When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

WilfShelf, you're obviously a scientist. What are these scientific facts that you say exist? I can only discuss the facts if I know what you are talking about. It turned out that you were previously talking about culture, when I was talking about genes.

No. I absolutely and fundamentally do not agree with that. The mafia are linked by very dubious family links actually, most of which are fictional rather than 'blood'. The 'blood' they speak of is mostly symbolic with 'cousinships' invented for convenience.

But I can see you really don't want to engage with the actual, scientific evidence I am presenting you with, you want to rely on anecdotes and what we human scientists call 'availability heuristics': which means you want to use the explanation that seems most simple and most available to you, to explain the things you hope to be true.

That is not the same as actual truth however, which exists outside of what you would like to believe.

I bow out now, again: I see I am making no difference.

I am claoming that genes count and that families share genes and that is why they have a stronger bond than those who don't share those genes. That is why criminals like the cosa nostra are often family based since there will be a stronger bond between the group. Do you agree with that?

Patrotism is an inbuilt feeling which is a protection mechanism to protect the genes in a larger grouping, most often, historically, a grouping of shared genes but to a lesser extent than the family. that is where the drive for patriotism comes from, and that is why it is shared by teh majority of people, with some exceptions (quite often Marxists).
That is what I am claiming.

The BBC isn't neutral. However lfn is nuts about this. I am a patriot and I love the BBC and I love the panorama broadcast and the timing. It says, this is corruption and we want no part of it, whatever the cost. Lfn I know where you're coming from but you are wrong.

Is the OP taking the piss?

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but the OP sounds like a troll.

I might be biased but I usually think that people who believe the following......

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history.

......aren't really up to thinking for themselves.

You might find it helpful to read the other link claig: it's a series of bullet points addressing ALL of the issues you raise.

You can't hone in on one part of Malik's argument as evidence for what you're claiming: you'd be missing out all the other bits that go with it which challenge what you're claiming.

So are we all in agreemnet on that?

Malik says
'There are certainly real genetic differences between human populations'

that is what I am saying, so I agree with him. I haven't had time to read the rest.

Those differences are trivial. You would have to have a theory of characteristics deriving from particular 'types' for it to mean anything in the way you do. Like people with ginger hair having something else... Or with black skin having something else. Or other genetic 'types' having something else.

Is that what you believe?

Claig - Again - yes that is true and entirely uncontroversisal.

If you can take the sentance about 'Race' out of a post and it still means EXACTLY the same thing then it's not really a post about 'Race'.

'What you are describing is called 'skin colour'.

I already said it was more than skin colour several times. What about eye colour and hair colour?

But I also believe that some of our other characteristics are due to our genes. Some of us are shy, some extrovert, some lethargic and some energetic. I think it is our genes that are the main determinants of that. All of the races have people of all these types too.

My contention is that what marks out exceptional sporting superstars like Usain Bolt are their unique genes and it is this that differentiates his performance from all of his thousands of competitors. Gideon Osborne could practice forever, but he will never be able to beat Usain Bolt in a race, because his genes do not lend themselves to being able to beat Usain Bolt.

I agree with TCNY: There is 'something' called genetic patterns that map onto broad, BIG populations. But this is an accident of geographical history. And you can derive little else of significance from it. Some people might call this 'race' but as TCNY says it really isn't a useful shorthand.

The Malik article is interesting: no one doubts that some genetic information is useful (some disease prevention issues for example) but the other bits are being missed: that populations are 85% similar and that there is far more genetic variation WITHIN so called 'races' than BETWEEN them.

Well that's because what you have drescribed is not 'Race' is it is used by people discussing differences between races, identity etc.

What you are describing is called 'skin colour'.

I know it's a TV station and they're all leftie bolshevik nutters etc etc but this is actually quite a good overview of the problem... And the Channel 4 resources on the 'science of race' series they did are pretty interesting overall.

So what you are saying is 'some people look different to some other people'

Yes.

And?

ok it may not be interesting but I thought that you and WilfShelf didn't agree with it and were saying that race is not real and is just a social construct

'If your definition of Race is just 'skin colour' then (ignoring the issue of where one draws the border), then all you are saying is 'black people are black', which is genetic but not terribly interesting.'

yes all I have ever been saying is that there are genetic differences between races and they are real, they are not a social construct.

Well, good because that bit is clearly and trivially true. There ARE large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics. But all that's saying is 'black people are black'. This is not a terribly novel interesting or helpful fact other than in the manufacture of makeup.

claig this essay expresses the complexity of 'race science' quite well...

'By 'Race' I mean the idea that the fact that there are large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics '

I agree with the above but not about the intelligence and attitude that you mentioned.

If your definition of Race is just 'skin colour' then (ignoring the issue of where one draws the border), then all you are saying is 'black people are black', which is genetic but not terribly interesting.

Yes, clearly, but that's because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE (mostly). And, even if there is some teeny tiny influence of genetics on things like skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and physical characteristics, that DOES NOT map onto geographical location, or personality/character, or cultural values, or beliefs. And DEFINITELY does not map onto 'country' (ie the object of patriotism) which was where you started in your argument.

By 'Race' I mean the idea that the fact that there are large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics means that the variation of other characteristics such as intelligence and attitudes within those groups is less that that between the groups and that this can be attributed to the same causes as the characteristics you are using for the classification.

So if you took someone from a Chinese racial background and they were raised in an entirely European enviroment they would still display 'Chinese' characteristics other than in appearance.

but WilfShelf, I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about culture and I am talking about genetics. A culture is not a race.