Brain scan identifies racists says scientists...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 11:53 am

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_83 ... theadlines

A brain scan that can apparently root out racists has been developed by scientists.

The technique was used on white volunteers shown photographs of black individuals.

In those with racist tendencies, a surge of activity was seen in part of the brain that controls thoughts and behaviour. Scientists believe this reflected volunteers' attempts to to curb their latent racism.

After interacting with real black individuals, the same group performed poorly in a task designed to test mental resources.

The American researchers concluded that harbouring racial prejudice, even unintentionally, stirred up an inner struggle that exhausted the brain.

Dr Jennifer Richeson, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, said: "We were surprised to find brain activity in response to faces of black individuals predicted how research participants performed on cognitive tasks after actual interracial interactions."

The scientists first measured the racial bias of 30 white individuals using a standard technique.

Volunteers were given a computer test to record the ease with which they associated with white and black racial groups with concepts that were positive or negative. Those with higher levels of racial bias took longer to associate white people with negative concepts and black people with positive concepts.

The study participants were then asked to interact with either a white or a black individual. Afterwards, they underwent a test which involved making a mental effort to inhibit instinctive responses.

The scan experiment employed a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to map brain activity.

This is BS. So their brain shows different activities when seeing a picture of a black person. I see that they failed to run the same test on blacks, I can almost guarantee you that the results would be the same when blacks see pictures of other blacks. What a crock of sh!t.

Freakin thought police wanna-be's here.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 17, 2003, 2:41 pm

They did tests a while ago that showed that people who were gay had a pattern in their brain...

I don't know, the brain is a really complicated thing, and until they know a lot more about it I'd take anything like this with a salt lick.

-=Lohrno

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 17, 2003, 3:04 pm

Functional MRI is still a pretty indirect thing. all it does is measure blood flow to different parts of the brain. this tends to correlate to neural activity, but not all activity shows up in fMRI. for some neural circuits, inactivity is "activity".

but yeah a heavily racist person is more likely to have different strong emotions about images of the race he/she hates, therefore, it is not surprising that fMRI will show some amygdala lighting up or just some frontal cortex stuff lighting up in this instance.

it shouldnt be interpretted as racist people have a "racial cortex". (so no comparisons to underpinnings of homosexuality are valid)

you could get similarresults from arachnophobic people showing them pictures of spiders.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 17, 2003, 3:14 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:This is BS. So their brain shows different activities when seeing a picture of a black person. I see that they failed to run the same test on blacks, I can almost guarantee you that the results would be the same when blacks see pictures of other blacks. What a crock of sh!t.

So what you are supposing with absolutely zero knowledge in the field of brain research that this guy is wrong and that black people would exhibit the exact same cranial response if shown the same pictures of black people?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 17, 2003, 3:23 pm

This reminds me of how some scientists would strap some kind of device onto the penis and measure reactions of the person after seeing different images to find out what turns the person on.
Hooray for sentence structure!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 3:30 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:This is BS. So their brain shows different activities when seeing a picture of a black person. I see that they failed to run the same test on blacks, I can almost guarantee you that the results would be the same when blacks see pictures of other blacks. What a crock of sh!t.
So what you are supposing with absolutely zero knowledge in the field of brain research that this guy is wrong and that black people would exhibit the exact same cranial response if shown the same pictures of black people?

That's exactly what I am predicting. I would at least like to have seen a side by side comparison of the two to convince me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 17, 2003, 3:36 pm

what is your medical or scientific evidence that supports your theory about this then? or is this one of those "asian work ethic" moments where we all just nod our heads and let you rant incoherently about shit you know less than nothing about?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 3:39 pm

Where did I say I had evidence? I stated an opinion, sweet cheeks. While we are on it, please google me all the info you have on brainwaves and racism, k thx.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 17, 2003, 3:45 pm

I wouldn't even know where to look because I don't really have any knowledge on the subject. Thus I am not belligerantly questioning this guy's research based on absolutely no evidence to the fact.

But hey, that's just me.

I'm curious tho: how the fuck do you state an opinion on subject you have no knowledge of? Especially when it's hard science like this? You must be fun at parties.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 3:48 pm

The same way that you are stating an opinion that this guys research is dead on balls accurate (it's an industry term), and the same way you say not a single Abrams tank has been lost in combat lol. And I am fun at parties ya stank ho. Bet you are fun at million man marches.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 17, 2003, 3:51 pm

This is an interesting flip of perspectives.

If you accept the premise, current societal movements dictate that we'll have to "accept" racists' behavior because they're chemically predisposed to act that way.

Now we all know the answer to this. It is wrong to act on a chemical urge from the brain if the physical manisfestation of that urge is harmful in the real world.

Does this not challenge the arguement that we should accept homosexual acts *soley* because some people have homosexual tendencies hardwired into them?

*IF* this finding about racists is true, it forces the advocates of open homosexuality to champion their cause from a "It's ok to be gay" angle rather than a genetic angle.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 3:55 pm

Just for scientific balance, I would have had no problem with the article if they had performed similar tests on how other races, besides just whites, viewed another race or multiple races. All I am saying is I would bet they would be similar, if say an american indian saw a picture of an asian or something like that. I would be interested in how those tests would fare when just one general race sees pictures of another race. Their testing was too narrow to make such a bold statement about racism. They need more data, I won't just accept one narrowly focused test as gospel like Kyoukan is doing.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 17, 2003, 4:00 pm

Adex you are making the wrong conclusion from the data. there is ZERO comparison between this study and the data (which isnt 100% conclusive either) regarding homosexuality and hardwiring.

It is not that people are predisposed to be racists.

you should just conclude that racist whites have activity in different brain regions than non-racist whites when shown images of blacks.

obviously they researchers dont divide people into (i hope) 2 piles, non-racist and racist. they most likely score along some kind of continuum and then do an analysis of variance with certain fMRI images from that.

but back to the point. Somebody who is racist against blacks will have more powerful emotions than to somebody who views blacks the same as any other person. Emotions are brain activity.

fMRI does not measure brain structures. It measures brain activity. you cannot make ANY statements about the wiring of the structures from fMRI or differences in various parts of the brain.

you can only say this: blood was flowing to this part of the brain at time X. Time X also corresponds to when you showed the test subject the image.

The data tells you NOTHING about why a "racist" white has different activity than a non-racist white. Nothing from this experiement will tell you whether people are chemically pre-disposed to be racist, ro whether racism is purely a function of one's environment, or a blend of the two.

the suggestions about homosexuality being hardwired did not have their origin in fMRI data. They had their origin in morphological data - meaning a scientist did dissections of the brains of homosexual men who had died. There are some issues with other factors with the original study (as i recall), but this would still tell you a completely different type of thing than an fMRI study.

Just because a structure looks different in an anatomical exam doesnt necessarily mean it functions differently from an electrical point of view. But in brain function, distance is time (impulse take time to travel), and time is information (brain sets up rhythms to add layers of information to not only "what" impulse is coming in, but "when" that impulse comes in relative to other information. So in that regard, it is not irresponsible to conclude that differently shaped features might function somewhat differently.

/tangent off =)

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 17, 2003, 4:07 pm

Voronwe I remain sceptical of the report.

I prefaced my arguement with the word *IF*

IF you accept the premise, it add perspective to a parallel arguement.

IF

heh,

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 17, 2003, 4:11 pm

but the premise has nothing to do with predisposition.

this study only has to do with a single event in time.

let's say i hate Texas A&M and you love Texas A&M. If you did a fMRI of me looking at a picture of an Aggie, you might expect to see different areas of my brain light up than yours would in that study.

That does not mean i was born to hate Aggies =).

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 4:13 pm

Voro you did a good job of laying it out in laymans terms. I would like to see more data still though.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » November 17, 2003, 4:21 pm

I bet you you could find a brain pattern similar to the ones those people exhibit that's totally unrelated...

-=Lohrno

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 4:28 pm

Yea that's my point entirely, need more data. I mean, they say in the article "In those with racist tendencies, a surge of activity was seen in part of the brain that controls thoughts and behaviour" Now, did they ask the people before the test *Hey, do you have racial tendencies* or did they draw that conclusion of them having racial tendencies only after they ran their tests. This is a huge, and i mean a huge, leap of faith to say that someone is racist just because more blood flows through their brain than normal when they see a certain picture of ONE race. I am not willing to make that leap without more data. 30 white people viewing pictures of blacks, there are tons of other formulas for this question that they can run to decrease my scepticism.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 17, 2003, 4:42 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:The same way that you are stating an opinion that this guys research is dead on balls accurate (it's an industry term),

I said absolutely no such thing. Where did I say that? In fact I stated pretty much the exact opposite to that. Are you this deluded in real life or just vent it all on the internet?

and the same way you say not a single Abrams tank has been lost in combat lol.

When I said that, only one had been lost, and it was quite recent to the time I said it.

Bet you are fun at million man marches.

What does that even mean? Do you even know?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 17, 2003, 4:44 pm

maybe they made the white folks watch "Vampire in Brooklyn" or "Harlem Nights" before the test.

that would make anybody a racist for at least a couple hours

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 17, 2003, 4:47 pm

Vampire in brooklyn for sure, but Harlem Nights? I loved that movie.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 17, 2003, 5:00 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Vampire in brooklyn for sure, but Harlem Nights? I loved that movie.

harlem nights may have been cool. i dont actually rmember it =).

i was originally going to go with Kadeem Hardison clips from "A Different World" as the racist inducing stimulus!

Crav · Post by **Crav** » November 17, 2003, 8:27 pm

The scientists first measured the racial bias of 30 white individuals using a standard technique.

Volunteers were given a computer test to record the ease with which they associated with white and black racial groups with concepts that were positive or negative. Those with higher levels of racial bias took longer to associate white people with negative concepts and black people with positive concepts.

I think this is how they measured whether the person was racially biased before they did the MRIs. Meaning they timed how quickly one associated whites with say armed robbery as opposed to blacks. Mind you that's just what I got from the article. I do agree that more information and large groups of different races need to be tested before it can have significance.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » November 18, 2003, 9:17 am

Voronwë wrote:maybe they made the white folks watch "Vampire in Brooklyn" or "Harlem Nights" before the test.

that would make anybody a racist for at least a couple hours

Sorry, but Harlem Nights was one of Eddie Murphy's best flicks. So back off the pipe biatch or I'll shoot yo pinky toe off!

Silvarel Mistmoon · November 18, 2003, 10:06 am

In those with racist tendencies, a surge of activity was seen in part of the brain that controls thoughts and behaviour. Scientists believe this reflected volunteers' attempts to to curb their latent racism.

So how do they tell if it's racist thoughts or if it's simply people thinking at that moment about how they should behave correctly?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 18, 2003, 10:17 am

So how do they tell if it's racist thoughts or if it's simply people thinking at that moment about how they should behave correctly?

In those with racist tendencies, a surge of activity was seen in part of the brain that controls thoughts and behaviour. Scientists believe this reflected volunteers' attempts to to curb their latent racism.

Believe is the key word here. Nobody is claiming anything concrete. A LOT more research needs to be done yet before anything like a firm conclusion can be drawn.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 18, 2003, 11:02 am

That's all I am saying, thank you for donating common sense to this thread, because Kyoukan was a black hole of stupidity.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 18, 2003, 11:04 am

Voronwë wrote:but the premise has nothing to do with predisposition.

this study only has to do with a single event in time.

let's say i hate Texas A&M and you love Texas A&M. If you did a fMRI of me looking at a picture of an Aggie, you might expect to see different areas of my brain light up than yours would in that study.

That does not mean i was born to hate Aggies =).

Exactly what I would think. The report proves that there is common brain activity between racist people looking at the images they hate. Why no do it for people who hate heights or insects or whatever. There's no point in saying that a specific type of brain activity deems racist when that person could get similar results looking at anything. There's no control in this test at all and wouldn't be acceptable as even a high school level hypothesis.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 18, 2003, 11:57 am

You know, assuming there IS a part of the brain that makes people racist, I still will not like, tolerate nor want to be around such people.

Assuming this report is misworded and "tendancies" should be replaced by "learned behaviors" then I believe it to be logical that the brain has different responses to different stimuli, since WE ARE ALL FUCKING SELF AWARE and part of being so is that we react to different stimulus, therefore we are aware.

Great science, they spend a bunch of money to prove what Decartes said centuries ago, "I think, therefore, I am"

I wonder if they are going to study that wierd phenomenon that makes apples fall down instead of up.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 18, 2003, 1:05 pm

I wonder if they are going to study that wierd phenomenon that makes apples fall down instead of up

I sincerely hope so, seeing as we don't know why yet. According to our models of the physical universe there _should_ be a Graviton particle. But we can't find it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 18, 2003, 4:25 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:That's all I am saying, thank you for donating common sense to this thread.

That isn't what you're saying at all. Jesus fucking christ it is like you are the dumbest person in the world. You came right out and said that this guy is wrong and that this is the way it should be based on absolutely no fucking knowledge of his field of research. Then you started ranting and making up a bunch of crap that I supposedly said while screeching and flinging your feces at the monitor, then you went into million man marches and only god knows what else.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » November 18, 2003, 4:56 pm

I'll ride the derail for a little while...

Kyoukan, you seem to enter these threads with sarcastic or off-topic posts, and then attack the people who call you out on it. Rarely do I see you attack an issue anymore, and it's heinous for you to expect Krimson to explain or even back up his statements when you rarely do so in any sort of coherent manner. Personally, the cock fencing between you and Krim is getting old, but I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest that his opinion, baseless or not, needs to be justified to you.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 18, 2003, 5:00 pm

Fortunately for me I could give less of a fuck what a boring shithead like yourself thinks!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » November 18, 2003, 5:19 pm

kyoukan wrote:Fortunately for me I could give less of a fuck what a boring shithead like yourself thinks!

Typical Response when you get your shit handed to you. Have a nice day.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 19, 2003, 8:07 am

Bullcrap. I've so far resisted the urge to try and "defend" Kyoucan against the rabid and deliberate misconstrueing of what she says here, but FFS:

Krimson started with:

I can almost guarantee you that the results would be the same when blacks see pictures of other blacks. What a crock of sh!t.

Freakin thought police wanna-be's here

Which is pretty much just saying the research is bullshit, but without any real reason for saying so. Kyou pointed this out:

So what you are supposing with absolutely zero knowledge in the field of brain research that this guy is wrong

Typical combative response there. I know you all find it mortifying to be spoken to this way. I find it amusing and take it for what it's worth.
There was then the usual bit of to-and-fro between Krimson and Kyoucan until the next relevant point:

The same way that you are stating an opinion that this guys research is dead on balls accurate

And so it begins - Kyoucan made NO SUCH claim anywhere. Questioning Krimson's initial assertion does NOT automatically mean the questioner has a diametrically opposed opinion. I honestly think this simplistic "with us or against us" mindset is doing serious harm to American cognitive abilities. Kyou herself points out the error of this statement:

I said absolutely no such thing

And she is speaking the truth here.

Then our hero steps in and saves the day

Believe is the key word here. Nobody is claiming anything concrete. A LOT more research needs to be done yet before anything like a firm conclusion can be drawn

Krimson agrees

That's all I am saying, thank you for donating common sense to this thread

But can't help tacking on a cheap shot at his nemesis

because Kyoukan was a black hole of stupidity

Thus making the classic VV mistake of confusing the personal sparring with the actual issue under discussion.

Kyou takes issue with this though:

That isn't what you're saying at all

I'm prepared to accept that it is _pretty much_ what Krimson meant but it was presented very very poorly in the orginal post, which seemed to contain as much of an emotional response as a reasoned one.

Then the usual anti-Kyoucan fuckhead brigade turns up looking to crow but as usual completely fails to see the picture clearly due to their hatred for Kyoucan who has contributed and will continue to contribute more to this community than any 5 of her detractors put together.

NOW SIMMER DOWN!

You're all very welcome ;P

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 19, 2003, 11:10 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:This is an interesting flip of perspectives.

If you accept the premise, current societal movements dictate that we'll have to "accept" racists' behavior because they're chemically predisposed to act that way.

Now we all know the answer to this. It is wrong to act on a chemical urge from the brain if the physical manisfestation of that urge is harmful in the real world.

Does this not challenge the arguement that we should accept homosexual acts *soley* because some people have homosexual tendencies hardwired into them?

*IF* this finding about racists is true, it forces the advocates of open homosexuality to champion their cause from a "It's ok to be gay" angle rather than a genetic angle.

The difference is racism causes harm to others while homosexuality doesn't.

-------------------------

As to the study I doubt there is anything to it. I firmly believe that any person can have racial, sexual or some other kind of prejudicial impulses (basic instincts - they aren't in our tribe etc) but our morals and experience determine how we deal with them. I would not be surprised if a racist individual actually showed less brain activity than a non-racist individual who resists\suppresses these impulses.

Purely speculation\opinion.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 19, 2003, 11:11 am

Are you saying I attacked kyoukan first? That is what it seems like you are alluding to when you say I tacked on a cheap shot at my nemesis, but here is why I did....

kyoukan wrote:is this one of those "asian work ethic" moments where we all just nod our heads and let you rant incoherently about shit you know less than nothing about?

Do you think I would have taken a shot at her if she would not have broken out the razor blades first? Are you honestly saying she is innocent, and I just OUT OF THE BLUE decided to put her down?

I would really like a reply from you and why you felt it necessary to point out my attack on her, but not her catalyst attack on me first. The rest of your post I have no problem with, just this part.

-edit- Oh, does my sparring with Kyoukan mean that I am in the anti-kyoukan brigade? Not being funny, I really want to know if you think I am.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 19, 2003, 11:13 am

Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:This is an interesting flip of perspectives.

If you accept the premise, current societal movements dictate that we'll have to "accept" racists' behavior because they're chemically predisposed to act that way.

Now we all know the answer to this. It is wrong to act on a chemical urge from the brain if the physical manisfestation of that urge is harmful in the real world.

Does this not challenge the arguement that we should accept homosexual acts *soley* because some people have homosexual tendencies hardwired into them?

*IF* this finding about racists is true, it forces the advocates of open homosexuality to champion their cause from a "It's ok to be gay" angle rather than a genetic angle.
The difference is racism causes harm to others while homosexuality doesn't.

-------------------------

As to the study I doubt there is anything to it. I firmly believe that any person can have racial, sexual or some other kind of prejudicial impulses (basic instincts - they aren't in our tribe etc) but our morals and experience determine how we deal with them. I would not be surprised if a racist individual actually showed less brain activity than a non-racist individual who resists\suppresses these impulses.

Purely speculation\opinion.

Thing is, no one is jumping down your shit just because you stated an opinion, which is where this thread got on a tangent when kyoukan and I started arguing over stupid crap, as usual. I am just as guilty as she is I admit, cause neither of us will back down.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 19, 2003, 12:05 pm

Are you saying I attacked kyoukan first? That is what it seems like you are alluding to when you say I tacked on a cheap shot at my nemesis, but here is why I did....

kyoukan wrote:
is this one of those "asian work ethic" moments where we all just nod our heads and let you rant incoherently about shit you know less than nothing about?

Do you think I would have taken a shot at her if she would not have broken out the razor blades first? Are you honestly saying she is innocent, and I just OUT OF THE BLUE decided to put her down?

No not at all and I apologise for giving that impression. I was trying to avoid the mudslinging in order to stick to the point, up to a point, til I tried to point out that the point gets lost in the mudslinging. Erm. It's plain you two don't see eye to eye and Kyou's style pulls no punches. To the above you could have simply replied with a "No" and given your reasons, but you both have too much fun ragging on each other, you little scamps. And the point gets lost in the noise, as I tried to point out.

-edit- Oh, does my sparring with Kyoukan mean that I am in the anti-kyoukan brigade? Not being funny, I really want to know if you think I am

Nah I'm referring to the chumps whose only contributions to these discussions is to randomly attack Kyou, ususally along the lines of "har har pwned" even when they're utterly wrong. Which is almost always.
This is the real reason for my post - those claiming Kyou gets "her ass handed to her" when most of these twits don't even understand the point.

But for the record, yes, Kyou attacked you first, you kicked back, the thread meandered about with lots of noisy argument, and in the fog of war assumptions, misquotes and misunderstandings. I don't care who started it, but if it matters to you, Kyoucan did.
She's so naughty.

I've so far resisted the urge to try and "defend" Kyoucan

And after this thread, my will to resist is back up where it belongs

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 19, 2003, 12:09 pm

I stated in another thread yesterday that her points get drowned out by her hysterics, I guess I am just as guilty when replying back to her. Point taken, I'll try to settle down, but like you said, it's so damn fun sparring with her.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 19, 2003, 12:17 pm

I don't have any fun trying to educate the ignorant and stupid. What gave you that idea?

My only fucking point was how in the world someone with zero experience or knowledge in a given field can question the results of someone else's research. Who the hell argues with brain experts and physicists when their job title is "assistant monitor wiper" at Dell or whatever the fuck krimson does all day. It's fucking ludicrous beyond belief. I don't garner any enjoyment out of this. I do however feel it is my duty as a human to at least try to better those around me. I use humilation as a preferred method, but maybe I should try something different, because christ all fucking mighty, I think he is actually getting dumber.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 19, 2003, 12:30 pm

I notice she likes to insult the intelligence of her betters (well, just me). Maybe if she says it enough, she'll start to believe it. I could'nt resist.

When a scientist performs a narrow test and slaps a label on it as proof of racism, I'll question it everytime. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would do the same. I call for more testing to be done, and you start ripping out your cunt hairs and start throwing it at me while turning into the *forum she-hulk*. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are just a walking life support for your vagina. In kyoukans world, anyone disagreeing with her is labelled as dumb so she must be a super genius in her mind.

I am a trainer at Dell sweet cheeks, but it's a far cry from the millionaire that you proclaim to be I confess. Let's switch tactics, I'll rant and rave whenever you post, and you make logical sense in response, a sort of role reversal. Starting.....now.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 19, 2003, 12:42 pm

walking life support for my vagina? do you get your insults out of a book written by a 13 year old published in 1974?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 19, 2003, 12:46 pm

I've used up all but one of my witty remarks from kyoukans insults for dummies, only thing I have left is to SUPREMELY INSULT YOUR IQ BY CALLING YOU dumb.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 19, 2003, 2:32 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:This is an interesting flip of perspectives.

If you accept the premise, current societal movements dictate that we'll have to "accept" racists' behavior because they're chemically predisposed to act that way.

Now we all know the answer to this. It is wrong to act on a chemical urge from the brain if the physical manisfestation of that urge is harmful in the real world.

Does this not challenge the arguement that we should accept homosexual acts *soley* because some people have homosexual tendencies hardwired into them?

*IF* this finding about racists is true, it forces the advocates of open homosexuality to champion their cause from a "It's ok to be gay" angle rather than a genetic angle.
The difference is racism causes harm to others while homosexuality doesn't.

-------------------------

As to the study I doubt there is anything to it. I firmly believe that any person can have racial, sexual or some other kind of prejudicial impulses (basic instincts - they aren't in our tribe etc) but our morals and experience determine how we deal with them. I would not be surprised if a racist individual actually showed less brain activity than a non-racist individual who resists\suppresses these impulses.

Purely speculation\opinion.
Thing is, no one is jumping down your shit just because you stated an opinion, which is where this thread got on a tangent when kyoukan and I started arguing over stupid crap, as usual. I am just as guilty as she is I admit, cause neither of us will back down.

Count your blessings you don't regularly get Brotha, Metanis and Cart replying to you (maybe minus Cart).

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 19, 2003, 3:29 pm

I agree with your distinction but disagree with your conclusion Forthe, that's why I posted things in the manner that I did.

So you do agree that having a genetic disposition towards doing something doesn't necessarily give you license to act on the urge?

Just because you're born a certain way doesn't give you freedom to act that certain way, especially if your action is harmful to society.

If this is so, the debate over right and wrong leaves the world of genetics and returns back to the arena of what is, and is not acceptable to society.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 19, 2003, 3:41 pm

kyoukan wrote:I wouldn't even know where to look because I don't really have any knowledge on the subject. Thus I am not belligerantly questioning this guy's research based on absolutely no evidence to the fact.

But hey, that's just me.

I'm curious tho: how the fuck do you state an opinion on subject you have no knowledge of?

Holy shit the banana fucking the plantain. Iran Nuclear Proliferation...
Abrahams Tank... there are other examples.

This guy is presenting as scientific fact a hypothesis that still has not been proven by testing other races using the same parameters.

That is what Krimson is questioning Kyoukan

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » November 19, 2003, 3:47 pm

Forthe wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:
Forthe wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:This is an interesting flip of perspectives.

If you accept the premise, current societal movements dictate that we'll have to "accept" racists' behavior because they're chemically predisposed to act that way.

Now we all know the answer to this. It is wrong to act on a chemical urge from the brain if the physical manisfestation of that urge is harmful in the real world.

Does this not challenge the arguement that we should accept homosexual acts *soley* because some people have homosexual tendencies hardwired into them?

*IF* this finding about racists is true, it forces the advocates of open homosexuality to champion their cause from a "It's ok to be gay" angle rather than a genetic angle.
The difference is racism causes harm to others while homosexuality doesn't.

-------------------------

As to the study I doubt there is anything to it. I firmly believe that any person can have racial, sexual or some other kind of prejudicial impulses (basic instincts - they aren't in our tribe etc) but our morals and experience determine how we deal with them. I would not be surprised if a racist individual actually showed less brain activity than a non-racist individual who resists\suppresses these impulses.

Purely speculation\opinion.
Thing is, no one is jumping down your shit just because you stated an opinion, which is where this thread got on a tangent when kyoukan and I started arguing over stupid crap, as usual. I am just as guilty as she is I admit, cause neither of us will back down.
Count your blessings you don't regularly get Brotha, Metanis and Cart replying to you (maybe minus Cart).

Yeah Im the only one Privy to your 3rd World garbage.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 19, 2003, 4:13 pm

Cartalas wrote:Yeah Im the only one Privy to your 3rd World garbage.

I rest my case Krimson.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » November 19, 2003, 4:19 pm

Forthe wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Yeah Im the only one Privy to your 3rd World garbage.
I rest my case Krimson.

And I mine

VeeshanVault

Brain scan identifies racists says scientists...

Brain scan identifies racists says scientists...

Re: Brain scan identifies racists says scientists...

Re: Brain scan identifies racists says scientists...