Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[Foster Zygote]

No. I think you've been caught red-handed foil-seeking just now. People who jump on opportunities to be The One who argues "whites aren't genetically smarter than blacks" aren't disagreeing with me. Where, in this thread or elsewhere, did I claim that was my position?

Read the following:

"The pattern that I've seen developing is that anyone who disagrees with you is accused of having a political bias. You haven't offered any evidence to support this position."

Where does it say "Dave thinks whites are genetically smarter than blacks"? The fact that you often argue against other people's positions without offering a position of your own makes it rather difficult to discuss your position doesn't it? But the fact is you are in disagreement with myself and others regarding the ability of scientists to define intelligence alone much less apply it to population studies. In my case you have tried to characterize my motivation as being "in-group seeking" in response to a query from myself to clarify your statements. You then made snide, inappropriate comments regarding myself and "red meat". You have made further inappropriate comments regarding the motivations of those to whom you are in opposition in the above post. You lamented that certain topics were not open to free debate. Well you've been given the opportunity to freely debate this one and you have peppered your responses with immature derogation and straw men. Ironically, I find the post by Articulett, which you predicted would be "red meat", to have been professional in its composition and worthy of mature discussion. But as you cannot seem to participate without making snide comments I have nothing further to say to you.

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

Read the following:

"The pattern that I've seen developing is that anyone who disagrees with you is accused of having a political bias. You haven't offered any evidence to support this position."

Where does it say "Dave thinks whites are genetically smarter than blacks"?

The implication seemed pretty clear to me given that that was your response to my response to DrKitten. You (falsely) accused me of doing that after my comment about DrKitten's rebuke of folks who think whites are genetically smarter than blacks.

The fact that you often argue against other people's positions without offering a position of your own makes it rather difficult to discuss your position doesn't it?

No. I do offer positions. The positions are either "I think X" or "I don't know". "I don't know" is a valid and honest position. "I don't know and I don't think you know either" is also a valid position.

But the fact is you are in disagreement with myself and others regarding the ability of scientists to define intelligence alone much less apply it to population studies.

No. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you or others regarding that. I'm seeking more information. I am skeptical of categorical dismissals of the possibility that intelligence varies in human subpopulations. And I'm skeptical whether it's tue that scientists are unable to either define or apply what you're calling "intelligence". But just cause I lack your certainty about a particular position (and just because I question whether or not your certainty is grounded in science rather than in seeking the moral highground) doesn't mean that I'm in disagreement with you. I think you could well be right. I think you could well be wrong. I look forward to being more firmly convinced.

In my case you have tried to characterize my motivation as being "in-group seeking" in response to a query from myself to clarify your statements. You then made snide, inappropriate comments regarding myself and "red meat". You have made further inappropriate comments regarding the motivations of those to whom you are in opposition in the above post. You lamented that certain topics were not open to free debate. Well you've been given the opportunity to freely debate this one and you have peppered your responses with immature derogation and straw men. Ironically, I find the post by Articulett, which you predicted would be "red meat", to have been professional in its composition and worthy of mature discussion. But as you cannot seem to participate without making snide comments I have nothing further to say to you.

Steven

Well, sorry to see you leave. Fortunately there's still a great assemblage of posters in this thread, most of whom are probably brighter and better informed on this topic than either of us. I can't say I'm sorry if I'll see one less iteration of "white people are not genetically more intelligent than black people" in this thread. Because I think it's been done to death and gets in the way of new and interesting discussion on this topic.

 

[Roboramma]

We are talking about tendencies amongst groups, and it cannot be applied to an individual and, as skeptical thinkers, I think we'd want to be especially careful about "confirmation bias". But I hope we don't let political correctness keep us from voicing observations and data about tendencies amongst groups of people.

I do think, though, that it goes just a little too far to say that tendancies amongst grouops can't be applied to individuals. Of course that you are a member of a group that tends toward a certain direction doesn't mean that you yourself can be found at that end of the scale, it does mean that you're more likely to be there than average.
And this can be useful. In fact, it's very useful. Trained plumbers tend to have a better understanding of plumbing than those not trained in plumbing. But this doesn't mean that there is no one not trained in plumbing who would make a better plumber than any trained plumber.
Nonetheless, if I were looking to hire a plumber, I should follow the tendancy that I know is there and hire a guy who's had the proper training.

If I were to encounter three people in the street, and for some reason I knew I had to get into a fist-fight with one of them, a good way to determine which one would be easier to deal with would be to look at their relative sizes. The smaller person would tend to be less physically dangerous. Yet smaller guys have beat bigger guys in fights before.

I don't know if my examples are good ones, but I think the point stands up. Just because the information that a tendancy within a population gives us about the members of that population isn't perfect, that doesn't mean it's not informative, even regarding individuals.
What it does mean is that we should be careful to interpret that information as it applies to individuals only to as great a degree as is justified.

As this applies to race, I think someone in this thread mentioned medicine. The doctor does well to apply his/her knowledge of trends in the population to the individual that walks in to his/her office. This may be stereotyping: the individual could say, "Just because I'm jewish doesn't mean I've got disease X!" which is true. But it still makes sense for the doctor to pay more attention to the possibility because of the added information that race gives.

Now after I've said all that, I don't think there are many implications to this. This is because, as most posters in this thread acknowledge, racial variation just isn't very wide. And where we do see traits that seem to vary between races, the implications of that variation don't seem to be very important.

 

[Dave1001]

At the level at which this thread is pitched, there's very little data available, and almost no one's working on it. Partly, this can be attributed to way the well has been very effectively poisoned by the Bell Curve, I think. No competent scholar wants to be associated with Murray and Herrnstein's theories, in the same way that no competent historian wants to co-author with David Irving.

That is as I suspected and quite disappointing.

A more significant factor is the problem of definition. There's a lot that has been done about the genetic basis of cognition -- for example, the FOXP2 gene is known to have substantial effects on human language (you can thank Myra Gopnik for much of this research) as well as other physiological aspects.

I find this absolutely fascinating. I suspect we'll get an outpouring of information on all this soon through research in neurogenetics and various other fields. Much more interesting than tempests over shoddy research. I look forward to when we have much more information on the various cognitive abilities of humans, our genes relating to them, environmental factors relating to them, and how they vary in human subpopulations. It will make for richer and more genuine scientific conversation.

But notice the careful definitions involved here. I'm not talking about "race," I'm talking about FOXP2 -- and I'm not talking about "IQ," but about "language," (and I could get even more specific, in terms of tongue articulation as well as specifical grammatical disfunctionalities). There's no need for me (or for Gopnik) to dig into the great mass of sewage that is "IQ" to address this -- and every reason for her not to.

Yeah, I think few people in this thread are that obtuse. I discuss IQ as a sop to what's available to be discussed in thread. Same with social race. But I'd rather be in a richer, and more scientific conversation as I mentioned above.

You've answered your own question about the smallest level of differentiation.

There's been quite a bit of work done -- here's one site that you might find interesting, summarizing the state of discussion as of a year and a half ago. As you might expect, the main conclusion of the researchers working in this area is that "more funding is required."

I'll check it out (hopefully). Whatever important points from there you want to share in-thread, you are most welcome to.

 

[Dave1001]

Edit

 

[Roboramma]

I find this absolutely fascinating. I suspect we'll get an outpouring of information on all this soon through research in neurogenetics and various other fields. Much more interesting than tempests over shoddy research. I look forward to when we have much more information on the various cognitive abilities of humans, our genes relating to them, environmental factors relating to them, and how they vary in human subpopulations. It will make for richer and more genuine scientific conversation.

One thing to be noted in regards to FOXP2 is that it doesn't seem to vary much in our species. It seems that except for in recent mutants - who are quickly selected against because of the langauge disorders this gene causes - the only variation is in the parts of the gene that don't code for anything. The amino acids that your FOXP2 gene codes for are exactly the same as mine.

Those few individuals with differences in the FOXP2 gene that actually make themselves known in the amino acids end up with language disorders.

So it would seem that this gene, anyway, is unlikely to shed light on how variation in genetics between human populations translates into real world differences. But as you say, it does offer us a lot of other interesting data.

(I would love it if anyone else would correct any mistakes in the above, but I'm pretty sure it's basically accurate).

 

[Dave1001]

One thing to be noted in regards to FOXP2 is that it doesn't seem to vary much in our species. It seems that except for in recent mutants - who are quickly selected against because of the langauge disorders this gene causes - the only variation is in the parts of the gene that don't code for anything. The amino acids that your FOXP2 gene codes for are exactly the same as mine.

Those few individuals with differences in the FOXP2 gene that actually make themselves known in the amino acids end up with language disorders.

So it would seem that this gene, anyway, is unlikely to shed light on how variation in genetics between human populations translates into real world differences. But as you say, it does offer us a lot of other interesting data.

(I would love it if anyone else would correct any mistakes in the above, but I'm pretty sure it's basically accurate).

okay, that perhaps covers one gene. Only a few thousand left to go.

 

[Yahzi]

So, let's actually talk about good science (or the best science available, and how its specific shortcomings can be corrected) involved in studying human populations and differences in ability.

The point is that there is no good science. And the best science available is indistinguishable from guesswork.

We do not understand what intelligence is well enough to measure the tiny variations people claim exist between various groups.

We cannot measure ability - or groups - finely enough to meaningfully discuss differences in ability between groups.

A discussion about different abilities in groups is like a discussion on how the Martians built those canals. Sheer useless speculation based on inadequate data.

 

[Dave1001]

The point is that there is no good science. And the best science available is indistinguishable from guesswork.

We do not understand what intelligence is well enough to measure the tiny variations people claim exist between various groups.

We cannot measure ability - or groups - finely enough to meaningfully discuss differences in ability between groups.

A discussion about different abilities in groups is like a discussion on how the Martians built those canals. Sheer useless speculation based on inadequate data.

There doesn't seem to me to be consensus in the scientific community that absolutely nothing can be said about ability difference in human subpopulations (do not conflate this to intelligence as measured by IQ and social race).

Am I mistaken about that?

 

[Yahzi]

And if DNA can cause people to look different on the outside...it can cause internal differences too from the breeding populations that produced the physical differences.

Right here is the fallacy of racism. It is the application of the first law of magic, the "law of similars," and it is no more than a superstitious piece of nonsense.

It is, of course, unquestionable that genes can cause psychological differences. You would have to be stupid to think otherwise.

But you would have to be twice as stupid to think those genes are in any way related to the obvious genes on the outside.

Judging a book by its cover is generally understood to be stupid. Only when we are talking about racism does it suddenly get presented as "reasonable."

What we know about human character and intelligence is this: it is a frightfully complex construction, which is 96% genetically identical to chimpanzees and yet vastly, vastly different in effect. In other words, we don't know much.

When you don't know, all you get to say is, "I don't know." You do not get to make things up. When you can't measure an effect, all you get to say is, "I can't measure it." You don't get to substitute other measurements.

The idea that the symphony of human sentience can be controlled by one or two genes is a simplistic, childish fantasy. The idea that we can substitute cultural history for scientific measurement is a hateful, oppressive fantasy.

 

[Yahzi]

There doesn't seem to me to be consensus in the scientific community that absolutely nothing can be said about ability difference in human subpopulations (do not conflate this to intelligence as measured by IQ and social race).

1. If by ability you mean intellectual ability, then yes, you are mistaken.

2. Human subpopulations have nothing to do with the social theory of race. As Blutoski already demonstrated, the social theory of race is about skin color, not genetic history. Two people who achieve the same skin color but from entirely different genetic ancesterys are treated the same by the social theory of race.

 

[Yahzi]

They make a good case for the test's validity.

Where I part with their reasoning is that they dismiss social explanations without good justification,

Part of the case they make for the test's validity involves dismissing social explanations without justification.

Nonetheless, the point remains: we cannot measure intelligence finely enough to distinguish between generations of the same populations; the idea that we can measure finely enough to distinguish between populations when that difference is postulated to be smaller than the difference between generations is simply indefensible.

 

[Yahzi]

The statement that "race is meaningless" (or more technically, "race is genetically uninformative") is technically untrue.

You are being unnecessarily generous.

We don't allow theologians to retrofit their theories to match the data and claim they were right all along; we don't need to allow racists that courtesy either.

The social theory of race is just wrong. The common understanding of race is meaningless, despite its occasional accidental hits (saying that Asians are not blond is no more impressive than Slyvia saying that 70 year old men can expect heart trouble).

One can construct groupings of genetic distribution that do make sense, just as one can construct definitions of God that are not internally incoherent.

But that's not the God or Race that people talk about.

 

[Dave1001]

1. If by ability you mean intellectual ability, then yes, you are mistaken.

2. Human subpopulations have nothing to do with the social theory of race. As Blutoski already demonstrated, the social theory of race is about skin color, not genetic history. Two people who achieve the same skin color but from entirely different genetic ancesterys are treated the same by the social theory of race.

Ugh, I put in my parenthetical remark to keep people from rehashing these same 2 points. I guess there's no stopping it. For the record, I think you're making these points to the void at this point, because it seems the rest of us already understand it. Probably we've all understood it years ago. So let's let go of trying to be Stephen Jay Gould writing "The Mismeasure of Man". Let's all let go of the desire to play that role, and start moving the discussion beyond pointing out the messiness involved in using IQ as a proxy for intelligence, and beyond pointing out that social race has little scientific value in discussing human genetic variation.

 

[Dave1001]

You are being unnecessarily generous.

We don't allow theologians to retrofit their theories to match the data and claim they were right all along; we don't need to allow racists that courtesy either.

The social theory of race is just wrong. The common understanding of race is meaningless, despite its occasional accidental hits (saying that Asians are not blond is no more impressive than Slyvia saying that 70 year old men can expect heart trouble).

One can construct groupings of genetic distribution that do make sense, just as one can construct definitions of God that are not internally incoherent.

But that's not the God or Race that people talk about.

okay, back to subpopulations and ability, folks. Let's not use "race". The lure of that word for people who want to be The One to say social race doesn't exist is just too strong. The sooner we ditch it from this thread, the sooner a more interesting discussion can ensue, in my opinion.

 

[Dave1001]

The idea that the symphony of human sentience can be controlled by one or two genes is a simplistic, childish fantasy. The idea that we can substitute cultural history for scientific measurement is a hateful, oppressive fantasy.

I don't know, I think what might be simplistic, childish, hateful, and oppressive, is to start with firm conclusions about human sentience, number of contributing genes, and contributions of the study of cultural history vs. scientific measurement, rather keeping one's mind open, critical, and focused on empiricism.

 

[bpesta22]

The point is that there is no good science. And the best science available is indistinguishable from guesswork.

We do not understand what intelligence is well enough to measure the tiny variations people claim exist between various groups.

We cannot measure ability - or groups - finely enough to meaningfully discuss differences in ability between groups.

A discussion about different abilities in groups is like a discussion on how the Martians built those canals. Sheer useless speculation based on inadequate data.

How can you make these claims when there's almost 100 years worth of data showing that IQ can be measured and indeed used to predict important life outcomes?

These men and women who devoted their academic lives to studying IQ; surely they're not all dummies. Some of them might be doing good stuff?

It sure seems like the American courts and the EEOC accept the validity of IQ tests, and the fact that various ethnic groups differ at the mean level for scores on these tests, and that that difference has profound implications for any company trying to hire a diverse workforce.

In all these debates re IQ, I ask this question, and no one seems to be able to answer it, so I'll ask again:

If IQ tests are junk science, how is it possible (given the teeth of the Civil Rights Act and the power of the EEOC) that (1) an employer can use one today for selection, (2) use of the IQ test will result in hiring fewer minorities than in a "fair" system, but (3) the employer's discrimination here would actually be legal, as the employer would have no problem showing the tests are valid / job related for both whites and minorities.

This question, I think, demands an answer from any (otherwise skeptical) persons who have no problem dismissing good science here without likely having read it.

IF IQ tests are worthless, why do the courts let employers use them?

Provide a valid answer, and I will drop out of further IQ debates. If you can't come up with a good explanation, perhaps your position needs rethinking?

 

[hammegk]

Don't confuse Yahzi with facts. They will make his head hurt.

 

[articulett]

Right here is the fallacy of racism. It is the application of the first law of magic, the "law of similars," and it is no more than a superstitious piece of nonsense.

It is, of course, unquestionable that genes can cause psychological differences. You would have to be stupid to think otherwise.

But you would have to be twice as stupid to think those genes are in any way related to the obvious genes on the outside.

Just as genes that effect external appearance have a selective component, so do the genes that involve internal processes--brain development, digestion, muscle development, the age at which we walk, the way our bodies distribute fat (both inside our bodies and outside) and the way cholestrol is made and interacts with the brain. Genes make chemcials and those build our bodies inside and out. They are inherited, recombined, and modified via natural (and not-so-natural) selection. The reasons that people look differently from one another and are more likely to resemble closer relatives is due to genes--the same can be true of mental characteristics--read a bit about genes involved in dopamine transmission or serotonin transmission or fragile X if you doubt genes and the chemicals they produce are not a major component of brain function. Yes, the brain evolved to respond to it's environment...it most definitely is "designed" to interact and be molded by it's environment. But identical twin studies help us sort out which things are more likely to be strongly influenced by genes and which are more strongly influenced by environment. I.Q. tests that focus mainly on pattern recognition and analogy (which are not really "subjects" taught in school) tend to correspond strongly with genetics. Rotating objects mentally is strongly related to testosterone exposure in the womb--which is both genetic and "congenital"--that is, testosterone exposure has an environmental element in the womb as well as a genetic component (namely the Y chromosome or lack thereof and the resulting testes or lack thereof).

Judging a book by its cover is generally understood to be stupid. Only when we are talking about racism does it suddenly get presented as "reasonable."

I know that you cannot be this simple. Certainly, we can glance at a book and take in some data that we might wish to follow up on--is it a text book? romance novel? bible? True crime? Is it a long book? A kid's book? Is it written in English? Does it have pictures. You can assess information about the content of a book by looking at it's cover. Granted, you can't assess it's value, but it does give you a good idea of where you might want to look for something or other. I am not advocating writing a review of some single book without reading it--only noting that you can get various kinds of information from various kinds of books--Is it an encyclopedia? A dictionary? A treatise?

If I wanted to know something about a book...for example which kind of book is best for helping kids understand evolution--I could devise a study--and some sort of book might come out ahead. This doesn't mean that I'm racist in regards to whatever book one...nor does it mean I'm biased. Nor does it mean that I'm excluding other type books for such information. You are confusing comparing and contrasting large categories of populations with racism. In genetic counseling, it is one of the best tools we have for trying to figure out what to test for and what the risks of transmission are.

What we know about human character and intelligence is this: it is a frightfully complex construction, which is 96% genetically identical to chimpanzees and yet vastly, vastly different in effect. In other words, we don't know much.

You are confused. I think the 96% figure is in regards to DNA...and it depends on how you are doing the classification, but most estimates show that chimps have even more similarity than 96% of their DNA with us. The differences have more to do with which genes are turned on and when and which ones are "junk" in us, and not in them. We actually do know a lot about human intelligence, traits, logical fallacies, and neurological structures (which one wouldn't compare to a chimpanzee using percentages if one wanted to be taken seriously, as I'm not sure how you'd go about measuring it.) We know a lot about moral behavior and which areas of the brain light up during normal thought processes and those who have mental differences. We know a lot. And just because it's complex to you, doesn't mean that lots of details aren't being studied and confirmed and expanded upon every day. Have you read anything on neuroscience? Detailing the information and noticing the similarities and differences has always been the hallmark of biological sciences. I agree that discrimination is bad--so is prejudice--but ignorance and pretending a conclusion you want to have is also bad. You can separate genes from environment through twin studies and adoptive studies. If environment were so important (and I'm not saying that in some cases it isn't) then why do all large adoption studies show that adopted child I.Q. is far more related to biological parent I.Q. than to adoptive parent I.Q. This goes for physical features and skills and talents too--or at least some of them. Environment goes a long way towards developing strengths or letting them wilt--and mitigating weaknesses and letting them fester--but human beings are not born a "blank slate" and they are most certainly born with varying degrees of potential. Whether using physical features or self definitions regarding race may or may not be a useful way of measuring these differences--but your arguments are most certainly not valid responses as to whether this is the case.

When you don't know, all you get to say is, "I don't know." You do not get to make things up. When you can't measure an effect, all you get to say is, "I can't measure it." You don't get to substitute other measurements.

Well, then, it's time to say, you don't know. Much as been measured--read the Minnesota twin studies. Your analysis of the Bell Curve implies you haven't read it. If you have a problem with particular measurement give the details--otherwise say, "I don't know...I mispoke...I over reached...I assumed racism without looking at the facts or the details of what others were saying."

The idea that the symphony of human sentience can be controlled by one or two genes is a simplistic, childish fantasy. The idea that we can substitute cultural history for scientific measurement is a hateful, oppressive fantasy.

And I don't know anyone who ever said that, and if you are implying that I did, you are spreading both misinformation and some very interesting details about how you heard what you wanted to hear from something I did not say.

Are people racist if they note that African American men have larger penises on average and walk almost 2 months earlier than their Asian counterparts? Are we racist if we point out that adopted Asian children score higher than their adoptive white parents on average when it comes to math scores. Am I hateful to say women tend to kill people less or men are more likely to have ambitions such as Presidency? I am hardly hateful, oppressive, or fantasy prone. I think the problem may be a little too much political correctness in thinking on your part and a huge amount of ignorance involving identical twin studies and the various ways we can measure different attributes. (But you can evolve...I know you are smart without knowing a thing about how you look...can I judge a forum member by his/her writing or is that as "stupid" as judging a book by it's cover?)

 

[articulett]

Dave, once again you're showing your immaturity. The only one who's really salivated at the idea of characterizing anyone as being politically motivated in this debate has been you, from the very beginning in fact. Red meat indeed.

Steven

Thanks. I'm not sure what he's even guessing about my politics. My politics tends to be in line with most scientists at this time, and that makes its very much opposed to the the administration and the religious right at this time. However, I am a registered independent and consider myself a feminist, left leaning with libertarian streaks--but I don't really get into politics except in my area of expertise--genetics--evoloution --that whole brouhaha. I feel rather fortunate to live in a time when we can know so much and chagrined by the those who can't share in the information because they think they already know everything (or perhaps the evidence will spoil whatever it is they want to believe).

I don't think I'll respond to Dave, because I'm not sure what he means much of the time, and I agree with your assessment of his immaturity. Plus he doesn't seem to give a very careful or thorough reading to what anyone else is saying from what I can tell. Besides, I think my reply to Yahtzee covers whatever it is he is trying to say.

Comparing and contrasting populations have lead to some very important genetic studies and narrowed down gene searches immensely. If someone wants to apply loaded terms like to the details of any given study and then lable that study racist or not valid it's hardly better than creationist banter in terms of furthering understanding. Pointing out specific flaws in the design or different interpretation of the data can be useful in designing and researching data that corrects for such errors to hone our understanding further.