Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[Dave1001]

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

Steven

Nontransparently, yes. I don't see much good faith effort to explore the topic of differences of ability in human populations. Instead I sense a strong desire to hug the perceived moral highground of arguing against some sort of clearly wrong description of ability difference in human populations.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nontransparently, yes. I don't see much good faith effort to explore the topic of differences of ability in human populations. Instead I sense a strong desire to hug the perceived moral highground of arguing against some sort of clearly wrong description of ability difference in human populations.

So you can only provide your opinion as evidence of this.

You still haven't actually said what your position is and I'm beginning to suspect you won't, but your last sentence seems to suggest that you might support a position advocating "ability difference in human populations". If not then you at least consider it a topic worthy of investigation and study. You've been presented with science that discounts this position. No emotion has been invoked. No one has screamed "racist" at you. Can you provide any evidence that the idea of "ability differences in human populations" is any more worthy of consideration than phrenology?

BTW Are you talking about "ability differences in populations" or "ability differences between populations"? The difference is enormous so you should probably clarify your intent.

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

BTW Are you talking about "ability differences in populations" or "ability differences between populations"? The difference is enormous so you should probably clarify your intent.

Steven

I'm interested in both. I think both are worthy of dispassionate discussion and study, moreso than the study of how the bumps in one's skull may indicate one's personality and intelligence (phrenology).

I take it that you think researching ability differences between human populations is no more worthy of study than phrenology? If so, that actually puts you at odds with most of the scientific community, which is actively and usually uncontroversially studying all sorts of ability differences between human populations.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm interested in both. I think both are worthy of dispassionate discussion and study, moreso than the study of how the bumps in one's skull may indicate one's personality and intelligence (phrenology).

I take it that you think researching ability differences between human populations is no more worthy of study than phrenology?

Phrenology has been studied, and discarded. Astrology has been studied, and discarded. And the idea that average intelligence varies by "race" has been studied, and discarded

If so, that actually puts you at odds with most of the scientific community, which is actively and usually uncontroversially studying all sorts of ability differences between human populations.

Then why didn't you address this question from the OP?

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

 

[Dave1001]

Phrenology has been studied, and discarded. Astrology has been studied, and discarded. And the idea that average intelligence varies by "race" has been studied, and discarded

Steven

Whoooah. Scope shift. I thought we retired "race" as a topic and that we're talking more broadly about human populations and differences in ability. Why are you retreating to such a messy marker of human populations?

Your most recent post:

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?

As I wrote earlier:

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".

 

[Foster Zygote]

Whoooah. Scope shift. I thought we retired "race" as a topic and that we're talking more broadly about human populations and differences in ability. Why are you retreating to such a messy marker of human populations?

You suggested we use the word "populations" instead of "race". I don't recall ever stating or implying agreement. But if the word makes you uncomfortable then we can just as easily replace it with "population".

What evidence can you point to that shows that membership in a certain population is a factor in ones intelligence? Which of these populations is indicated by genetics to to be intellectually superior/inferior to which? What is the hierarchy?

Steven

 

[joobz]

To sum up the debate so far:
1.) Race doesn't exist.
2.) Some people are more able than other people.


The debated point is can we draw a line around populations using some criteria and state that people inside and outside this line are different by some secondary measurable criteria.

Sure, it can. But you'll have debate when seemingly arbitrary criteria is used for criteria 1 and criteria 2.

Also to address this point:

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.

my earlier conjecture wasn't that there are too many questions. It's that the type of questions are not testable. How do you test ability potential for intelligence? What are you defining as intelligent measures? Math, verbal reasoning? A nintendoDS BrainAge score? Ability at chess?

As to the question of "foil-seeker", If that was your meaning than I understand. However, the language used made it seem more of an offense to critiques on your position rather than describing a person seeking a straw-man. I believe my mistake arrives from the inability to see such intent in Foster Zygote's posts.

Finally, I apologize for the double post earlier. I didn't mean to mess that up. Let's just say, I'm glad it's not "my ability potential" that is in question here.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Foster Zygote


Dave1001


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.

===

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

Have you read the University of Utah research on the Ashkenazim and exceptional intelligence? (Or as I liked to call it "where do we find the next Einstein?" ) While the study raised a few hackles, and the authors admitted that it was not "the final answer" on such matters as racial traits, a few of the points seemed worth adding to this discussion.

1. Human populations to study for traits of that sort are incredibly hard to find and isolate. A small group in India was the only other social/genetic stovepipe also identified as possibly suitable. Most others appeared to be far too mixed. Perhaps that is a good thing, in terms of steering discussion away from "race" based assumptions. Perhaps it blinds us to something else.

2. The study's findings seemed to argue a combination of nurture and nature, a synergy between them.

3. The IQ test as a measuring tool was, of course, given a beating by the critics.

4. More importantly, for me, was the question not raised, which seems to be coming up these days: at what point do we start deliberately and selectively breeding people for certain traits? We do it with animals of many sorts: dogs, cows, horses, cats. We do it with plants.

Socially, if not scientifically, any number of "desirable traits" inform the general breeding process. Smart. Pretty. Healthy. Fast. Strong. Nice hooters. Agile Whatever.

What list (and it would be thousands of items long, given the need for resistance to diseases and various syndromes and birthdefects) of attributes would a human need to be bred for to place its potential (still has to be raised and potential tapped) in the second and third standard deviation from the mean? the fourth? The fifth? (For whoever answers "one from Column A, two from column B," on the list, I'm a step ahead of you. )

How many generations would it take to move the mean one, two, or three standard deviations to the right? For all humans?

For the record: I am not a huge of all the thinking behind 4. That said, look at what pre natal procedures have developed into, and how invitro procedures allow a certain amount of discretion over "the old fashioned way." See also the use of so primative a technology as ultrasound to inform decisions to abort female fetuses (some news on that in the past decade, China and India). Hee hee, in twenty years, how are they gonna get a date? I can see it now: The Sex Wars, and the root causes of the Great Chinese Civil War.

I don't see there being some invisible barrier beyond which humans won't advance to gain greater control of the outcomes of the reproductive process. (Me, I'm all for getting a little wine, taking the missus out into the hills, and the two of us going at it under a full moon, but I wouldn't insist that a control freak feel bound to that regimen.)

The vulnerability to discrete diseases found in the Askenazim study h8ighlights, at least to me, one of the many hazards of pursuing the path of genetic manipulation.

DR

 

[Wudang]

Maybe I'm being too subtle so I'll try again. For fracks sake is this the 1950s? Why the frack are you talking about "race" when you should be talking about whether psychological traits such as intelligence show a genetic basis or not? The next person who uses the word "race" I will track down and vomit in your lap.
Now please talk to each other. And some actual fracking evidence would be nice instead of sweeping statements that "science shows".

 

[Loss Leader]

I would just like to add that my family tends to be exceptionally long-lived. All of my grandparents lived into their 90s. Two of my great-grandparents lived past 100 years old. As regards intelligence, my father and both of his siblings are lawyers, my mother is a lawyer and a startling eight (yes, eight) of her cousins are doctors. I, myself, am an attorney and I also hold a Masters Degree in Public Administration.

If anyone would care to breed me, I am available most weekends and Tuesday and Wednesday nights. I reside near New York City and know many fine restaurants and hotels in the area.

Care should be taken not to phone me at home as my wife is far less interested in genetics than I and, quite unscientifically, sees it as something of an afront to our marriage vows.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Maybe I'm being too subtle so I'll try again. For fracks sake is this the 1950s? Why the frack are you talking about "race" when you should be talking about whether psychological traits such as intelligence show a genetic basis or not? The next person who uses the word "race" I will track down and vomit in your lap.
Now please talk to each other. And some actual fracking evidence would be nice instead of sweeping statements that "science shows".

Sorry, but it is a bit hard to argue that the concept of race is a human construct without saying "race". It's like arguing in favor of atheism without mentioning the word "God". As for the evidence, I refer you to the writings on this subject of the biologists I mentioned in the OP. Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Stephen J. Gould, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, and Joseph Graves Jr. They should suffice as authorities I think. I might further suggest reading the study The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavelli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza from Princeton University Press.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

I would just like to add that my family tends to be exceptionally long-lived. All of my grandparents lived into their 90s. Two of my great-grandparents lived past 100 years old. As regards intelligence, my father and both of his siblings are lawyers, my mother is a lawyer and a startling eight (yes, eight) of her cousins are doctors. I, myself, am an attorney and I also hold a Masters Degree in Public Administration.

If anyone would care to breed me, I am available most weekends and Tuesday and Wednesday nights. I reside near New York City and know many fine restaurants and hotels in the area.

Care should be taken not to phone me at home as my wife is far less interested in genetics than I and, quite unscientifically, sees it as something of an afront to our marriage vows.

You know it's funny, but I've recently been toying with the idea of breeding a race of atomic super-men. How do you feel about gamma radiation? Not much, just a little bit.

Steven

 

[Loss Leader]

You know it's funny, but I've recently been toying with the idea of breeding a race of atomic super-men. How do you feel about gamma radiation? Not much, just a little bit.

Steven

Gamma shmamma. Do I get to have sex?

 

[joobz]

Gamma shmamma. Do I get to have sex?

I'm sorry. for atomic supermen to work, we need to use stem cells and nanotechnology.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm sorry. for atomic supermen to work, we need to use stem cells and nanotechnology.

Stem cells. Feh! That's just science fiction mumbo jumbo. The real secret behind atomic supermen lies in my electronium ray, which harnesses the light of the sun to produce electromagnetic radiation. "Mad" they called me. Fools! I'll destroy them all!

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

Gamma shmamma. Do I get to have sex?

Sorry, no sex. But we will need one of your testicles and part of your brain. Just a little part though. You'll hardly miss it.

Steven

 

[Yahzi]

The simple fact is, all people are not born equal.

Comparing the difference between individuals to the difference between races implies there is some systematic, meaningful definition of race.

As it stands, any such statement will be immediately shouted down as racist without anyone even bothering to assess its validity.

Because we can't even define what intelligence is. IQ tests are bunk. Every clinical measure we come up with is bunk. Don't you think it's a little premature to talk about how smart people are or aren't when we can't even figure out how to measure smart? Or for that matter, race?

The fact that both race and intelligence have only cultural definitions, not scientific ones, is your first clue that people who want to talk about race and intelligence are full of ****.

You shouldn't need a second clue.

 

[Yahzi]

Sure, it can. But you'll have debate when seemingly arbitrary criteria is used for criteria 1 and criteria 2.

I should have read the whole thread before I replied.

I see the relevant facts have already been supplied here, so I don't have anything to add.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Whoooah. Scope shift. I thought we retired "race" as a topic and that we're talking more broadly about human populations and differences in ability. Why are you retreating to such a messy marker of human populations?

If you'd like to do this it would help if you would define what you mean by "population" in detail and then show how it is different from "race" for the purposes of this argument. It seems to me we'd only be agreeing to call, for example, Asians a "population" instead of a "race".

Steven

 

[blutoski]

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.

Yes, it's a perennial problem. There are two fallacies at work here: strawperson and corruption of the continuum.

1. Strawperson, in that there's the implication that anybody who accepts that there are races is also an advocate for some sort of heirarchy. This is a complete fabrication, and very insulting, to boot. It only serves to draw the debate into insults. Most people quite readily identify races in general, with some local cultural spin, and it's not usually associated with a belief in inherent abilities.

2. Corruption of the continuum, in that just because there isn't a discreet cutoff point between races doesn't mean they aren't useful socially or biologically. As pointed out above, the entire field of zoological phylogeny is a human construct, and it's very useful. The fact that biologists as a community are using the binomial system instead of the clade system is social or even just historical inertia, but the end result is that we have a system that bears fruit.



My impression is that Yahzi, Wudang, joobs, and perhaps even Wade1001 are in what I would call the 'race denialist' camp. This is a group that was curioius a few years ago, but has grown in popularity recently and I'm starting to percieve them as a threat.

Basically, it boils down to this, in my opinion: a bunch of white racists observed that blacks were getting compensated for centuries of mistreatment. They found that the best way to put an end to this was a two-pronged attack: claim that racial favouritism in the form of affirmative-action is unconstitutional and discriminatory, and secondly, argue that it's morally questionable, because there's no such thing as race anyway, and it can only be exercised by labelling. The great thing about the latter argument is that it was picked up by a bunch of white males in universities so they could show how broadminded they were, and has the veneer of moral highground. It is not the moral highground: it is doing the Klan's handiwork. The only people who say race doesn't exist are comfortable white people who aren't impacted by the consequences of such beliefs.


That's why I laughed when I read Cuddles' comment:

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.

Whenever I see the label "PC movement" applied, I interpet that to read "The poster has turned off his brain today." PC is an expression that is tossed out to insult people with a differing point of view. If you believe races are a sensible terminology, you believe the PC movement is trying to eliminate the concept of race so everybody's the same. If you believe race is not a sensible terminology, you believe the PC movement is trying to preserve the concept of race in order to draw compensation or sympathy. Like antisemitism, antiPCism constructs a bizarre conspiracy that seems to be behind opposing activities!




Anyway, that's my rant on the subject. Here's the meat:

1. The concept of race may be fuzzy and social, but it preserves bilogical utilitiy, as does many scientific concepts. Denying the existence of races is ridiculous.

2. IQ testing is probably the best indicator of intelligence that we have, so in the absence of an alternative, I am satisfied that it can be used as a proxy. Sure, there's a history of abuse, but criticism of current tests is questionable.

3. IQ scores do show differences between races; however, given that there are no experiments that can control for important factors, the origin of this difference could be social, biological/nongenetic or biological/genetic, or a mix of the three influences. Any claims of certainty for one or the other are premature.