Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[fuelair]

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.

Darwins' fault (for noticing anyway). Short version (it's late): Skin color is related to where your ancestors were ca. 10,000 years ago (re: vitamin D and another factor I forget, but one needs sunlight, the other breaks down in too much of it. The rest have to do with local conditions that over a long period favor those with better ability in certain areas. Possibly bad to say, intelligence is largely a result of the things in an environment that require intelligence. If food is always real easy to get, it is always nice weather, no predators, not enough people for lebensraum to be necessary then intelligence does not need to be developed to any extent - and likely won't be.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that there is no difference between logic in a courtroom and logic in a lab. The only major difference as to what constitutes sufficient proof is that, in law, the bias of the witnesses is in question while, in science, one only attacks the arguments and not the motives of the arguer.

As my crim professor told us, eventually you have to settle on a theory of your case. If you can't create a theory, you will lose.

Sorry Loss. Please accept my apology as my statement was not meant to in any way malign your profession. My brother-in-law, who is a dear friend, is a partner at a firm in Chicago and I respect him greatly so I can assure you that I have no anti-lawyer bias. My statement was based on an understanding that in advocating the interests of a client one is not necessarily always looking for the truth and that one forms statements in accordance with that position (within legal limits and requirements). But I defer to your expertise and stand humbly corrected.

That said, I still find Dave10001's responses to be frustratingly evasive.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

I think this criticism is ironic, because I think you're promoting more of a anglo-american legal approach to discussion (2 adversaries battling it out from opposing positions), and I'm advocating an approach that the scientific community aspires to: that we collaborate together to figure out apparent reality. I'm not playing any cards close to my vest: I'm skeptical and doubting and interested in improving our models of reality on this topic.

So, back to my earlier question to you (which incidentally does reveal my "cards" on part of this topic):

Please Dave, one last time before I move on. Can you not simply state your position, from beginning to end, as clearly and briefly as possible? If you were a professional scientist you would present your position completely and then your peers would review it.

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

That said, I still find Dave10001's responses to be frustratingly evasive.

Steven

That's because in my assessment you're seeking a dialectic and you want something to latch onto and argue with. I'm looking for a co-collaborator with which to understand the phenomena (to the extent it exists) of how various types of ability vary in human subpopulations.

 

[Dave1001]

Please Dave, one last time before I move on. Can you not simply state your position, from beginning to end, as clearly and briefly as possible? If you were a professional scientist you would present your position completely and then your peers would review it.

Steven

In my opinion that's a silly model for our exchange, where we're more in the position of being non-expert students helping each other learn about a topic than folks at the cutting edge of generating new knowledge in a discipline.

But I think I've already humored this request. Quoting my earlier post for the 3rd time:

"Let's start with the population of people who are severely mentally retarded due to genetic causes, and the population of people who are not. Would you agree that there is a difference in the intelligence between the two populations due to genetics (I understand that here we're not talking about multigenerational endogamous populations -at least not to my knowledge on this topic). I know I drew the lines of the populations and defined population to cherry pick an example that's hard to refute, but I do plan to expand to the messier gray zones. But I'd like to see if we can start with some extreme common ground that there are people that exist, who due in part to their dna, are less intelligent than other people."

My starting position, is that according to my best assessment of apparent reality "there are people that exist, who due in part to their dna, are less intelligent than other people." That's one existing human subpopulation that's due to genetic factors is less intelligent than another human subpopulation. Do you disagree?

 

[Roboramma]

My starting position, is that according to my best assessment of apparent reality "there are people that exist, who due in part to their dna, are less intelligent than other people." That's one existing human subpopulation that's due to genetic factors is less intelligent than another human subpopulation. Do you disagree?

So your position is that genetics can influence intelligence, and the genes resposible for that influence vary to some degree?

Sure, I can agree to that. Do you go one step further and suggest that they vary in ways that are stable?
Your example is not very informative, because it takes people whose genetic varience is certainly selected against. It is considered a pathology.
Is there a heritable variation in intelligence that is stable in the population?

I am pretty sure that there is. I don't know about Foster Zygote, but I wouldn't be surprised if could agree with that.

But, what's interesting about this?

Does this variation correlate with so called racial differences? I rather doubt it. There is very little reason to believe that intelligence has been selected for in one human population, but not in another, considering how much gene flow there has been and how similar the environments have been, I would find such a suggestion very hard to support.

 

[Dave1001]

But, what's interesting about this?

I'm going to ignore your reintroduction of race, because that's a foilicious discussion FosterZygote and I have agreed to move beyond. Please, folks who want to hop onto the rugby pile "disproving" the notion that white people are smarter than black people -get your kicks somewhere else.

As for what's interesting about the topic generally of differences of ability in human subpopulations, it's a natural phenomenon and we're engaged in a leisure activity by discussing it. Must there be a utilitarian justification for this discussion? Or should we limit even our leisure time to engaging in the activities that are our comparative economic advantage in service of the rest of the world?

 

[blutoski]

So your position is that genetics can influence intelligence, and the genes resposible for that influence vary to some degree?

Sure, I can agree to that. Do you go one step further and suggest that they vary in ways that are stable?
Your example is not very informative, because it takes people whose genetic varience is certainly selected against. It is considered a pathology.
Is there a heritable variation in intelligence that is stable in the population?

I am pretty sure that there is. I don't know about Foster Zygote, but I wouldn't be surprised if could agree with that.

But, what's interesting about this?

Does this variation correlate with so called racial differences? I rather doubt it. There is very little reason to believe that intelligence has been selected for in one human population, but not in another, considering how much gene flow there has been and how similar the environments have been, I would find such a suggestion very hard to support.

And that's pretty much the scientific state of knowledge right now, too. The "60-80%" quote is not supported by evidence. Right now, based on the studies that have been done, the range of possibility is "0-100%", unfortunately.

One blended influence hypothesis that makes the most sense is one analogous to disease vulnerability. I may or may not be resistant to smallpox. I'll never know until my environment changes drastically. My resistance is 100% inheritable, but irrelevant in the current human environment. Intelligence could work like this, too: we inherit a range of possibilities, to be determined by our environment, but in our current environment, it may not matter.

eg: consider these two people, with very different genetics born into identical environments:

Person one: IQ range [100..160] -> IQ=100
Person two: IQ range [30-100] -> IQ=100

Now, consider a counterexample, with clones raised in different environments:

Person one: IQ range [100-160] -> IQ=100
Person two: IQ range [100-160] -> IQ=160

The fact that our IQ can have a genetic component, just like known biological properties, is not a guarantee that it will be meaningful in ordinary human society.



There is an additional fallacy: the belief that genetics = inheritability. You can't inherit AB blood type from a parent. You inherit A blood type from one parent and B blood type from the other. You can't pass this on. An old eugenics theory was that superior intelligence was a recessive trait, and that therefore, you could concentrate the property by matching people with the trait and selecting over several generations (ie: alleles I for low intelligence and i for high intelligence, with a smart person being ii, a dumb person being II and dumb carriers of smart Ii). This has proven to be unsupported, so there is no operating theory about how to propagate intelligence right now.

By the same token, it does not go unnoticed that the great geniuses of our age have had pretty disappointing offspring. Usually, we talk about regression to the mean, but that's the point: it seems that even the dumbest parents can produce bright children, when their genetics combines appropriately. There may not be bright genes so much as bright combinations of genes. All individuals may have the same potential to produce children of higher-than-average intelligence, even given a genetic model.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm going to ignore your reintroduction of race, because that's a foilicious discussion FosterZygote and I have agreed to move beyond. Please, folks who want to hop onto the rugby pile "disproving" the notion that white people are smarter than black people -get your kicks somewhere else.

Sorry, I've only been skimming the thread, and I must have missed that. I would like to point out that I don't intend to disprove the idea that "white people are smarter than blacks" or that any race is smarter than any other. I think it's possible based on what we know, I only offered reasons I find it rather unlikely. Mainly as an aside.

As for what's interesting about the topic generally of differences of ability in human subpopulations, it's a natural phenomenon and we're engaged in a leisure activity by discussing it. Must there be a utilitarian justification for this discussion? Or should we limit even our leisure time to engaging in the activities that are our comparative economic advantage in service of the rest of the world?

You are misunderstanding me here. I asked "what's interesting about this" about the following statement that I made:

Is there a heritable variation in intelligence that is stable in the population?

This does not refer to differences between human subpopulations, or the topic generally, but simply whether or not there is heritable variation in intelligence that is stable in the population (and by "the population" I am refering to the homo sapiens in general).

I don't require a utilitarian justification for talking about this. I just want to know what you find interesting about it. Does it have any meaningful implications?
Hm.. I just looked back and realised it wasn't necessarily clear what I was refering to when I said "what's interesting about this"... woops.

Anyway, it'd be nice if by responding to my post you could answer some of the rather polite and straight-forward questions I posed. Nothing was meant as an attack. Hell, I even agree with you that the concept of race is not meaningless (though we all seem to have moved on), and that eugenics might have it's uses.

I just happen to like clarity, and was hoping that your response to the questions I was asking might help us all find some.

 

[Roboramma]

By the same token, it does not go unnoticed that the great geniuses of our age have had pretty disappointing offspring. Usually, we talk about regression to the mean, but that's the point: it seems that even the dumbest parents can produce bright children, when their genetics combines appropriately. There may not be bright genes so much as bright combinations of genes. All individuals may have the same potential to produce children of higher-than-average intelligence, even given a genetic model.

Along similar lines, I think it's worth pointing out that there is more than one aspect to intelligence. Someone can be wonderfully gifted languages, but horrible with statistics. Someone else might be gifted at the art of social politics, but a dunce when it comes to writing science fiction. Gifted comedians (and humour certianly requires intelligence) aren't necessarily gifted mathematicians.

I point all this out, because some of these things may play against each other. Genes that tend to create individuals with a gift for small talk, say, might also tend to produce individuals who perform poorly when tested for mathematical ability. Both require intelligence, but they probably require different types of intelligence. How we economize our limited neurons probably determines a lot.

If this is the case, we'd expect to see a whole assortment of genes that are non-optimal for any one trait, but that fit together well to create individuals who are "jacks-of-all-trades".

That's my idle speculation for tonight.

 

[Dave1001]

Hell, I even agree with you that the concept of race is not meaningless

Whoah, where did I ever say that?

 

[Dave1001]

This does not refer to differences between human subpopulations, or the topic generally, but simply whether or not there is heritable variation in intelligence that is stable in the population (and by "the population" I am refering to the homo sapiens in general).
...

I just want to know what you find interesting about it. Does it have any meaningful implications?

Sure, all sorts of implications if it's a true phenomenon. Why do I find it interesting to discuss anonymously on a message board? Because unlike other topics that I do discus non-anonymously, it's rather taboo to discuss in person, and people tend to hug the moral highground because in-group status benefits of articulating the politically correct position. Why this particular taboo topic? One could come up with all sorts of reasons, I haven't probed my psyche about it extensively, but just like I prefer sour tastes to sweet tastes, due to my perhaps arbitrary aesthetics I find this topic pleasantly stimulating.

 

[Dave1001]

Along similar lines, I think it's worth pointing out that there is more than one aspect to intelligence. Someone can be wonderfully gifted languages, but horrible with statistics. Someone else might be gifted at the art of social politics, but a dunce when it comes to writing science fiction. Gifted comedians (and humour certianly requires intelligence) aren't necessarily gifted mathematicians.

I point all this out, because some of these things may play against each other. Genes that tend to create individuals with a gift for small talk, say, might also tend to produce individuals who perform poorly when tested for mathematical ability. Both require intelligence, but they probably require different types of intelligence. How we economize our limited neurons probably determines a lot.

If this is the case, we'd expect to see a whole assortment of genes that are non-optimal for any one trait, but that fit together well to create individuals who are "jacks-of-all-trades".

That's my idle speculation for tonight.

I agree in principle with all these points, and I don't think anything I've raised contradicts them. Intuitively the concept of multiple intelligences makes more sense to me, although it's fair to point out that folks that advocate only one type of intelligence claim that all the other types are basically situational applications of abstract intelligence.

 

[Dave1001]

And that's pretty much the scientific state of knowledge right now, too. The "60-80%" quote is not supported by evidence. Right now, based on the studies that have been done, the range of possibility is "0-100%", unfortunately.

One blended influence hypothesis that makes the most sense is one analogous to disease vulnerability. I may or may not be resistant to smallpox. I'll never know until my environment changes drastically. My resistance is 100% inheritable, but irrelevant in the current human environment. Intelligence could work like this, too: we inherit a range of possibilities, to be determined by our environment, but in our current environment, it may not matter.

eg: consider these two people, with very different genetics born into identical environments:

Person one: IQ range [100..160] -> IQ=100
Person two: IQ range [30-100] -> IQ=100

Now, consider a counterexample, with clones raised in different environments:

Person one: IQ range [100-160] -> IQ=100
Person two: IQ range [100-160] -> IQ=160

The fact that our IQ can have a genetic component, just like known biological properties, is not a guarantee that it will be meaningful in ordinary human society.



There is an additional fallacy: the belief that genetics = inheritability. You can't inherit AB blood type from a parent. You inherit A blood type from one parent and B blood type from the other. You can't pass this on. An old eugenics theory was that superior intelligence was a recessive trait, and that therefore, you could concentrate the property by matching people with the trait and selecting over several generations (ie: alleles I for low intelligence and i for high intelligence, with a smart person being ii, a dumb person being II and dumb carriers of smart Ii). This has proven to be unsupported, so there is no operating theory about how to propagate intelligence right now.

There is no more of an operating theory on how to propagate a variety of traits considered heritable besides intelligence, and yet I think many have been demonstrated pretty convincingly to be heritable. My understanding is that intelligence as measured by adult IQ has also been shown to be strongly heritable, even if a detailed mechanism hasn't yet been articulated. The 60-80% heritability is a number I'm plucking from memory, but I do think there is consensus in the field from studies such as of twins -more and easily accessible information is probably on wikipedia on this topic.

By the same token, it does not go unnoticed that the great geniuses of our age have had pretty disappointing offspring. Usually, we talk about regression to the mean, but that's the point: it seems that even the dumbest parents can produce bright children, when their genetics combines appropriately. There may not be bright genes so much as bright combinations of genes. All individuals may have the same potential to produce children of higher-than-average intelligence, even given a genetic model.

There was a long thread on regression to the mean, one of the first I participated in. That doesn't seem to preclude intelligence having a heritable component.

Also I agree that heritable genetic intelligence and intelligence due to the right combination of genese are separable concepts (we also discussed this in the regression thread). The existence of the latter doesn't preclude the existence of the former, of course. Sort of like how the latest research indicates that there are very long-lived families that owe their longevity in part to heritable genes, but that most longevity (such as success in avoiding early death due to heart attacks or stroke) may be due to having a lucky combination of genes, to the degree that there was a genetic component to the long-life.

Similarly, there seem to be some families where there are multigenerational geniuses (the Huxleys, the Bachs), and many other families where there appears to be more of a regression to the mean.

 

[blutoski]

If this is the case, we'd expect to see a whole assortment of genes that are non-optimal for any one trait, but that fit together well to create individuals who are "jacks-of-all-trades".

That's my idle speculation for tonight.

It's a meaningful question, though, IQ tests are designed to measure "general intelligence," which is an average from different challenges: linquistic, pattern-recognition, &c. The tests are designed to reduce the effect of specific training. They do not include math, for example, because people have to 'learn' math. Pattern-recognition, however, is argued to be innate.

The other reason there's some value to this question is that at the end of the day, people with higher IQ scores are more likely to do better in *all* measureable aspects, which is part of the tool's predictive utility. Higher-IQ scorers are more likely to be socially, academically, professionally, artisitically, and personal-goal-achieving successful. MENSA may be filled with cranks, but they only represent the 0.001% of high-IQ people whose social skills are questionable.

There is a stereotype that high-IQ people are all math dudes, but this is not borne out by the facts. An example is my sister whose IQ is in the 130s. She runs her own business, raises 2 kids with her husband, runs a hobby farm, is building a cabin by the lake... Not a big income, but more than her peers make. Exactly where she wants to be in her life. She's successful by her own definition, and that's typical of high-IQ people.

 

[blutoski]

There is no more of an operating theory on how to propagate a variety of traits considered heritable besides intelligence, and yet I think many have been demonstrated pretty convincingly to be heritable. My understanding is that intelligence as measured by adult IQ has also been shown to be strongly heritable, even if a detailed mechanism hasn't yet been articulated. The 60-80% heritability is a number I'm plucking from memory, but I do think there is consensus in the field from studies such as of twins -more and easily accessible information is probably on wikipedia on this topic.

Yes, I appreciate that, but I've found that Wikipedia is useless when it comes to politically-charged discussions based on professional field literature. My primary assertion is that the inheritability studies relating to IQ are extremely weak for several reasons, especially the twin studies. In the case of MZ/apart twins - which are critical to the study - we're looking at three major problems: the twins' biopredispositions can also be influenced by womb events, there are only 51 pairs of MZ/apart twins in the study, and they're self-selected for similarity (the MZ/apart twins who don't get along because of their differences are not participating in the study!).

I have no idea why people cite the twin studies. In any other field, a study of similarity where the subjects are allowed to self-select their participation would be tossed out as a joke.

There was a long thread on regression to the mean, one of the first I participated in. That doesn't seem to preclude intelligence having a heritable component.

No, but it sure is suspicious.

Also I agree that heritable genetic intelligence and intelligence due to the right combination of genese are separable concepts (we also discussed this in the regression thread). The existence of the latter doesn't preclude the existence of the former, of course. Sort of like how the latest research indicates that there are very long-lived families that owe their longevity in part to heritable genes, but that most longevity (such as success in avoiding early death due to heart attacks or stroke) may be due to having a lucky combination of genes, to the degree that there was a genetic component to the long-life.

Right. What it does, though, is focus attention on this question: if people obviously inherit a range of intelligence, why not focus on education? It's ethical, relatively cheap, and seems to have evidence behind it. Why ignore this known factor in favour of a world of coulda-mabye-if?

One thing a genetic model cannot explain is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the last century. aka: "The Flynn Effect" - a plausible explanation is that a fostering environment, including education, improves an individual's intellectual performance.

Similarly, there seem to be some families where there are multigenerational geniuses (the Huxleys, the Bachs), and many other families where there appears to be more of a regression to the mean.

To the point where it looks... unpredictable! Just like if genes weren't involved? There are a lot of people whose kids are successful, even if they're adopted. I appreciate that I'm probably covering old ground wrt regression to the mean, but one of the things that wastes time is the discussion of outliers like this. There aren't enough of them to extrapolate meaningful conclusions.

 

[Dave1001]

Right. What it does, though, is focus attention on this question: if people obviously inherit a range of intelligence, why not focus on education? It's ethical, relatively cheap, and seems to have evidence behind it. Why ignore this known factor in favour of a world of coulda-mabye-if?.

Whoah. Discussing "education" doesn't preclude discussing whether genetic difference in intelligence between humans exist, and to what degree it is heritable.

I'm trying to discuss and learn about natural phenomenon in this thread, not engaging in policy prescriptions (there was speculation about policy started by someone else, but my responses to that that was an aside that I prefaced was outside of the scope of this thread). What's unethical about that?

 

[Dave1001]

To the point where it looks... unpredictable! Just like if genes weren't involved? There are a lot of people whose kids are successful, even if they're adopted. I appreciate that I'm probably covering old ground wrt regression to the mean, but one of the things that wastes time is the discussion of outliers like this. There aren't enough of them to extrapolate meaningful conclusions.

Ironically, you mentioned these same outliers as "evidence" that intelligence isn't heritable (by pointing out that some nobel prize winners have decidedly average -in intellectual achievement- offspring).

But I'm not sure they're outliers denuded of value, any more than is the case with heritable extreme longevity. They might indeed demonstrate that high level intelligence is heritable in humans. At the least, I don't think it's good science to assume wihout close consideration that families like the Huxleys and the Bachs are just random outcomes balancing out a random distribution curve of dunces born to other genius ancestors. What does the best critical study of this phenomena actually reveal?

 

[Yahzi]

Basically, it boils down to this, in my opinion: a bunch of white racists observed that blacks were getting compensated for centuries of mistreatment.

Speaking of bizarre conspiracy theories...

First, one cannot compensate blacks for centuries of mistreatment. The black people that were mistreated are dead. They cannot be compensated. Their suffering did not magically attach itself to people with the same skin color. Their karma does not get inheirited.

What one can do is correct existing social mistreatment. One can also recognize that mistreatment is historical, deep, instiutionalized, and pernicious. One can recognize that social traditions which penalize black people are bad, without in any way compensating dead people.

The notion that someone today deserves a check because their ancestors were wronged is just stupid. Everybody's ancestors were wronged.

The notion that someone today is suffering unjustly because of deep-seated traditions, and therefore society should both compensate them and modify its current practices, is called "justice."

The inability to tell the difference between the two is bizarre.

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,

I'm a huge fan of affirmative-action. But not because a bunch of dead people were slaves. I am a fan because a bunch of living people are trapped in poverty for no fair reason, and AA is as good a way as any to undo that problem for future generations.

Mind you, AA is a huge cop-out: corporations accepted it because having quotas was easier than actually having fair hiring practices. But I'm willing to compromise, as long as it gets the job done.

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.

There is no such thing as race. The classic social definition of race is scientifically incoherent; it places Australian aborignes in the same category as Africans, oblivious to any genetic reality.

There is such a thing as labelling, and it occurs all the time. It is what we are complaining about.

If a child with white skin is adopted by white parents who think he is white, and raise him like he is white, and he marries a white girl and has white kids, then when some researcher discovers he is actualy 90% genetically black, I don't think he should get any help from AA.

Racial discrimination is purely a matter of perception, not science. Therefore its cure is perception, not science. It doesn't matter what your genes or your ancestor's history are: if you are discriminated against because of your skin color, that is wrong. Period.

The only people who say race doesn't exist are comfortable white people who aren't impacted by the consequences of such beliefs.

This is as insane as the people who claim that God exists because the concept of God exists.

I can recognize the damage that the concept of race inflicts on society without acknowledging that the concept applies to real, scientific fact.

And I understand that there are genetic populations, and ways to demarcate people into subgroups. However, those groupings are inevitably based on geography. The social concept of race, as espoused by the KKK and others, is based on skin color. This is an invalid and meaningless criteria for grouping. Ergo, the popular, social concept of race is bunk.

PC is an expression that is tossed out to insult people with a differing point of view.

No, PC is way to dismiss an argument because it is politically motivated instead of interested in finding the truth.

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!

Only if you live in a straw-man factory.

Races are not sensible terminology, people are not all the same, some people are trying to preserve the concept of race in order to draw compensation, some people are trying to preserve the concept of race to continue discrimination and oppression. All of these statements are true.

The scientific position - what rational, scientific people say - is that we have no evidence to assert any particular psychological characteristic with any particular genetic population. We can tell you this group is more likely to get sickle-cell anemia, because we know how what sickle-cell anemia is and how to measure it. We do not know what intelligence, character, determination, moral uprightness, or hard work are, in any scientifically measurable way. Therefore we cannot even begin to discuss whether a particular group has more or less of them.

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.

The concept of race, as popularly understood, is as silly as the claim that the gods live at the top of Mount Olympus.

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.

IQ testing is bunk. IQ scores have risen an average of 10 points for the last three generations. The tests have been repeatedly modified to hide this fact. Any measure that implies that this generation is %30 smarter than my grandfather's generation is self-evidently broken. Whatever value IQ scores may have is small, minor, and limited to immediate local problems (which class should we put this kid in this year?) And even then, I think it's bunk.

Your attitude, of admitting that the metric sucks ass, but we should use it anyway, is every bit as amusing as the old joke about the drunk looking for his car keys under the lamp-post because that is where the light is.

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.

As long as we are merely talking about the weight of evidence, let us consider gorillas.

If there is no territory available for a young male gorilla, he will delay entering puberty for up to nine years. Puberty doubles the size and weight of the gorillia. This massive, gigantic, humungous biological change is controlled entirely by social cues.

Given that, given the myriad of other examples in primates alone, one has to wonder what kind of person questions the ability of an entire society's condemnation of a child based solely on their skin color (a condemnation that they recieve from their parents, as well - black people are just as racist as white people, because black people are simply human beings and they absorb the culture they live in just as much as anyone else) to affect their scores on an idiotic test.

The evidence that social cues matter, and matter greatly, is so obvious that one has to be an ideologue of some kind not to see it.

The theory of race is bunk. The existance and harmfulness of racism is self-evident. Much like God does not exist, but that does not stop people from harming each other in His name.

 

[Yahzi]

Even in the working breeds that humans have manipulated for a specific purpose no one has ever created a breed that's better at being a dog in the dog's natural environment than the original dog, the wolf.

Since when did any breeder set out to produce a better wolf?

I do not understand this comment: it seems to be saying that no one who ever set out to build a better mousetrap ever succeded at building a better can opener.