because they’ve got no need to do it out in the desert chasing zebra.
If you take a Bushman with an 87IQ, then get him to study for a while, he can score over 100. Brain plasticity. Environmental factors.
So obviously you don’t hire a Kalahari Bushman to be a stock broker. He can’t do it. But it means jack to the Bushman that he can’t do stock broker mental gymnastics, he never does them.
Furthermore if you take that guy and stick him in an environment where his life depends on it, he could learn to do mental gymnastics PDQ, enough to get by. His kids and grand kids would be “normal” at it, as tested by IQ. Same genetics, different environment.
It isn’t “allowed” to use average IQ for the same reason you don’t estimate the strength of a bridge based on what colour it is. Because it doesn’t work that way.
Troll has now descended from name calling to next default, nit picking.
Standing by for obscene sexual reference stage.
All I know is that I’ve cleaned up my diet, lost 50 lbs, started running, started lifting weights, and NOW I have chest pain? Frig.
@Davenport “I guess being a member of Mensa doesn’t mean much then, huh?”
Perhaps this article will help you decide.
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq07.htm
Sean, you should check out a couple of interesting studies on runners and arterosclerosis and tissue damage to the heart. There is debate as to whether it is the stress or the carb-loading that is the cause. Stick to lower intensity exercise using clean-burning fatty acids.
The debate here is amusing. Plainly different groups have evolved genetic adaptations in response to local diet. One report identified over 500 culture specific adaptations, especially a suite of adaptations to better tolerate grain. The genetic adaptation to continue lactase production into adulthood is an obvious one. It is prevalent in Northern European cultures, South Asia and parts of Africa. The adaptation, however, does not seem tied to race–just areas where there was a prolonged adaptive advantage to being able to digest milk. I would, however, expect differences in vitamin D metabolism as between whites and blacks, as darkness of skin will affect endogenous production of vitamin D and the need for dietary D3.
Bon bon my nizzle?
Don’t ask me, ET, ask every medical examiner who has ever identified a bone as belonging to a black, white or Asian murder victim.
I just report the news. The existence of general racial differences are obvious even to children. Not sure why you are in denial about this.
So what, Kathy? It remains the case that populations (genetic or otherwise) don’t have the metrics of their individuals and vice versa. Individuals don’t have a set-membership size or a spatial- distribution density. Contrawise, populations don’t have IQs, populations don’t have shoe sizes, populations don’t have diseases. The average value of a measure may be computed across the individuals in a population, but that population itself still does not have that metric value, it only has that average of those values across its individuals. What size shoe does white wear? White doesn’t wear shoes: white is a footless colour.
Thus the question remains: should I buy shoes according to the average foot size of the titular population in which some would wish to judge me, or should I buy shoes according to my foot size? Should you not take treatment for a disease you do have because it isn’t common in your titular population? In the converse, should I take treatment for a disease I don’t have and am unlikely to get just because it is common in my titular population? Indeed, should I pretend to be innumerate, just because most humans are?
No: the problem here is not race or ethnicity, it is not shoe size, it is not IQ, it is that most people are pathetically incapable of dealing with their innumerate inability to properly understand and apply the principles of combinatorics and probability. This is the basis of humans’ incredibly poor ability to estimate risk, and is the source of most of the big errors humans commit. As John Allen Paulos wrote in the introduction to his 1988 book Innumercy:
In my opinion, people who don’t understand the principles involved in concepts like individual, average, and population, are better off simply not talking about them, as that then minimizes the degree to which they parade their ignorance. Treating everyone in an avolitional group only as a member of that group is what collectivists do; I think we should be above that.
“Treating everyone in an avolitional group only as a member of that group is what collectivists do…”
Also, racists!
Good points, Vitruvius regarding individuals and averages. Particularly with genetic adaptations, even within a group there will be variations. Some Northern Europeans are lactose intolerant, some Asians are not. The fact that the rates differ in the two population sets does not answer the question, should I drink milk. If a Northern Eurpoean is bloating and in pain from consuming milk products, it would be foolish to conclude it is not the milk because the avergage Northern European can drink milk. On the other hand, the human rights commission should chill out if statistics show Baskin Robbins sells more ice cream to Northern Europeans than Asians. Averages are useful for some inferences and misleading for others.
Kathy, you’re not wrong about different crime rates, success in school rates or any of that. Its all on the books, observed fact.
You’re just wrong about the genetic IQ part. IQ isn’t a useful measure beyond one very narrow range, but it gets abused by every tin-pot social architect from here to Timbuktu. As does genetics.
I meant it about the feet thing. Feet don’t differ more between races than between individuals, and feet differ because of environment and culture. What you wear, what you do, where you do it.
Brains are the same. There is no genetically superior -race-, too bad so sad for Mr. Rushton. You can’t breed for human intelligence, you can only train for it.
But some groups do better than others, which just goes to show the old saw about all cultures being equally valid is poo poo. They’re not. Some cultures promote thought, mental flexibility, agility, invention, tool use, etc. Some don’t.
Yeah, but, no. Cultures don’t promote anything. Individuals promote things. The way differing populations of individuals promote different things differently is what we call culture, yet it remains the case that it is not culture itself that is promoting anything. And yes, I know, I’m skating dangerously close to denying the value of all of set theory, which would be silly, but in times when set theory and combinatorics are being applied egregiously inappropriately, then that is, I think, the time to deny those inappropriatudes.
To my knowledge, there is no disease that is 100% EXCLUSIVE to a particlular race. As previously stated, the differences in this study can be contributed to any number of overlapping factors -genetics, lifestyle choices, culture. nutrition, and socio-economic status are only a few.
Vitruvius, once upon a time I read a book, a thick one, written about the definition of the word “culture” as it is used in anthropology. It was pre-pomo and hence not completely impenetrable.
In one sense it is entirely appropriate to say that a “culture”, meaning the wider collection of religion, tools, knowledge, physical environment such as city vs. country, blah blah blah, demand mental prowess of an individual to a greater or lesser extent, and support the acquisition of same to a greater or lesser extent.
You are also 100% correct, there is no such thing as “culture”, there is only individuals rattling around in the results of their labor and that of previous generations.
So suffice to say its all kinda complicated, and there’s a reason you go to school to study this stuff. ~:D
BTW, “inappropriatudes” is an excellent coinage.
“no disease that is 100% EXCLUSIVE to a particlular race”…
So what? There are few diseases exclusive to particular species, either.
But when my schnauzers go for eye exams, it isn’t to look for Collie Eye Anomaly.
Yes, Kate, yet when I take Spook to the vet,
I expect said vet to treat Spook, not to treat
Keeshond.