Some races (breeds) of dog are more intelligent than others, some are more loyal, some are more easily trained, some are more aggressive, and so on. All dogs are members of the same species and can interbreed. This is not to say, of course, that an individual dog cannot buck the trend. But the trend, nevertheless, is so secure that it is advisable to pre-judge (i.e. display prejudice towards) a dog based on its race (breed).
All humans are a member of the same subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which means we’re all equally capable of being violent or intelligent or x. In dogs between breeds there is hundreds of thousands of years of in breeding, which means some kinds of dog take on rolls assigned by a human eugenic experiment that has bred characteristics into their forms, the same cannot be said of humans. There are more genetic differences within a human population than there are between human populations, the same cannot be said of most species let alone sub species, what this means is we are all basically the same, and the differences are only able to be placed down to culture and not our genotype.
It’s a bad analogy, you would have to compare a subset of a species to another to produce a viable analogy here. We have tried to do so, we have failed in determining anything more than a cline based geographical human behaviour structure, ie the further you are geographically the further your culture may differ, and the further behaviour stereotypes may matter. You do studies with geographically and culturally diverse people such as with twins and place them in other cultures it turns out shock horror, they assume all the same traits of those cultures in which they live and are indistinguishable from them, their parent culture seems to make no difference, we are basically all human and all the same. Now if there were evidence that said different then I would agree with it, but there isn’t so I don’t.
There are no sub-species within dogs, either. Nor are there “hundreds of thousands” of years of inbreeding. Dogs became domesticated at the end of the Ice Age, around 12,000 years ago. They are still, in fact, perfectly capable of interbreeding with their undomesticated progenitor, the wolf.
Studies of twins are interesting. The best example I heard was of twins separated at birth, one of whom ended up in America being raised as a Jew, the other in Germany becoming a Nazi. After the war they met up and discovered that they shared very similar interests, had important life events, such as getting married, at around the same time, and all sorts of other similarities. Studies of twins do not, in short, back up your assertion, but rather the opposite.
You do realise that point makes your case weaker right? We are all the same sub species, which means we are even closer genetically than a species. Dog sub species have differentiation which we lack.
You are kidding right? We have taken dogs and bred them to have certain qualities before civilisation even started. You do realise that dogs are the most inbred species on Earth, they are a eugenic experment by us. The only thing that is relevant here.
That’s an anecdotal experiment. I am talking about hundreds of twins in hundreds of different environments, done in double blind scientific studies. No offence but you really need some education in this subject if you are going to make any relevant point. I’d start here.
Not all dog breeds have been created by humans. Dingos, for example.
But if your point is that dogs somehow “don’t count” because their breeding patterns have been largely controlled by humans, then I’m afraid that won’t wash either, because the breeding patterns of humans have also largely been controlled by humans.
Christ the analogy is hideously bad. Please read the link I gave, you need to be talking about the same thing, humans are not analogous to dogs, never will be, and are not even remotely applicable.
If you want to make a scientifically applicable supposition you need to be talking about humans as a species not dogs which are nothing like us, had artificially induced selection pressures we lack, and do not conform to the same selection pressures humans have.
Your quotation merely parrots the current politically correct mantra. Racial characteristics are obvious to any honest person, and it does no one any good to deny them. And I most certainly DO NOT mean skin colour, which is utterly irrelevant to me.
To admit differences between races is not to say that one race is “superior” to another. That’s just a value judgement. All have their own talents and weaknesses.
The concensus in science is not a mantra it has thousands of well founded studies in thousands of different fields, if there is evidence to the contrary it has failed to show any difference in any peer reviewed studies. It hence is dismissed on the only basis it can be, it is not provable scientifically. Science isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.
People who use mantra, doctrine in scientific fields are crackpots. You need to know more about this subject, before you can judge what scientists are saying. There may be bias, but if the contrary case is true, then the last 60 years of scientists arguing for a racial differential has failed to show it. This is not them just being stubborn and them just being against race, this is a consensus hard won over hundreds of years with a body of empirical evidence which can not be denied, and you frankly cheapen the efforts of millions of people working in the field by calling them devotees of a mantra. if their all lying to themselves it should be easy for you to show how, so do so…
You haven’t even read that link I gave have you, this is just your opinion. I’d at least be informed before you seek to explain the whole 20th/21st century of science is wrong because of your biases. You throw out bias and mantra if you like, but I would like to see some scientific studies that support your case. Trust me there are plenty of scientists who make a case for race. So you should not have to look too far…
How do you know it to be wrong without any evidence, I have offered you the chance to show what you know to be right in terms that anyone can understand, so show me in terms anyone can understand. Not by opinion but by reasoned evidential argument. There are plenty of religions on Earth that know they are right by force of conviction alone, by faith, don’t let yours be one of them…
I agree with the sentences above, but they sit poorly with the statements earlier in the thread that some races are more intelligent. To me this means you define intelligence is a very narrow way.
Ok so the whole of science in it’s objective case, thousands of studies specifically done to eliminate bias are overturned by the subjective experience of one person. That’s how science should work is it?
Maia no offence but if you have done more for my arguments case than I ever could of done, simply by saying what you have said.
Some races, on average, have different degrees of specific types of intelligence. I’m not trying to define intelligence in any narrow way, simply saying that there are differences.
If I really had done so much for your argument, you wouldn’t have needed to say so. This indicates, to me, that your saying so is just a rhetorical device.