Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[Foster Zygote]

This is a response to an exchange begun in the Who are your heroes of reason? thread. I felt it was derailing the thread and suggested the start of a new one but it hasn't come to pass. However, I still feel compelled to comment on this issue.

The last two posts of the thread (On this issue) read:

Foster Zygote

This post seems unambiguous to me. Huxley may have been advanced beyond most other Europeans on notions of "race" but his views are as archaic today as the steady state universe. Modern genetic science has so far produced no evidence that there is any such thing as "race" let alone any intellectual superiority of one population of humans over another based on their genetics. I don't need to invoke offense of a "hegemonic political correctness" or a "reflexive avowal of belief" as an objection to the idea of ethnic cognitive superiority/inferiority. Genetic science has shown no such thing to exist. One is just as likely to find great minds among Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Polynesians etc. No one group has ever been shown to be statistically less intelligent that any other.

Dave1001

This seems to me to be a bit of an overreach, as part of an aggressive play for what Derbyshire might call in-group status. Prudent doubt, honest uncertainty, and empiricism seem to be less elevated in your approach to this topic, in my opinion, than reaching egalitarian predetermined conclusions.

As I have already explained my position is not dependent on politics. You are simply using Derbyshire's "in-group" straw man. My position has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to be perceived as "cool" by any social group. My position is based on the current state of human genetic science. Modern genetic biologist have shown that the notion of "race" is a human construct that is biologically meaningless. There does exist a fringe group of scientists (some of whom aren't even biologists) who support the idea that race classification is taxonomically valid and that there is a hierarchy of intelligence among them. A great many of them, however, are associated with racist organizations such as The Pioneer Fund and are known to wear their political extremism on their sleeves. But the majority of biologists, including names like Dawkins, Diamond, Gould, Cavalli-Sforza, Graves Jr. etc. see no biological legitimacy in the concept of race. In the same way that genetic science is strengthening evolutionary theory the Human Genome Project is strengthening the position that race is nothing but a human construct.

The point of Derbyshire's "in-group" straw man is to claim that his freedom to explore the issue honestly and intellectually is restricted by a large group of reactionaries who cry "racist" at the mere mention of the notion that intelligence might vary among ethnic groups. (This seems odd to me since, as I mentioned earlier, Derbyshire has admitted on a number of occasion to being a racist.) Well, here I am, willing to discuss the issue. I haven't screamed "racist" at you or tried to suppress your freedom to express yourself. But I have asked you on a number of occasions to back up your position with some genetic science.

So, for the fourth time, why do you think that the notion of human equality is a result of "hegemonic political correctness" or a "reflexive avowal of belief" which is unsupported by genetic science? What evidence can you point to that shows that "race" is a factor in ones intelligence? Which of these "races" is indicated to to be intellectually superior/inferior to which? What is the hierarchy?

Steven

 

[HeyLeroy]

What you said.

Except for the Swedes. They're dirty.



(Sorry for the derail so early, but I thought I'd get it out of the way)

 

[Dave1001]

So, for the fourth time, why do you think that the notion of human equality is a result of "hegemonic political correctness" or a "reflexive avowal of belief" which is unsupported by genetic science? What evidence can you point to that shows that "race" is a factor in ones intelligence? Which of these "races" is indicated to to be intellectually superior/inferior to which? What is the hierarchy?

Steven

I'm happy to have a general discussion on populations and ability-difference with you, but first:

For the fourth time, you're asking me for evidence for phenomena which I don't claim (nor have I claimed) to exist. My critique is that this entire topic, including with your first post, does not seem to be coming from a perspective of empirical inquiry and skepticism, but rather from foil-seeking. You seem to me to want to be the one who defends the position of equality of human abilities across populations. I think you hope to find in me a foil, probably one who in particular will argue that "white people" are genetically smarter than "black" people. By defeating this foil, I get the sense that you hope to (non-transparently) solidify in-group status for yourself, at least in your own mind. At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm much more interested in a dispassionate empirical approach to seeking knowledge. Foil-seeking for the purpose of hierarchy elevation becomes unaesthetically wasteful, in my opinion, when it gets in the way of the empirical enterprise and general enlightenment. And I think it has in the field of population and ability difference, by foil-seekers muting the discussion rather than broadening it.

So rather than look for foils to slay, let's actually discuss human populations and ability difference.

Let's start with a first principle:

1. Do you think there are any meaningful population differences in the human species, or do you think that the only way to consider us is as one population of 6 billion? If there are meaningful population differences, what do you think they are?

 

[Cuddles]

Strange though it is, I'm with Dave on this one. You cannot deny that there are differences between different groups of humans, the most obvious being skin colour, facial structure, etc. There are clear physical differences if you look at sports - most sprinters are black (mainly derived from western Africa), most long distance runners are black (mainly Kenyan/Eithiopian), most middle distance runners are white (mainly derived from north European). Clear differences in blood type and susceptibility to certain diseases exist between different groups. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the brain is in any way different from the rest of the body.

The simple fact is, all people are not born equal. This does not mean we should treat people any differently, and I firmly believe all people should have equal rights. There is a very obvious political agenda of extreme PCism where it is assumed that anyone who says some people are different from others is also saying they should be treated differently, which is not true. This does shut down legitimate avenues of research. If someone says "Black people are less intelligent" we should ask why?, and such research could lead us to greater insight into how intelligence develops, and maybe eventually help everyone be more intelligent. As it stands, any such statement will be immediately shouted down as racist without anyone even bothering to assess its validity.

 

[Dave1001]

There is a very obvious political agenda of extreme PCism where it is assumed that anyone who says some people are different from others is also saying they should be treated differently, which is not true. This does shut down legitimate avenues of research. ... As it stands, any such statement will be immediately shouted down as racist without anyone even bothering to assess its validity.

Excellent points. I agree 100% (I edited out the red meat for Foster Zygote ).

 

[Wudang]

Please note that there is a difference between saying that there may be some psychological traits (possibly including aspects of intelligence) that show signs of genetic inheritance and the claim that there are distinct "races".
Please also note that saying descent line A shows higher intelligence than line B is not necessarily saying that they are not "equal". I consider myself "equal to" many people of varying intelligence.

 

[Cuddles]

Please note that there is a difference between saying that there may be some psychological traits (possibly including aspects of intelligence) that show signs of genetic inheritance and the claim that there are distinct "races".
Please also note that saying descent line A shows higher intelligence than line B is not necessarily saying that they are not "equal". I consider myself "equal to" many people of varying intelligence.

That was exactly my point, and you seem to have misunderstood it in exactly the way I described. If you admit that people have different levels of intelligence then clearly they do not have equal intelligence. It does not follow from this that they should be treated any differently. As I said, all people should be treated equally and considered equally, but this does not mean they are all the same, no matter how much the PC movement tries to claim this.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm happy to have a general discussion on populations and ability-difference with you, but first:

For the fourth time, you're asking me for evidence for phenomena which I don't claim (nor have I claimed) to exist. My critique is that this entire topic, including with your first post, does not seem to be coming from a perspective of empirical inquiry and skepticism, but rather from foil-seeking. You seem to me to want to be the one who defends the position of equality of human abilities across populations. I think you hope to find in me a foil, probably one who in particular will argue that "white people" are genetically smarter than "black" people. By defeating this foil, I get the sense that you hope to (non-transparently) solidify in-group status for yourself, at least in your own mind. At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm much more interested in a dispassionate empirical approach to seeking knowledge. Foil-seeking for the purpose of hierarchy elevation becomes unaesthetically wasteful, in my opinion, when it gets in the way of the empirical enterprise and general enlightenment. And I think it has in the field of population and ability difference, by foil-seekers muting the discussion rather than broadening it.

So rather than look for foils to slay, let's actually discuss human populations and ability difference.

Let's start with a first principle:

1. Do you think there are any meaningful population differences in the human species, or do you think that the only way to consider us is as one population of 6 billion? If there are meaningful population differences, what do you think they are?

My first response to you on this subject was to ask a simple question. You responded by accusing me of trying to be seen as cool by the "in-group". From my perspective you were looking for a foil. You continue to apply this straw man to me despite my explanation that I base my position on the work of biologists, not politicians. I have at no time characterized you as a racist. (Pointing out that Derbyshire is a racist has nothing to do with your feelings on racism as, for all I know, you were unaware of his statements on the matter. You did admit that his article that you cited was full of holes.)

As for miss-reading your position: I can't know your position unless you state it.

To your question: Yes, there are differences among populations but they are not indicative that there is any such thing as race. They are superficial. To quote Joseph L. Graves Jr.

It's absolutely true that these physical traits vary among geographical populations. What most people don't realize is the way that they vary. For example, Sri Lankans of the Indian subcontinent, Nigerians, and aboriginal Australians share a dark skin tone, but differ in hair type, facial features, and genetic predisposition for disease. If you try to use characteristics such as height, body proportions, skull measurements, hair type, and skin color to create a tree showing how human populations are related, you get a tree that doesn't match the measured genetic relatedness and known evolutionary history of our species.

To suggest that I claim all human individuals to be homogeneous is mistaken. Again, these views are not my opinions, they are the views of modern biologists.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

Excellent points. I agree 100% (I edited out the red meat for Foster Zygote ).

Is this your idea of an open debate? Can we continue without such immature insult or should I not waste my time?

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

My first response to you on this subject was to ask a simple question. You responded by accusing me of trying to be seen as cool by the "in-group". From my perspective you were looking for a foil. You continue to apply this straw man to me despite my explanation that I base my position on the work of biologists, not politicians. I have at no time characterized you as a racist. (Pointing out that Derbyshire is a racist has nothing to do with your feelings on racism as, for all I know, you were unaware of his statements on the matter. You did admit that his article that you cited was full of holes.)

As for miss-reading your position: I can't know your position unless you state it.

To your question: Yes, there are differences among populations but they are not indicative that there is any such thing as race. They are superficial. To quote Joseph L. Graves Jr.



To suggest that I claim all human individuals to be homogeneous is mistaken. Again, these views are not my opinions, they are the views of modern biologists.

Steven

Let's stop talking about race then, because both of us think it's a sloppy term.

But let's continue to talk about populations. What do you think are reasonable ways to group human subpopulations based on shared heritable genetic heritage?

 

[Roboramma]

Some facts:

To quote Richard Dawkins, from The Ancestor's Tale:

Taking such genetic variation as the human population does possess, we can measure the fraction that is associated with the regional groupings that we call races. And it turns out to be a small percentage of the total: between 6 and 15 per cent depending on how you measure it

And:

If all humans were wiped out except for one local race, the great majority of the genetic variation in the human species would be preserved.

if you sequence the genes themselves, you will find that there is less difference between any two humans living anywhere in the world than there is between two African chimpanzees.

However, all that said, none of this means that the concept of race is meaningless. Nor does the fact that races bleed into one another, and you can't find a definite line that separates them.
If acknowledging that obvious fact forced me to acknowledge that race is meaningless, it would also force me to acknowledge that the distinction between the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull was meaningless as well.

Now as to whether these differences are important, I would say for the most part not. On the other hand, if you live in a region of Africa with a high incidence of malaria, you might argue with that.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some facts:

To quote Richard Dawkins, from The Ancestor's Tale:

If all humans were wiped out except for one local race, the great majority of the genetic variation in the human species would be preserved.

As Luca Cavalli-Sforza reported in The Great Human Diaspora: The History of Diversity and Evolution even a small band of Australian Aboriginals possesses fully 85% of the total genetic diversity of the human species.

However, all that said, none of this means that the concept of race is meaningless. Nor does the fact that races bleed into one another, and you can't find a definite line that separates them.
If acknowledging that obvious fact forced me to acknowledge that race is meaningless, it would also force me to acknowledge that the distinction between the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull was meaningless as well.

I should clarify. The concept of race is meaningless from a biological perspective. Humans apply meaning to race on a massive scale but this is just a human construct. If we have 500 adults all ranging from 4'6" to 6'6" and we ask someone to classify them into groups according to height we might find categories like "very short", "short", "medium", "tall", and "very tall". But if we then line them all up by height and ask several people to point to the divisions between these categories no two would agree on the demarcations. (I realize you know this but I write it for the benefit of all who might read this post.)

Now as to whether these differences are important, I would say for the most part not. On the other hand, if you live in a region of Africa with a high incidence of malaria, you might argue with that.

An excellent point, but differences like height, build, skin pigmentation and sickle-cell are responses to environmental factors. If we take a few hundred thousand people whom everyone agrees to be "white" and send them to a planet with an environment exactly like equatorial Africa they will all, in a very short time (from an evolutionary perspective), come to have dark skin pigmentation and an average tall, thin build to cope with the sun and heat. Unless of course they burrow under ground in which case they will become Morlocks and feed on the Eloi.

Steven

 

[joobz]

1. Do you think there are any meaningful population differences in the human species, or do you think that the only way to consider us is as one population of 6 billion? If there are meaningful population differences, what do you think they are?

For simple phenotypes where 1 gene controls 1 outcome, then yes. Population can be a predictor. However, we are considering the case with a complex measure like intelligence.

And as such, this question is doomed from the start. Do you mean ultimate potential between groups? Average potential? Or actual performance averages? Or the actual maximum performance from representatives from each group? Do we correct for variations in group behaviors, diet, types of exercise, differences in cultural importance of various traits?


So, my take is that there isn’t a significant worthwhile predictor for this question. The variation within ANY geographic population is too large to attribute any between group significance. I don’t think an experiment can be done to demonstrate this. As a scientist, I’d be willing to review a study that claims otherwise. But I do approach such claims with a skeptics mind. Or to use Dave1001’s words, as a “Foil-seeker”, as any credible scientist should. We conduct research to prove against the skeptic. Do we not state that our challenge to the paranormal (a foil-seeking challenge) is to apply the same level of scrutiny that any scientist must endure? The request for any special consideration is cause for alarm. To keep an open mind? It’s the same words that any woo woo uses, why should we accept it here?

 

[joobz]

I'm happy to have a general discussion on populations and ability-difference with you, but first:

1. Do you think there are any meaningful population differences in the human species, or do you think that the only way to consider us is as one population of 6 billion? If there are meaningful population differences, what do you think they are?

For simple phenotypes where 1 gene controls 1 outcome, then yes. Population can be a predictor. However, we are considering the case with a complex measure like intelligence.

And as such, this question is doomed from the start. Do you mean ultimate potential between groups? Average potential? Or actual performance averages? Or the actual maximum performance from representatives from each group? Do we correct for variations in group behaviors, diet, types of exercise, differences in cultural importance of various traits?


So, my take is that there isn’t a significant worthwhile predictor for this question. The variation within ANY geographic population is too large to attribute any between group significance. I don’t think an experiment can be done to demonstrate this. As a scientist, I’d be willing to review a study that claims otherwise. But I do approach such claims with a skeptics mind. Or to use Dave1001’s words, as a “Foil-seeker”, as any credible scientist should. We conduct research to prove against the skeptic. Do we not state that our challenge to the paranormal (a foil-seeking challenge) is to apply the same level of scrutiny that any scientist must endure? The request for any special consideration is cause for alarm. To keep an open mind? It’s the same words that any woo woo uses, why should we accept it here?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Let's stop talking about race then, because both of us think it's a sloppy term.

But let's continue to talk about populations. What do you think are reasonable ways to group human subpopulations based on shared heritable genetic heritage?

Humans. At least that's the only biologically meaningful way. Of course we all know what we mean by "Italian" or "European" but these are human constructs based to a large degree on geography and superficial differences in appearance. My wife happens to be Puerto Rican, Italian, and Polish. I'm English, Irish, German, Swedish (sorry HeyLeroy ) and Cherokee (but unfortunately not enough to open a casino). So our son would have to be considered a Puerto Rican/ Italian/ Polish/ English/ Irish/ German/ Swedish/ Cherokee. my wife's brother has the same family background as she does and he married a Turkish/ Greek woman. Their first daughter has very fair skin while the second has much darker skin. People are always surprised to learn that they are sisters and often ask if one of them was adopted.

The problem with the common definitions of race is that they are entirely artificial. Examination of the human genome has shown that there is no genetically legitimate way to classify the "fuzzy sets" of humans into races. There's nothing wrong with saying "He's black" or "She's Filipino" per se as long as the speakers intent is not derogatory. But the concept of race is, as far as biology is concerned, as dead as Geocentricism. To quote my biology professor friend:

I lump this view into the proposed/discounted pile of scientific hypotheses along with:
1.) The world is flat
2.) The sun revolves around earth
3.) Creation took 7 days
4.) DNA is a single alpha helix strand
5.) I can't believe it's not butter
6.) Health is determined by a balance of the 4 humors
7.) The smallest element of matter is the atom.
8.) The smallest element of matter is the proton.
9.) The smallest element of matter is the electron.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

For simple phenotypes where 1 gene controls 1 outcome, then yes. Population can be a predictor.

I know you're sick man but that's a hell of a stutter...

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

But I do approach such claims with a skeptics mind. Or to use Dave1001’s words, as a “Foil-seeker”, as any credible scientist should. We conduct research to prove against the skeptic. Do we not state that our challenge to the paranormal (a foil-seeking challenge) is to apply the same level of scrutiny that any scientist must endure? The request for any special consideration is cause for alarm. To keep an open mind? It’s the same words that any woo woo uses, why should we accept it here?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Nope, that's not how I'm using "foil-seeker". I'm using foil-seeker to describe someone who wants to reduce any discussion on possible differences in abilities between human populations into a binary debate, with the foil-seeker defending the position that all human populations are equal in ability, and the foil claiming that human populations vary in ability. In particular, the foil seeker usually wants the debate to be against some poor shmoe with the harijan's job of claiming that "white people" are genetically more intelligent than "black people". Why not just make those dupes handle dead bodies and human waste, like they do in more transparent societies?

It's fine if one is actually accomplishing a utilitarian end, like keeping social resources from flowing to pyschics or people that put segregation above free market resource liquidity. But this type of foil-seeking is wasteful when it retards intelligent exchange of ideas which can expand general enlightenment. And I think that does happen on this topic of human populations and differences in ability.

 

[Dave1001]

For simple phenotypes where 1 gene controls 1 outcome, then yes. Population can be a predictor. However, we are considering the case with a complex measure like intelligence.

And as such, this question is doomed from the start. Do you mean ultimate potential between groups? Average potential? Or actual performance averages? Or the actual maximum performance from representatives from each group? Do we correct for variations in group behaviors, diet, types of exercise, differences in cultural importance of various traits? ]

I don't think the fact that there are many questions on this topic dooms it from the start, any more than discussing any complex topic that requires many, many subset questions.

 

[Dave1001]

Let's stop talking about race then, because both of us think it's a sloppy term.

But let's continue to talk about populations. What do you think are reasonable ways to group human subpopulations based on shared heritable genetic heritage?

Humans. At least that's the only biologically meaningful way. Of course we all know what we mean by "Italian" or "European" but these are human constructs based to a large degree on geography and superficial differences in appearance. My wife happens to be Puerto Rican, Italian, and Polish. I'm English, Irish, German, Swedish (sorry HeyLeroy ) and Cherokee (but unfortunately not enough to open a casino). So our son would have to be considered a Puerto Rican/ Italian/ Polish/ English/ Irish/ German/ Swedish/ Cherokee. my wife's brother has the same family background as she does and he married a Turkish/ Greek woman. Their first daughter has very fair skin while the second has much darker skin. People are always surprised to learn that they are sisters and often ask if one of them was adopted.

The problem with the common definitions of race is that they are entirely artificial. Examination of the human genome has shown that there is no genetically legitimate way to classify the "fuzzy sets" of humans into races. There's nothing wrong with saying "He's black" or "She's Filipino" per se as long as the speakers intent is not derogatory. But the concept of race is, as far as biology is concerned, as dead as Geocentricism. To quote my biology professor friend:


Steven

Looks like my first sentence didn't leave much of an impression, given that most of the rest of your post was about the concept of race.

Let's stop talking about race then, because both of us think it's a sloppy term.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And I think that does happen on this topic of human populations and differences in ability.

I can see your point. But my question is: Do you think that this is what's happening here in this discussion?

Steven