Race 'Science'

[drkitten]

Sorry, what might these hiring forms have to do with anything?

We are talking about a simple scientific concept: sub-species.

No, we're not. We're talking about "race." Check the title of the thread.

The simple fact is that "sub-species," which is a well-defined scientific term, has little or nothing to do with the subject of human "races"; the "races" that everyone recognizes (such as "white," "black", "asian" and so forth) are not subspecies, but socially-defined groupings.

Now, humanity does have subspecies. But they're not "races." No one except you holds that "Masai" is a race distinct from Pygmies -- as the forms I posted illustate, those two groups are placed together in the socially-defined "black" category.

Again, I don't understand the relevance of these forms. What do they have to do with the topic at hand?

They're simple illustrations of the fact that the word "race" does not mean "subspecies" when applied to humans, and that the groups defined by "race" are neither subspecies, nor scientifically well-grounded, nor anything other than social constructions.

The concept of race is not the concept of racism.

No, of course not. "Race" is a socially-defined categorization of humanity; "Racism" is a politically-based belief that the socially-defined "races" are meaningful in other ways (such as the belief that the social categories reflect scientific groupings).

But the concept of "race" is also not the concept of "subspecies"; the groups geneticists have identified as human subspecies are almost orthogonal to the groups that sociologists have identified as "races."

It is simple science.

It is neither simple nor science.

 

[drkitten]

Without race being to some degree biological, I think the complex pattern of differences re race and IQ (summarized by R&J) are impossible.

Or, alternatively, R&J are incompetent.

Given that they are active supporters and enablers and apologists of the falsification of data, "incompetent" is too weak. I submit that that any "impossible" pattern they have found is fully and completely explained by the simple fact that the data upon which they relied was largely fabricated and in no way reflects the real world.

I have some great data showing the architectural effects of the destruction of a small gold metal band on distant fortresses. They even made a movie about it. "Impossible" you say? Perhaps. But when writing fiction, anything and everything is possible. To a liar, no statement is beyond speech.

 

[bpesta22]

Or, alternatively, R&J are incompetent.

Given that they are active supporters and enablers and apologists of the falsification of data, "incompetent" is too weak. I submit that that any "impossible" pattern they have found is fully and completely explained by the simple fact that the data upon which they relied was largely fabricated and in no way reflects the real world.

I have some great data showing the architectural effects of the destruction of a small gold metal band on distant fortresses. They even made a movie about it. "Impossible" you say? Perhaps. But when writing fiction, anything and everything is possible. To a liar, no statement is beyond speech.

Under this conspiracy theory, then, you need to explain why they consistently get their data published in the best journals in psychology?

You also need to explain why respected / non racist experts within the field who disagree with many of r&j's conclusions, still have high respect for them:

Flynn on Jensen:

" I never suspected Arthur Jensen of racial bias. Over the years, I have found him scrupulous in terms of professional ethics. He has never denied me access to his unpublished data. His work stands as an example of what John Stuart Mill meant when he said that being challenged in a way that is "upsetting" is to be welcomed not discouraged. Before Jensen, the notion that all races were genetically equal for cognitive ability had become a dead "Sunday truth" for which we could give no good reasons. Today we are infinitely more informed about group differences. Equally important, the debates Jensen began are revolutionizing the theory of intelligence and our understanding of how genes and environment interact."


I suspect you can't do this, but if marginalizing Jensen lets you sleep at night, that's cool.

 

[drkitten]

Under this conspiracy theory, then, you need to explain why they consistently get their data published in the best journals in psychology?

Because they edit the "best journals" due to the long delay before adequate proof of their malfeasance was discovered.

 

[jimtron]

Still waiting for the scientific definition of race. Or which races are which colors.

 

[dann]

Of course they are races. They are all easily distinguishable from each other, and their offspring are likewise. They are races.

I think you go with your gut feeling when you state that of course they're races. And it's not that I don't have the same feeling. We all do, I think. Sometimes it's just obvious that somebody is a black African, isn't it?
But on the other hand I know a guy here in Copenhagen, Martin Jensen, who - in spite of his name - appears to be a South-Saharan African. And when he went to Cuba, nobody expected him to be Danish. They all seemed to think that he was Cuban (until they heard his Spanish!). Most slaves in Cuba were from the Yoruba people in West Africa (which, by the way, is the reason why the Afro-Cuban religion Santeria is often referred to as Yoruba).
Martin, however, as the name implies, is a Dane, adopted from parents in India and thus (probably) genetically more similar to Danes than to (black) Cubans.
I think that Athon’s example (the sheep, but you might have used white, grey, striped and black cats as well) is an eye opener.

 

[dann]

“Based on statistical studies of the intelligence quotient (IQ) of German children born after WW2 and fathered by black Americans, the most recent publications used as textbooks at the Institute of Psychology at the University of Copenhagen declare that the average score of these children is by no means inferior – as you would expect if ‘black genes’ were dumber than other people’s genes.” (a reference to the book Psychology, by Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, (Norton 1999), p. 664)
http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq1.htm

 

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite
Of course they are races. They are all easily distinguishable from each other, and their offspring are likewise. They are races.

Sometimes they are easily distinguishable. Certainly not always. But if you believe that the races are easily distinguishable from one another, could you list all of the races and name the unique, defining characteristics of each one?

 

[dann]

It just occurred to me that I still have the book:

"This hereditarian argument might be persuasive if the environments for black and white children could truly be matched. But it seems likely that matching for parental education, income, and occupational level is not enough. Black children, after all, grow up knowing that they're black; white children, that they're white. More, each group is treated differently by the people in their social environment because of the color or their skin. In these ways, their environments and experiences are not matched.

Evidence consistent with this idea comes from studies that have used blood-group methods to estimate the degree of African ancestry for each test taker. It turns out that this measure of the genotype is unrelated to IQ, in contradiction to what we might expect on a genetic hypothesis (Loehlin, Vendenberg, and Osborne, 1973; Scarr et al., 1977). What matters instead is the phenotype of having dark skin, as we would expect if the IQ difference is based on cultural or environmental factors."
Psychology, by Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, (Norton 1999), p. 664.

If you are not familiar with this clip, wait till the children are tested!
A Girl Like Me.

 

[dann]

Right page, wrong paragraph, but never mind. It was still to the point. This is the right one, however:
"Similarly one study focused on the out-of-wedlock children fathered by US servicemen stationed in Germany after World War II. Some of these American fathers were black; others were white. But all children grew up in similar environments with white German mothers. When these children were tested with a German version of the IQ test, both groups had about the same average IQ (Eyferth, 1961). This seems to suggest that a matched environment for children of black and white fathers eliminates the group difference, contradicting the genetic claim (but also see Flynn, 1980)."
Psychology, by Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, (Norton 1999), p. 664.

 

[bpesta22]

Right page, wrong paragraph, but never mind. It was still to the point. This is the right one, however:
"Similarly one study focused on the out-of-wedlock children fathered by US servicemen stationed in Germany after World War II. Some of these American fathers were black; others were white. But all children grew up in similar environments with white German mothers. When these children were tested with a German version of the IQ test, both groups had about the same average IQ (Eyferth, 1961). This seems to suggest that a matched environment for children of black and white fathers eliminates the group difference, contradicting the genetic claim (but also see Flynn, 1980)."
Psychology, by Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, (Norton 1999), p. 664.

Ironic, the two studies you cite are strawmen and have been thoroughly discredited (iirc even Scarr admits the conclusion on the blood group data are wrong). I'd have to do some digging, but I will try to find the article explaining the problem with these studies and also share some recent cites on blood groups as markers for race and IQ differences therein.

Here's the link to R&J, as promised:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

 

[bpesta22]

Because they edit the "best journals" due to the long delay before adequate proof of their malfeasance was discovered.

Riggghhhht. Jensen has supreme control over the APA journals he publishes in.

Oh, and how come there aren't more plane parts in front of the wreckage at the pentagon. What's up with that?!

 

[bpesta22]

Ah, at least part of the blood group data rebuttal appears in r&j.


COULD THIS BE THE GENETIC DEFINITION of race that many here demand?

Studies of blood groups provide no support for the hereditarian perspective.
Both Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973) and Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, and
Barker (1977) found that blood groups distinguishing African from European
ancestry did not predict IQ scores in Black samples. However, these studies failed
to choose genetic markers with large allele frequency differences between Africans
and Europeans (Jensen, 1998b, pp. 480, 524 n.64).
Molecular genetic technology was unsophisticated in the 1970s. In the future,
the issue may be resolved by calculating individual admixture through the use of
DNA markers as already occurs in medicine (Risch et al., 2002). On the basis of
existing surveys, an individual’s racial group can be determined by testing his or
her DNA at 100 random sites along the genome, or at 30 specifically chosen ones.
Even different ethnic groups within a race can be distinguished using some 50
specifically chosen sites. A genetic hypothesis predicts that for those Black
individuals who possess more White genes, their physical, behavioral, and other
characteristics will approach those of Whites.
Although the studies of racial hybrids are generally consistent with the genetic
hypothesis, to date they are not conclusive. It may be true, for example, that
lighter skinned Cape Coloreds and African Americans have better nutrition, have
greater opportunities for learning, or are treated better by their societies. On the
other hand, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (Table 2) held many such
factors constant and removed the most frequently proposed causal agents such as
poverty, malnutrition, poor schools, and dysfunctional neighborhoods. Yet, here
too, the mixed-race children had a higher mean IQ than did the children of two
Black parents, and the means for each group were very similar to those for their
respective counterparts elsewhere in the United States. The discussion in this
section is particularly supportive of Loehlin’s (2000) conclusion that “Research
using larger samples and better techniques for estimating ancestry is called for and
quite feasible” (p. 188).

 

[athon]

Pesta, this study starts with the conclusion that there are races to begin with. Going back to my analogy of sheep before, these scientists have come into the paddock of black and white sheep and said 'there are two races'. They've then claimed we can go through the genes until we get to a point we can find the genes which relate to the black and white grouping, to establish given the genetic codes of all the sheep, we can then sort them into black and white.

The point is not that there is no genetic variation. Or that the morphological variations we observe across a geographic region have no genetic basis (are purely environmental). Or that we can't apply the same concepts as used in population genetics to describe regional populations. It's that having a selection of half a dozen major 'racial' groups stretching across large regions is based on archaic, presumed concepts resulting from old-school morphological phylogeny and since the advent of genetics has shown to confer nothing of use to understanding relationships or movements of populations.

Athon

 

[dann]

It doesn't sound unlikely that the attempts at defining race based on blood groups was wrong. It also doesn't sound as if the conclusion has been disproved, however: "What matters instead is the phenotype of having dark skin, as we would expect if the IQ difference is based on cultural or environmental factors." So it's A Girl Like Me all over again.

A question that immediately occurs to me when I read this:
"Yet, here too, the mixed-race children had a higher mean IQ than did the children of two Black parents,"
Are there any children of two "Black parents" in the USA, whose parents aren't recent immigrants - and therefore may be influenced by a very different background than the "mixed-race children"? I spent a week in Southern Harlem two months ago, and almost all so-called black (whatever) Americans seem to be very mixed ´race´ to me ...

I look forward to hearing Bpesta22 explain how a whole study can be a strawman!

 

[jimtron]

Ah, at least part of the blood group data rebuttal appears in r&j.


COULD THIS BE THE GENETIC DEFINITION of race that many here demand?

Studies of blood groups provide no support for the hereditarian perspective.
Both Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973) and Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, and
Barker (1977) found that blood groups distinguishing African from European
ancestry did not predict IQ scores in Black samples. However, these studies failed
to choose genetic markers with large allele frequency differences between Africans
and Europeans (Jensen, 1998b, pp. 480, 524 n.64).
Molecular genetic technology was unsophisticated in the 1970s. In the future,
the issue may be resolved by calculating individual admixture through the use of
DNA markers as already occurs in medicine (Risch et al., 2002). On the basis of
existing surveys, an individual’s racial group can be determined by testing his or
her DNA at 100 random sites along the genome, or at 30 specifically chosen ones.
Even different ethnic groups within a race can be distinguished using some 50
specifically chosen sites. A genetic hypothesis predicts that for those Black
individuals who possess more White genes, their physical, behavioral, and other
characteristics will approach those of Whites.
Although the studies of racial hybrids are generally consistent with the genetic
hypothesis, to date they are not conclusive. It may be true, for example, that
lighter skinned Cape Coloreds and African Americans have better nutrition, have
greater opportunities for learning, or are treated better by their societies. On the
other hand, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (Table 2) held many such
factors constant and removed the most frequently proposed causal agents such as
poverty, malnutrition, poor schools, and dysfunctional neighborhoods. Yet, here
too, the mixed-race children had a higher mean IQ than did the children of two
Black parents, and the means for each group were very similar to those for their
respective counterparts elsewhere in the United States. The discussion in this
section is particularly supportive of Loehlin’s (2000) conclusion that “Research
using larger samples and better techniques for estimating ancestry is called for and
quite feasible” (p. 188).

Where's the "genetic definition of race"? Could you highlight it please? I can't find it in the excerpt you posted.

 

[bpesta22]

It doesn't sound unlikely that the attempts at defining race based on blood groups was wrong. It also doesn't sound as if the conclusion has been disproved, however: "What matters instead is the phenotype of having dark skin, as we would expect if the IQ difference is based on cultural or environmental factors." So it's A Girl Like Me all over again.

A question that immediately occurs to me when I read this:
"Yet, here too, the mixed-race children had a higher mean IQ than did the children of two Black parents,"
Are there any children of two "Black parents" in the USA, whose parents aren't recent immigrants - and therefore may be influenced by a very different background than the "mixed-race children"? I spent a week in Southern Harlem two months ago, and almost all so-called black (whatever) Americans seem to be very mixed ´race´ to me ...

I look forward to hearing Bpesta22 explain how a whole study can be a strawman!

Oh, sorry, I meant ad hom.

 

[dann]

I look forward to hearing Bpesta22 explain how a whole study can be a strawman!

Oh, sorry, I meant ad hom.

I thought you gave up that one in this post:

Ok, I'm still confused. I submit the article in SR is a piece of crap, in part because it spends too much time insulting the person versus addressing the argument. Does he claim the arguments invalid because of the insults? No. Does that technically make it not an ad hom? I dunno (whatever we label it, hurling insults doesn't seem like a good way to get a point across.

But you may have the win here if you want it. If indeed adhoms are restricted to comments of the you suck therefore you're wrong variety, then I dont think there were any of those in the SR article.

Yes, you are still confused, apparently! Where do you find ad homs in the other articles? Do you actually know what ad homs and strawman arguments are?

 

[jimtron]

I cited the definition by rushton & jensen a few threads ago. No one seemed impressed.

I think using skin color or self reports are reasonably good proxies. Where I'm coming from is a data driven, bottom up perspective. Without race being to some degree biological, I think the complex pattern of differences re race and IQ (summarized by R&J) are impossible.

Bpesta22: The above seems to say that race can't be defined scientifically. Do you still believe it can?

I think we'd all agree that defining race by "self reports" is not scientific. I'm still waiting to hear which races are which colors.

Do we all agree now that "race" cannot be scientifically defined? Because I keep asking for the scientific definition, and I keep not getting responses.

 

[hammegk]

I think we'd all agree that defining race by "self reports" is not scientific. I'm still waiting to hear which races are which colors.

Perhaps colors are not a key attribute.

Do we all agree now that "race" cannot be scientifically defined? Because I keep asking for the scientific definition, and I keep not getting responses.

We can agree that politically correct scientists who wish to publish haven't yet done so.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

When 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms and 60 short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphisms were used, all Europeans, East Asians and Africans were correctly placed according to their respective continents of origin32.

and then the backflip ...

it might be tempting to conclude that genetic data verify traditional concepts about races. But the individuals used in these analyses originated in three geographically discontinuous regions: Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. When a sample of South Indians, who occupy an intermediate geographic position (see also Fig. 1) is added to the analysis (Fig. 3b), considerable overlap is seen among these individuals and both the East Asian and European samples, probably as a result of numerous migrations from various parts of Eurasia into India during the past 10,000 years40. Thus, the South Indian individuals do not fall neatly into one of the categories usually conceived as a 'race'.

Darn, maybe there are more than 3 "scientifically definable" races.

Standard statistics would allow scientific and genetic race classes to be defined. Yes, there are a lot of undefinables in today's world; so what? Science has managed classifications with overlap previously, don't you think?