• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Blacks are under Attack!

Guybrush Threepwood said:
Cite?
Click to expand...
A cite for what, that Inuit are short and stocky while sub-saharan Africans are tall and thin relative to each other? Or that such a body build is an adaptation to cold climates and hot climates respectively? Or that a mass of x with less surface area sheds heat slower than mass x with a large surface area?

I can't copy and paste from this pdf, so you'll have to read it yourself: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb31093.x/pdf

Look at Neanderthals for an extreme example of humans adapted to cold climates. Short, stocky bodies that minimize heat loss. Large noses, all the better to warm air before it gets to the lungs.
 
For those who made an attempt, nothing anybody has said in regards to genetic disparity so far supports the claim that there are significant genetic categories of humans based on some sort of "race" or skin color. Keep in mind that what started this discussion is skin color, and we are discussing traits that can be present in any person. Anyone can have any combination of being short or tall, dark or light skinned, curly or straight haired, etc. The problem with classifying traits as significant for a certain "race" of people (for example saying things like "black people run fast") is that the traits have nothing to do with each other. In order for any genetic linkage to be significant enough for us to consider it, it would need to be linked to the same chromosome.
Also, in regards to genetics and the phenotype of an individual, there are many, many more factors that determine this than an individual's genome. Maternal RNA factors take precedence over encoded transcription factors in the womb, coiling direction also affects many organisms' protein shapes, and epigenetic influences change the size, mental health, and intelligence of offspring based on the mother's lifestyle and access to resources are all just a few examples. In fact, with regard to the latter point, women who live in poverty have children with very high risks for developing mental disorders like major depression and schizophrenia.
For more, please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKrGkgeww4

WildCat said:
Sickle cell anemia, probably an evolutionary adaptation to malaria common among blacks.
Click to expand...
This is not only seen in black people. How about people who live along the Mediterranean? It's common for people to mistake a variable that has to do with local environment with skin color. The problem is that when making claims like this, skin color is the first thing some people notice (which says something about their character). However, this is not the case -- any person can have sickle cell anemia or be heterozygous for sickle cell anemia.


I really hate to see a thread about racial inequality turned into a debate about the genetics of certain people. What's the point? Why try to attribute others' misfortune to some imaginary inherent traits?
 
Last edited:
Beat said:
I really hate to see a thread about racial inequality turned into a debate about the genetics of certain people. What's the point? Why try to attribute others' misfortune to some imaginary inherent traits?
Click to expand...
I do too. But many need the ad hoc rationalization to preserve their world view.
 
Beat said:
This is not only seen in black people. How about people who live along the Mediterranean? It's common for people to mistake a variable that has to do with local environment with skin color. The problem is that when making claims like this, skin color is the first thing some people notice (which says something about their character). However, this is not the case -- any person can have sickle cell anemia or be heterozygous for sickle cell anemia.


I really hate to see a thread about racial inequality turned into a debate about the genetics of certain people. What's the point? Why try to attribute others' misfortune to some imaginary inherent traits?
Click to expand...
I never claimed genetics has anything to do with a persons' character.
 
Of course, the existence of advanced civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa ata time when about half of the white population of the world were running around butt naked save for a coat of blue paint chucking spears at each other argues against any genetic component to the cultural stagnation in those areas today, or among those of their ethnic stock whose ancestors were captured and sold off-shore as slaves.
 
RandFan said:
Doesn't matter. He's arguing against a straw man. Genetic differences in allele frequencies like those for color are empirical and no one is disputing them. We have been and are talking about statistically significant genetic differences that would justify the belief that economic disparity is genetic. That statistically there is more genetic difference between groups than there is between individuals of groups.
Click to expand...

I think it's fallacy to argue that there's no genetic basis to race by claiming that the within-race variability is much larger than the between race variability. So what.

Isn't it true that our dna differs from chimp dna by some small fraction (1%?) or is this an urban legend.

An effect size of just .20 would show massive overlap among race distributions, but aggregating that out to population effects, the results would be striking and could potentially explain well-being differences across race.

I think we know enough now to do a fairly conclusive study on these effects. I can't imagine anyone would be dumb enough to conduct it, though.
 
bpesta22 said:
Finally, I strongly recommend: Wade, Before the Dawn...

He offers a scientific explanation (even if ultimately the explanation is proven wrong) for why race might be more than skin deep.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Before_the_dawn.html?id=qBbwGczaWqEC

p.s. this is a much fairer characterization of the science than is the AAAs dated statement.
Click to expand...
This does not help me. Do you understand what is presented in the book to discount the statement by AAA? FWIW: That's not the only information on the subject. Please see Is Race For Real (spoiler alert, mostly no).
 
RandFan said:
bpesta, I'm skimming the articles and nothing stands out as falsifying the AAA statement. Could you provide a bit more information? Could you give us a summary of why it's wrong and what Rezib Kahn provides to invalidate the statement?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

My problem is I am not a geneticist, and especially in this area, I am reluctant to provide my take, until I get the knowledge base needed for complete accuracy (and I have no interest, short term, in gaining this expertise).

My take, anyway: Geneticists can use haplogroups to trace-- extremely accurately-- the origin of one's ancestors. Clustering studies line up near perfectly with self-reports of race, and with skin color.

I'm ignorant of the specifics of their techniques, but they can sample DNA and validly classify people by race. The classification may not be perfect (we rarely need perfection, however, for a classification scheme to have utility).
Race is a fuzzy category. Fuzzy categories, though, can be used to illuminate scientific knowledge about what we've categorized.

So, one possible study: show that cluster categories explain the variance in important outcomes within race. If that happens, I think it would be rather powerful evidence of genes playing some role in race disparities.

Match blacks (e.g.) on social aspects of race, and show that differences in social outcomes still persist and are explained by cluster categories. This also--imo-- would offer powerful evidence for or against genes as an explanation.

If interested, just read a few pages from Kahn's blog. Seems to me, there's a group of biologists who have no problem using their science to categorize people by race.
 
Last edited:
Rand: I think you are one of the most rational posters I've ever seen on here. I very rarely disagree when you express an informed opinion.

I'm old now; In my experience, the more politically incorrect the topic, the more you will see junk (perhaps on both sides) motivated by politics and not science.

Doesn't mean I am correct. I saw the pbs documentary, and I think it near completely ignores good science from reputable scientists that suggest the opposite.

**edit, I think the whole stereotype threat literature is a perfect example of politics -- not scientific merit-- dictating which articles get published.
 
Last edited:
Really, read the Wade book. It's fascinating even if you disagree with it (e.g., he discusses using the estimate for when lice mutated to live on clothes versus skin as an estimate for when humans first wore clothes!).

He offers a logically consistent (though perhaps ultimately incorrect) treatise for why races exist in a biological sense.
 
bpesta22 said:
My take, anyway: Geneticists can use haplogroups to trace-- extremely accurately-- the origin of one's ancestors. Clustering studies line up near perfectly with self-reports of race, and with skin color.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. If you haven't seen it I strongly recommend The BBC documentary The Incredible Human Journey (you can find it on YouTube.). None of that falsifies the AAA statement. We know that there are differences in allele frequencies and unique genetic markers in human sub groups. Human sub groups (haplotypes) are not sub species (according to many experts).

I'm ignorant of the specifics of their techniques, but they can sample DNA and validly classify people by race. The classification may not be perfect (we rarely need perfection, however, for a classification scheme to have utility).
Race is a fuzzy category. Fuzzy categories, though, can be used to illuminate scientific knowledge about what we've categorized.

So, one possible study: show that cluster categories explain the variance in important outcomes within race. If that happens, I think it would be rather powerful evidence of genes playing some role in race disparities.

Math blacks (e.g.) on social aspects of race, and show that differences in social outcomes still persist and are explained by cluster categories. This also--imo-- would offer powerful evidence for or against genes as an explanation.

If interested, just read a few pages from Kahn's blog. Seems to me, there's a group of biologists who have no problem using their science to categorize people by race.
Click to expand...
I found the following on Kahn's blog.

Razib Kahn said:
2) These phylogenies reflect evolutionary history, and the trait differences are not just superficial (i.e., “skin deep”).
Click to expand...
I don't believe that Razib Kahn's opinion does represents the consensus in human anthropology. But that is fine. He's an expert with an opinion and I'm willing to grant that his opinion has far more weight than mine.

Let's accept the premise that Kahn and others believe that genetics is more than superficial. I've read 3 articles and I've found nothing to falsify the notion that there is statistically sufficient genetic diversity to justify ignoring inequality. In fact, Kahn goes out of his way to point out the problems of cultural constructs of race. I suspect he does not hold to those kinds of racist notions.

So, it's interesting but it is controverted by other experts and doesn't really illuminate much as to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
bpesta22 said:
Rand: I think you are one of the most rational posters I've ever seen on here. I very rarely disagree when you express an informed opinion.

I'm old now; In my experience, the more politically incorrect the topic, the more you will see junk (perhaps on both sides) motivated by politics and not science.

Doesn't mean I am correct. I saw the pbs documentary, and I think it near completely ignores good science from reputable scientists that suggest the opposite.

**edit, I think the whole stereotype threat literature is a perfect example of politics -- not scientific merit-- dictating which articles get published.
Click to expand...

bpesta22 said:
Really, read the Wade book. It's fascinating even if you disagree with it (e.g., he discusses using the estimate for when lice mutated to live on clothes versus skin as an estimate for when humans first wore clothes!).

He offers a logically consistent (though perhaps ultimately incorrect) treatise for why races exist in a biological sense.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I'm not dogmatic against Razib Kahn or his ideas. I can only note that many experts disagree with him. It would be rather odd of me to simply discard all other information and simply accept Kahn's position. Further it's not all that radical from what I believe now. Kahn simply believes that there are more significant differences between sub groups than others. I can live with that. It doesn't really change much for me.

Jerry Coyne said:
source In other words, genetically closer populations are more genetically similar, as expected if individuals tend to mate with other individuals from the same country, and close by. This is an “isolation by distance” model: genetic similarity falls off gradually with distance. As the authors note, this does not support the existence of “discrete, well-differentiated populations,” i.e., there are no races. None are expected in such a small area, particularly because biological “races” are those populations that (at least at one time) were geographically isolated and genetically differentiated. That geographical isolation never happened in Europe.

The authors also note that “the data reveal structure even among French-, German- and Italian-speaking groups within Switzerland.” Here’s what that small land looks like genetically:
Click to expand...
So, in the future I will note the controversy but it doesn't change my position much.

Again, thank you.
 
Fair enough, Rand.

I just think we now have the tech to do that study. Who will do it?

Why I think it's important: race differences in well-being have been profound and very resistant to change. I say let science figure this out, so it can be fixed.
 
bpesta22 said:
Fair enough, Rand.

I just think we now have the tech to do that study. Who will do it?

Why I think it's important: race differences in well-being have been profound and very resistant to change. I say let science figure this out, so it can be fixed.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll accept that. But I have to add a caveat. We need to account for the environmental factors of culture. Until you do that you don't actually now to what extent well-being is genetic. As Pinker notes in Blank Slate, separating environment and genetics can be quite difficult. The Yanamomo don't drive cars. Americans do. That doesn't mean that driving cars is a heritable trait.
 
RandFan said:
Okay, I'll accept that. But I have to add a caveat. We need to account for the environmental factors of culture. Until you do that you don't actually now to what extent well-being is genetic. As Pinker notes in Blank Slate, separating environment and genetics can be quite difficult. The Yanamomo don't drive cars. Americans do. That doesn't mean that driving cars is a heritable trait.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Social science is hard because confounds are everywhere. And, figuring out how to un-confound is kind of challenging.

That's why I think matching blacks on culture and the social aspects of race could be a compelling test.

Cheers

B
 
bpesta22 said:
Agreed. Social science is hard because confounds are everywhere. And, figuring out how to un-confound is kind of challenging.

That's why I think matching blacks on culture and the social aspects of race could be a compelling test.

Cheers

B
Click to expand...

Which culture? The ancient Egyptians? The Islamic Arabs circa 800 AD (when algebra was all the rage), the Mandinka people of the 18th century, American slaves of the 19th century, the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, Buffalo soldiers, the Louisiana creoles, the Harlem Renaissance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom