the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

[apollosdtr]

Sorry, the human genome has been completely sequenced and it shows that there is more variation within any race you might define, than there is between races. There are no biological human races. Race is a cultural construct.


There is a biological reality which is not a matter of opinion. But "race" in humans, is merely a cultural construct. That's why the number of "races" depends on what culture one is in.

There are no biological human races at all. But there can be as many cultural "races" as you want to imagine.

If what holds true within flora and fauna and applies to bugs and insects in the truly scientific world, then the different races may easily be called different species as well.

As for the ephemeral DNA... well, I for one would have to ask how TPTB decided who lived where and which way the migrations actually happened. If the areas of greatest concentration vs the last arrivals were honestly studied apart from multiculturalist lobbying, who knows what the outcome would be.

 

[apollosdtr]

Darwin's Tree vs God's Orchard

From AI Overview:

"Darwin's tree" represents evolution, suggesting all life descended from a single common ancestor, while "God's orchard" represents creationism, where God created separate "kinds" of organisms that diversified within those limits, without descending from a single point. The tree model shows extensive branching and variation stemming from one origin, whereas the orchard model portrays multiple separate origins, like different trees, with limited variation within each.

Huh... AI Overview. Which one is the AI God?

 

[apollosdtr]

At least I'm not a racist using 19th century writings to attempt to justify their views as scientific.

And I am not overly impressed with modernism's attempts to classify what they cannot control.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And I am not overly impressed with modernism's attempts to classify what they cannot control.

... what?

 

[apollosdtr]

The OP states:

The Latin brain visualises the conclusion before it has collected all the premisses: it is therefore too intelligent to be archaeologically minded.
The Teutonic brain, on the contrary, is content to inspect all its hurdles before jumping them. It is willing to collect evidence even though it never draws any conclusions.

In my days, they were called "left brains" and "right brains".

Right-brains were artistic thinkers; whereas left brains were unimaginative doers.

(Or vice versa, I can't recall at this point.)

And then there are those who use both sides of the brain. An artist may be logical, a detective may write novels.

As for the OP... it's like the difference between the Celt and the German in Caesar's time. The Celts made wandering and artistic streets, where the Germans made grids. If the Germans are Teutonic, and the Celts and the Latins are one...

 

[apollosdtr]

Religious beliefs has nothing do with the OP

Agreed.

 

[apollosdtr]

There is a biological reality which is not a matter of opinion. But "race" in humans, is merely a cultural construct. That's why the number of "races" depends on what culture one is in.

There are no biological human races at all. But there can be as many cultural "races" as you want to imagine.

Of course it's a matter of opinion. Everything is. You can find "proof" for every idea under the sun and the moon and the stars on the Internet... And every bit of learning rests on the shoulders of someone who talked/wrote about it beforehand. From Religion to Science, it all depends upon the writers thereof... and upon the conclusions drawn by each of its hearers/readers.

And the conclusions depend upon the nature of the learner... whether he/she is willing to believe without proof, or not. Because like it or not, we are all standing on a house of cards built by people of differing character and having different motives for teaching. The very rules of science are man-made, so falling back upon the terms related to science simply means that you trust the man who put those laws into writing.

Race is inborn, culture is learned = nature vs nurture.

I trust nature more than I will ever trust nurture.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And then there are those who use both sides of the brain. An artist may be logical, a detective may write novels.

As for the OP... it's like the difference between the Celt and the German in Caesar's time. The Celts made wandering and artistic streets, where the Germans made grids. If the Germans are Teutonic, and the Celts and the Latins are one...

Which doesn't add up because the Latins, the Romans, were famous for grids, especially moreso in areas where they had conquered and built. So were the Romans Teutonics or Latins?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The usefulness of the term Indo-European (previously called Indo-German) seems to be a matter of opinion. Culturally-related... seems to be an oxymoron since multiculturalism took Europe off at the knees... and before that came evangelism to spread a culture.

Indo-European is a LANGUAGE family, not a culture or "race". The limits of language family is not opinion, but the product of systematic analysis of languages using the methodologies of systematic linguistics.

 

[The Barbarian]

The usefulness of the term Indo-European (previously called Indo-German) seems to be a matter of opinion.

It's very well-documented. Indo-European is a linguistic group, not a genetic or cultural designation. "Indo-German" is a myth promoted by German nationalists and some white supremacists in America. Two different things.

Culturally-related... seems to be an oxymoron since multiculturalism took Europe off at the knees...

Darwin once remarked that if "savages" were to be brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. ("savages"meaning non-Europeans) Which is what happened. Real income seems to be better in nations open to other cultures, and not so good in nations that have erected barriers.

Living conditions in Europe - income distribution and income inequality - Statistics Explained - Eurostat

Living conditions in Europe is an online Eurostat publication that analyses income and living conditions across the EU. This article covers income distribution and income inequality.

ec.europa.eu

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a biological reality which is not a matter of opinion. But "race" in humans, is merely a cultural construct. That's why the number of "races" depends on what culture one is in.

There are no biological human races at all. But there can be as many cultural "races" as you want to imagine.

Of course it's a matter of opinion. Everything is.

No. There is an objective reality and we can learn about it. In this case, the Human Genome Project shows that there is more genetic variation within any human "race" you can define than there is between such "races." Hence, no biological human races. That is a myth.

And every bit of learning rests on the shoulders of someone who talked/wrote about it beforehand. From Religion to Science, it all depends upon the writers thereof... and upon the conclusions drawn by each of its hearers/readers.

And the conclusions depend upon the nature of the learner... whether he/she is willing to believe without proof, or not. Because like it or not, we are all standing on a house of cards built by people of differing character and having different motives for teaching. The very rules of science are man-made, so falling back upon the terms related to science simply means that you trust the man who put those laws into writing.

You're standing on epistemological quicksand.

Race is inborn, culture is learned = nature vs nurture.

There is no such thing as biological human race today. There was at one time. But humans are really good at sharing genes.

Even though findings from genetics and other sciences unequivocally refute biological conceptions of race, this erroneous viewpoint remains widespread among the general public. Why can’t scientists convince people that race isn’t biological?

Since the 1950s, scholars at universities have been spreading the message that race is a social construct – a way of categorizing people that society has devised – in this instance, based on the arbitrary criterion of skin colour. Genetic data clearly show that races are not separate genetic lineages, and that differences in skin colour are not indicative of underlying genetic divisions. Throughout history, humans have constantly interbred, mixing up our genes such that meaningful differences never arose.

Race Isn’t Biological — So Why Do So Many Still Think It Is? « Life Sciences# « Cambridge Core Blog

Even though findings from genetics and other sciences unequivocally refute biological conceptions of race, this erroneous viewpoint remains widespread among the general public. Why can’t scientists convince people that race isn’t biological? Since the 1950s, scholars at universities have been...

www.cambridge.org

The Human Genome Project revealed that there is no genetic basis for “race”. Humans are 99.9 percent identical at the DNA level, and researchers found more variation among individuals of the same race than between individuals of different races. No gene has been discovered that distinguishes one race from another, rendering attempts to attribute biology to race meaningless.
The Human Genome Project – Perspectives on Race and Racism in Health and Healthcare

 

[The Barbarian]

If what holds true within flora and fauna and applies to bugs and insects in the truly scientific world, then the different races may easily be called different species as well.

What two species of organism are still 99.9% genetically identical as humans are?

 

[Ophiolite]

In my time, things were said to be either "animal, vegetable, or mineral."

I have previously pointed out a flaw in your fundamental understanding that generates many of your errors. Classification is a convenient technique by which "things" can be discussed, not an absolute subdivision of "things", as you appear to think. Thus Pluto is unchanged whether you call it a planet, a dwarf planet, or a kangaroo; and "animal, vegetable, or mineral" is a great subdivision of "things" if you wish to play a simple game, but useless for complex, practical investigations.

Race is inborn, culture is learned = nature vs nurture.

I trust nature more than I will ever trust nurture.

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that a member of race M will always have a strong tendency to certain behaviours, regardless of their upbringing, when compared to a member of race T?

You're standing on epistemological quicksand

That must suck.