Sawfish
2024-08-01 17:46:57 UTC
I'm going to broach a topic that I've played around with in my head for
maybe the last 10 years. I've not come to a conclusion yet, but the
concept is intriguing to me.
It might be seen as an attempt at provocation, but I mean it seriously
and without intent to start a polemic flame war.
First, it's my position that race, in terms of stereotypical phenotypes,
exists. There are remarkable differences when races are compared to each
other (intra-species comparisons, like Corgis vs Great Danes), but if
one makes the comparison between mankind and another species
(inter-species, like felines vs canines), these same "remarkable"
differences look a lot less pronounced.
But we're focusing on intra-species comparisons, only, for this discussion.
So in my mind race exists and there are objectively observable
differences and also ones that can be tested against an objective
standard, such as tendencies toward perfect pitch, IQ test, 100m sprint
times, etc. Based on this I feel comfortable in concluding that the
overwhelming odds are that a male with at least some west African genes
will win every medal in the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and also at
every major internal competition, for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, international student math competitions are very, very likely
to be won by east Asian or SE Asian kids, also for the foreseeable future.
All this seems glaringly evident and I'd question the objectivity and
integrity of those who seek to deny these observable facts.
I have also had similar ideas of smaller, less consistent differences
between cultures, and even less so between ethnicities, especially
within a cosmopolitan context. So it might be possible to form
generalized stereotypes about cultures and ethnicities, just as about
races, although these differences are much less distinct and pervasive,
and they are much harder to objectify, and so are open to the criticism
that observed differences between ethnicities might be primarily subjective.
So that's the set of assumptions: there are objectively verifiable
differences between races that can lead to justifiable stereotypes. I
take this to be a proven fact.
If true, might there also be other stereotypical differences between
races that are harder to measure objectively, and yet still seem to
exist frequently enough to justify stereotyping? E.g., what seems to be
a tendency to readily feel and emote openly and exuberantly among those
of sub-Saharan ancestry, as opposed to those of Han ancestry? That the
tendency toward remarkable perseverance in difficult situations of
uncertain--but potential--benefit found in western European sub-groups
and to a lesser degree in east Asian sub-groups is a stereotype not
found in sub-Saharan Africans or Oceania groups is indeed a
racially-based significant tendency?
There is the compounding factor that humans evolved to living in
self-selected groups of people who looked, and to a degree, acted like
themselves, and around these things in common, *cultural* norms were
formed, so that people of X ethnicity--who are highly likely to be of
the same race--living together over time, encouraged certain social
responses and inhibited others, based in part on hard-coded tendencies
carried within their specific phenotype? E.g., are Japanese in Canada
less publicly demonstrative of emotion than black Africans in Jamaica
*because* they simply have a tendency to a bodily chemistry that has
less hormonal reaction to stress/excitement/danger than west Africans?
And that given this *physical* difference, they evolved cultural norms
against openly displaying emotions? Similarly, if sub-Saharan Africans
had a greater *physical* response to external stimuli, might their
culture tend to create norms that allowed and even exalted displays of
emotion?
Is there such a thing as "hot blood" and "cold blood" represented in
differing percentages between racial, and perhaps cultural, groups? Is
there such a stereotype where a race and/or ethnicity has a greater
craving for public attention than other groups?
Is this a realistic possibility? If it exists, what might it account for
when varied groups meet?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doncha know,
That it's a shame and a pity
You were raised
Up in the city
And you never learned nothin'
'bout country ways."
--Not So Sweet Martha Lorraine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
maybe the last 10 years. I've not come to a conclusion yet, but the
concept is intriguing to me.
It might be seen as an attempt at provocation, but I mean it seriously
and without intent to start a polemic flame war.
First, it's my position that race, in terms of stereotypical phenotypes,
exists. There are remarkable differences when races are compared to each
other (intra-species comparisons, like Corgis vs Great Danes), but if
one makes the comparison between mankind and another species
(inter-species, like felines vs canines), these same "remarkable"
differences look a lot less pronounced.
But we're focusing on intra-species comparisons, only, for this discussion.
So in my mind race exists and there are objectively observable
differences and also ones that can be tested against an objective
standard, such as tendencies toward perfect pitch, IQ test, 100m sprint
times, etc. Based on this I feel comfortable in concluding that the
overwhelming odds are that a male with at least some west African genes
will win every medal in the 100m sprint at the Olympics, and also at
every major internal competition, for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, international student math competitions are very, very likely
to be won by east Asian or SE Asian kids, also for the foreseeable future.
All this seems glaringly evident and I'd question the objectivity and
integrity of those who seek to deny these observable facts.
I have also had similar ideas of smaller, less consistent differences
between cultures, and even less so between ethnicities, especially
within a cosmopolitan context. So it might be possible to form
generalized stereotypes about cultures and ethnicities, just as about
races, although these differences are much less distinct and pervasive,
and they are much harder to objectify, and so are open to the criticism
that observed differences between ethnicities might be primarily subjective.
So that's the set of assumptions: there are objectively verifiable
differences between races that can lead to justifiable stereotypes. I
take this to be a proven fact.
If true, might there also be other stereotypical differences between
races that are harder to measure objectively, and yet still seem to
exist frequently enough to justify stereotyping? E.g., what seems to be
a tendency to readily feel and emote openly and exuberantly among those
of sub-Saharan ancestry, as opposed to those of Han ancestry? That the
tendency toward remarkable perseverance in difficult situations of
uncertain--but potential--benefit found in western European sub-groups
and to a lesser degree in east Asian sub-groups is a stereotype not
found in sub-Saharan Africans or Oceania groups is indeed a
racially-based significant tendency?
There is the compounding factor that humans evolved to living in
self-selected groups of people who looked, and to a degree, acted like
themselves, and around these things in common, *cultural* norms were
formed, so that people of X ethnicity--who are highly likely to be of
the same race--living together over time, encouraged certain social
responses and inhibited others, based in part on hard-coded tendencies
carried within their specific phenotype? E.g., are Japanese in Canada
less publicly demonstrative of emotion than black Africans in Jamaica
*because* they simply have a tendency to a bodily chemistry that has
less hormonal reaction to stress/excitement/danger than west Africans?
And that given this *physical* difference, they evolved cultural norms
against openly displaying emotions? Similarly, if sub-Saharan Africans
had a greater *physical* response to external stimuli, might their
culture tend to create norms that allowed and even exalted displays of
emotion?
Is there such a thing as "hot blood" and "cold blood" represented in
differing percentages between racial, and perhaps cultural, groups? Is
there such a stereotype where a race and/or ethnicity has a greater
craving for public attention than other groups?
Is this a realistic possibility? If it exists, what might it account for
when varied groups meet?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doncha know,
That it's a shame and a pity
You were raised
Up in the city
And you never learned nothin'
'bout country ways."
--Not So Sweet Martha Lorraine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~