Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[Yahzi]

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.

The notion that some part of the world is easy to live in, therefore those people are stupid, ignores so many facts as to be useless. The real world does not conform to such a simple description.

For instance, it completely ignores the fact that hard living conditions could result in more agressiveness, without any increase in intelligence.

The technological marvel that has changed the face of society in the last 2,500 years has a definite starting point, which has nothing to do with race at all. The Greeks invented rationalism. Everything else follows.

China created a perfectly adequate society. There is nothing wrong with Chinese genes. There is no reason why the Chinese cannot be the absolute equal of the West in science, economy, or justice (save for historical reasons, and those are changing). They simply didn't stumble onto that Greek idea when we did. Now that they have it, expect to see their society transformed the same way ours was: just a little behind the curve, because they came to the game late.

But to imply genetics has anything to do with this is so simplistic it is insulting.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

I'm not sure about that. I think we probably do have some evidence to assert certain particular psychological characteristics with particular genetic populations, at least to the degree that we can tell one the relative likelihiness of different genetic populations to get sickle-cell anemia. And I think there is debate about the degree to which we have scientifically measurable ways to measure various psychological traits and capabilities.

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.

First of all, I don't think IQ tests are modified to hide the Flyn effect in some sort of CT way. Although I interested in absolute IQ scores rather than just the standard deviation scores we're usually informed about.

Second, I don't think that rising IQ scores are ipso facto evidence that the tests don't work. For example, I'm curious of the degree to which the rising scores could be attributed to opportunistic cheating, and thus have a heritable genetic explanation. Also, doesn't that indicate that regression to the mean isn't occuring, but rather regression to one standard deviation above the mean?

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.

Are you arguing that it's bad science and evil to say that white people are smarter than black people? Wow, the desire of people to make that point in a thread about ability differences in human populations is apparently endless.

 

[blutoski]

Speaking of bizarre conspiracy theories...

You didn't answer my questions: is the concept of dog breeds unscientific or meaningless? How about the concept of 'dogs,' given that they can breed with wolves?

 

[blutoski]

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.

Mm. Well, as somebody involved in a compensation project, I think you're making assumptions here, so I'll give you a more specific example. My black relative involved is one of the people who lived in Africville, which is in Nova Scotia. Her mother's house was expropriated for $1 and bulldozed. The land was handed over to whites. Granted: this didn't happen to her, but happened to her mother, but the injustice has caused noticeable hardship in the generation following, in that the family estate was liquidated, and there is no inheritance.

During one of the 'debates' about compensation, there was this chap who took his turn at the podium, read from a prepared script, and told us all that we were wasting our time, because there's no such thing as black people, it's all our imagination, yaddah-yaddah-yaddah. Then he sat down, and we resumed with reality.

The point is that arguing that there are no black people doesn't exactly fly with black people. To the point where this attitude is considered either a joke or some sort of deceptive plan. There's a Stephen Colbert gag where he says he didn't know he was white until somebody told him.

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.

This could be because legitemate inquiry has a real uphill battle against those who accuse them of bigotry, without foundation.

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.

Makes sense. What should his doctor do if he knows that a particular medication works better for white people than black people? Give him the wrong medication based on his adopted parents?

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.

Again, though: I'm not talking about discrimination. You're shuttling between social discrimination, biological concepts of race, which are different questions. There are people who argue that 'gender' is a completely social construct, and I put them in the same 'wishful thinking' category as the race deniers.

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

Nah. What we use for race metrics is pretty objective, once it's been defined. I'm sorry that phylogeny is not cut-and-dried, but again, I direct you to science in general, where demarcation is a problem all over the place. How big does a grain of sand get before it's a pebble? Geologists have a whole list of sized for rocks to progress from fine suspended particles, clay, sand, pepple, gravel, rock, cobble, stone, boulder, &c. The distinctions are arbitrary, but once defined, a sample can be categorized.

Likewise, when I was in physical anthropology, it was not a big issue to identify the male versus female crania, and in the second semester, we could distinguish between the African, Asian, and European crania.

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

Fair enough. However, be mindful that race denial also does damage.

As my wife says: "They took our land, they took our money, they took our freedom. Now they're taking our race away. Won't white people let us have anything?"

And I understand that there are genetic populations, and ways to demarcate people into subgroups. However, those groupings are inevitably based on geography.

I think this is incorrect. The scientific definitions of race have varying strategies. Also: geography is not necessarily a bad guide for genetic relationships anyway, considering humans had a migratory history. Amerinds are usually categorized with Asians because they're visually similar, but we also know they have very recent genetic isolation. Most approaches propose three African races (Khoisian, Pygmy, Negroid), Asian, Caucasiod, and Austrailoid.

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.

Sure. What about scientific concepts, though? I mean: that's what we're talking about, right?

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

Mm. I see. So: what's the rationale for saying we should stop exploring the scientific basis for race? Scientific or political?

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.

I mostly agree. I'm not sure how this relates...

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.

I'm not sure that follows. Height has increased, but height is not 'bunk'.

Also: I'm doubtful that tests have been 'modified to hide this fact'. The nature of IQ is that the average is always 100 points. It's not deceptive. The Flynn effect is not some sort of secret.

To most psychologists and scientists, it's evidence that IQ is very dependent on social factors. It is entirely possible that people are, on average, getting smarter.

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.

I disagree. We have a lot of metrics in medicine, pcsyhiatry, and psychology that are used for diagnostics, even though they're known to be imperfect. The expression in their defense is "best is the worst enemy of better." IQ testing is, in my opinion, better validated than many other psych surveys, such as the MMPI.

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.

That sure was my argument. I'm not sure why you're repeating my claim.

A question: what do you mean by 'gorilla'? Is there such a thing as a 'gorilla'? Isn't this just a human social convention?



[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Welll... we'll have to disagree about this analogy. If I had two people in front of me - one white and one black - I could tell them apart. I could also be really confident that the white person's ancestors were from Europe and the black person's ancestors were from Africa. This hypothesis would be scientifically verifiable. As far as I'm aware, there's no dipstick to test for God. Very bad analogy.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You didn't answer my questions: is the concept of dog breeds unscientific or meaningless? How about the concept of 'dogs,' given that they can breed with wolves?

Dog "breeds" are simply an expression of the genetic diversity within dogs taken to extremes. "Dog" is essentially just a word we use for domesticated wolves. Even with their extreme variations domestic dogs and wolves are still one species. The variation within humans is minute compared to domestic dogs. It's more like the variation between light gray wolves and dark gray wolves. Nobody looks at a population of dark gray wolves living in one national park and lighter gray wolves living in another national park and says "These must be distinct races of wolf".

Steven

 

[blutoski]

Dog "breeds" are simply an expression of the genetic diversity within dogs taken to extremes. "Dog" is essentially just a word we use for domesticated wolves. Even with their extreme variations domestic dogs and wolves are still one species. The variation within humans is minute compared to domestic dogs. It's more like the variation between light gray wolves and dark gray wolves. Nobody looks at a population of dark gray wolves living in one national park and lighter gray wolves living in another national park and says "These must be distinct races of wolf".

I don't think that's a 'scientific' answer. I think you're saying that when it comes to Canus, using visible cues is a legitemate phylogenic strategy, but among humans, it isn't just because. That sounds like a distinction without a difference.

 

[joobz]

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.

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.

Let’s provide a corollary example: Can we select a population and breed a population of people who like cheesesteaks? Arguably, there are genetic (sensitivity of taste buds, evolutionary cognitive wiring) and learned components to this preference.

What if we select people who love cheesesteaks, will their children? Anyone with children will know just how unlikely their food preference is conferred to their children.

Now, the impact this has goes back to one of my original questions. ARE we talking about potential intelligence or exhibited intelligence? Just because someone has the “wiring” for some ability doesn’t mean that individual will be interested in it. Without the interest, there is no reinforcing behavior that would improve that skill. Not everyone who is best in their field is the best because of raw talent. It is the amount of dedication they place into it that greatly matters as well. Since this is a matter of personal choice, are you going to tell me we can breed this as well?


Now, I would argue that on average, yes you can see populations that have a preference for some food types. But are these inheritable or cultural? Seeing first generation immigrant’s children in America would almost purely argue that these preferences are cultural. So, what would be the better way to have more “einsteins”? Breeding programs or change cultural heroes from who’s the greatest athlete to who’s the amazing scientists.


As example number two: Royal families were initiated by people with natural leadership qualities. However, in these notoriously inbred groups, there was never a guarantee that the off spring would possess any inherent skills toward governance. In fact, it seems that the frequency of recessive genetic disorders increased faster than the pro-governance qualities.


Now I must give praise and admonition to Blutoski.

First,

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.

I too agree that genius could simply be a “perfect storm” of genetic traits that come together. And again, since personal passion for a field is near prerequisite, pure hereditary factors determining intelligence is unlikely. At least, other factors seem to be much more important.

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.

It doesn’t seem to be beneficial to use ad hominem straw man tactics. To group an opinion that “race doesn’t exist” together with supremacy groups is purely insulting.

I thought my posts taken together would make my position clear.
Race as used historically doesn’t exist. Geographical heredity does. It is completely true that some groups of different ethnic backgrounds possess different simple genetic predispositions. That is why it’s used in medicine. And I’m all for that. I’m likely to get a whole bunch of moles on my body. It’s a trait of being of greek heritage. Only when the genetics are well founded. But when it is applied to more complex issues, it is completely erroneous. You get into arguments of casuality and correlation. Since this debate is of genetic intelligence, I state that race is meaningless.

Now, I just want to make it clear that I do not have any prejudices against people who love cheesesteaks and those who don’t. In fact, many of my best friends are cheesesteak lovers and cheesesteak haters. My wife is a cheesesteak eater. Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I was just expressing my agreement with DR's reservations about selective breeding. I meant that in selectivity breeding dogs for desirable traits breeders have very often inadvertently selected for genetic disorders. My only point was that I believe that the future of human evolution lies in genetic diversity not artificial genetic selection and exclusion.

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

My only point was that I believe that the future of human evolution lies in genetic diversity not artificial genetic selection

I don't see why our options would be either/or here.

 

[Dave1001]

Now, the impact this has goes back to one of my original questions. ARE we talking about potential intelligence or exhibited intelligence?

We can talk about all of the above.

Just because someone has the “wiring” for some ability doesn’t mean that individual will be interested in it. Without the interest, there is no reinforcing behavior that would improve that skill. Not everyone who is best in their field is the best because of raw talent. It is the amount of dedication they place into it that greatly matters as well. Since this is a matter of personal choice, are you going to tell me we can breed this as well?

There may be genetic components to interest and dedication generally and towards specific fields of human endeavor in particular. Separably, there may be heritable genetic components to interest and dedication. I think it's a concept worth further open-minded exploration.

Now, I would argue that on average, yes you can see populations that have a preference for some food types. But are these inheritable or cultural? Seeing first generation immigrant’s children in America would almost purely argue that these preferences are cultural. So, what would be the better way to have more “einsteins”? Breeding programs or change cultural heroes from who’s the greatest athlete to who’s the amazing scientists.

It's not like we have to make a binary choice of one or the other. However, discussing natural phenomena is different than making poilcy prescriptions. As I mentioned earlier, the rate of innovation acceleration may make "breeding programs" moot. Natural human brains, even Einstein's at his peak, may be "dumb matter" compared to what we can do with 4 pounds of matter in less than 2 generations. But failing that, I think we'd likely create more Einsteins both with "breeding programs" and with cultural innovation.

[/COLOR]As example number two: Royal families were initiated by people with natural leadership qualities. However, in these notoriously inbred groups, there was never a guarantee that the off spring would possess any inherent skills toward governance. In fact, it seems that the frequency of recessive genetic disorders increased faster than the pro-governance qualities.

Right, I don't think anything I've written in this thread goes agsainst that, either in describing heritable abilities as a natural phenomenon or in theorizing about "breeding programs".

 

[blutoski]

It doesn’t seem to be beneficial to use ad hominem straw man tactics. To group an opinion that “race doesn’t exist” together with supremacy groups is purely insulting.

Technically, I was 'poisoning the well'. However, duly noted, and agreed.

In my defense, I was responding to the implication that anybody who thinks race exists is a racist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Technically, I was 'poisoning the well'. However, duly noted, and agreed.

In my defense, I was responding to the implication that anybody who thinks race exists is a racist.

Who has said "racist"? The closest anyone has come to that was when I pointed out that John Derbyshire is, in his own words, a "racist".

I'll grant that it is possible for one to believe that the concept of race is legitimate without harboring feelings of superiority/inferiority. In very broad terms that person could be called a racist. Yet I will grant that the most common usage of the word refers to people with hatred or at best, condescension for people who are different from themselves. I would have no objection to a definition specifically referring to people who support the concept of race without the political baggage and hate. However, I continue to see race as a human social/geographic construct with no basis in biological evidence.

Steven

 

[joobz]

Technically, I was 'poisoning the well'. However, duly noted, and agreed.

In my defense, I was responding to the implication that anybody who thinks race exists is a racist.

Completely understand. I similiarly come from an alternate bias under the race distinctions. Especially Asian. Many Indians I know dislike that they are considered synonomous with someone from Japan or China. Not that they dislike the others, but rather the idea that their cultural history would be considered so inconsequential. not to mention that physically, it is difficult to confuse one for another. (except for people from Nepal)


To Dave1001: All of your arguments are in the general. Every attempt to bring to examples that can be argued you shy from. Let's persue another question. Many genes are not good/bad in their expression, but rather possess simultaneous positive and negative effects (think autoimmune disorders, oxidative stress, the testes being external from other organs,all guys know the downside to this). Do you view selecting "intelligence" would possess any negative consequences? Which ones. I believe some would, but would be interested in hearing your views.

 

[blutoski]

Who has said "racist"? The closest anyone has come to that was when I pointed out that John Derbyshire is, in his own words, a "racist".

Comments like this:

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.

I read this as an attempt to slot participants into two categories: race=hierarchy people, versus "real" scientists. This is not a good reflection of the state of the field.

Most of the work with intelligence is done within the field of psychology, which is part of the reason progress has been disappointing. Race study is much more scientific than intelligence inquiry.

 

[Yahzi]

First of all, I don't think IQ tests are modified to hide the Flyn effect in some sort of CT way.

I didn't mean to suggest CT. Simple incompetence is adequate to explain how the Flynn effect gets hidden.

Second, I don't think that rising IQ scores are ipso facto evidence that the tests don't work.

The variation in test scores between historical groups is greater than the variation in test scores between racial groups.

Regardless of anything else, this tells you that this metric is not accurate enough to measure the effect you are looking for.

Are you arguing that it's bad science and evil to say that white people are smarter than black people?

I am saying it is bull**** to assert things without evidence. Since there is no credible evidence for the above comment, it is bull**** to say that white people are smarter than black people.

It is exactly the same kind of bull**** that saying "Jehovah is better than Allah" is.

 

[blutoski]

Completely understand. I similiarly come from an alternate bias under the race distinctions. Especially Asian. Many Indians I know dislike that they are considered synonomous with someone from Japan or China. Not that they dislike the others, but rather the idea that their cultural history would be considered so inconsequential. not to mention that physically, it is difficult to confuse one for another. (except for people from Nepal)

Mm. India's a region with an ethnocline between Asian and Caucasian. There was a proposal to describe Indians as Indus race at one point (a hundred years ago, they were classified as a seperate race called 'hindoo') but the standard right now is to describe most them as a subvariety of Caucasian, if the individual is not Asian or mixed. The type specimen for Caucasian would be an Arab or Slav. Key biological signs include the ability to digest lactose during adulthood, and a particular list of MHC types, as well as a distinctive nose. They do not have the distinctive Asiatic nose, epicanthic folds, incisors, or MHC types.

I hear what you're saying about a billion people being classified as "part of" another race, rather than having the race named after/for them. I've always felt that the type specimen for Caucasian should be Indian, for exactly this reason. The counter-argument is that Arabic and Slavic Caucasians are descended from ancestors in the original founding geograpy, and are also central to the Caucasian catchment, which also makes sense.

 

[blutoski]

I didn't mean to suggest CT. Simple incompetence is adequate to explain how the Flynn effect gets hidden.

I think we're questioning your claim that it's "hidden," and that such hiding would require an "explanation."

The variation in test scores between historical groups is greater than the variation in test scores between racial groups.

Regardless of anything else, this tells you that this metric is not accurate enough to measure the effect you are looking for.

No it doesn't. It is possible that the population is getting smarter, and it could also be possible that different racial groups perform better than others on IQ tests, and that this could be due to a difference in general intelligence.

What would be controversial and unfounded, though, would be to assert that IQ is highly innate, which is currently unknown.

I am saying it is bull**** to assert things without evidence. Since there is no credible evidence for the above comment, it is bull**** to say that white people are smarter than black people.

I think the evidence is that whites certainly do better on IQ tests, and IQ *does* seem to correlate to the things that look like smarts. I don't think this is an intellectually dishonest statement. It is, however, a third rail topic.

The debate is about interpreting cause, and policy for possibly closing the gap. Many believe that the inheritable component of IQ could plausibly be a range that could include pretty much any score obtainable with a decent education. My personal opinion is that intelligence is not very inheritable, but even if it was, we can breed as many proto-geniuses as we want, but until we learn how to foster them, we will not see the fruit of such efforts.

The evidence strongly suggests that the Flynn effect is caused by a reduction of low-IQ scorers, rather than a climb in the scorers. The stars aren't getting smarter, but we're reaping the benefits of decades of effort to give the disadvantaged access to the minimum requirements: food, shelter, clothing, medicine, education. More people are reaching their potential, rather than smart getting smarter.

It is exactly the same kind of bull**** that saying "Jehovah is better than Allah" is.

Again: the analogy is poor.

 

[blutoski]

I don't see why our options would be either/or here.

I think he's probably talking about long-term prospects. Short-term, breeding produces good results, but you run into a wall quickly. Long-term, you just have to have a system for identifying the peak performers and channeling them to your project.

The analogy is racehorses. They've been bred for speed for generations, and they've stopped getting faster because we found that optimum combination from available genes. Humans, however, keep getting faster.

We're probably screwed with horses, because a side-effect of the breeding program is that we've exhausted the genetic diversity that would have produced even better combinations. Those opportunities are lost forever.

 

[joobz]

I think the evidence is that whites certainly do better on IQ tests, and IQ *does* seem to correlate to the things that look like smarts. I don't think this is an intellectually dishonest statement. It is, however, a third rail topic.

do these studies also compare geographical location, rural vs. suburban vs. urban students, economic levels with I.Q.? what are the results (I didn't look up, sorry for the laziness)? From the wiki based info, "For example, a randomly selected group of Americans with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100". This would seem that other variables exceed the impact of race.

 

[Yahzi]

Granted: this didn't happen to her, but happened to her mother, but the injustice has caused noticeable hardship in the generation following

How this is different than what I said? Addressing current injustice and social inequity. I'm all for it.

Of course, there is such a thing as statue of limitations on specific crimes.

Then he sat down, and we resumed with reality.

So you're equating my position to a rant by a crazy guy?

he point is that arguing that there are no black people doesn't exactly fly with black people.

You know that bit where you said some people are promoting race as a way to seek sympathy? I can see where you get that from now.

Makes sense. What should his doctor do if he knows that a particular medication works better for white people than black people? Give him the wrong medication based on his adopted parents?

Nice dose of outrage, but you didn't address the point.

Again, though: I'm not talking about discrimination.

There is nothing esel to talk about. The biological concept of gentic populations has nothing to do with discrimination. They are unrelated. It is the social concept of race that powers discrimination, and it is the social concept of race that I am pointing out is not scientific.

There are people who argue that 'gender' is a completely social construct, and I put them in the same 'wishful thinking' category as the race deniers.

See, this is exactly like arguing with a religous zealot. First they tell you X exsits. When you point out that the definition of X they are using is contradicted by the facts, they claim they meant Y all along. Then, they go back to talking about X without skipping a beat.

Any concept that requires you to equivocate is not a valid concept. The biological grouping of populations into geographical origins has nothing to do with race. Your friend's mother did not lose her house because of genetic geographic grouping. What caused that crime was racism; the social theory of race. Which is bunk.

What we use for race metrics is pretty objective, once it's been defined.

No it isn't.

Fair enough. However, be mindful that race denial also does damage.

No it doesn't. If people actually engaged in race denial, then the problem would be over. Sure, the current generation would have suffered unduly, but so what? Everybody suffered. The idea that the government or white people or some other class should indemify you for past harm is idiotic. All you are entitled to is no more crime. That is all anyone is entitled to. And if race as an issue disappeared, that is exactly what you would get.

You wouldn't be wanting to hang onto the concept of race so you can extract some compensation, would you?

As my wife says: "They took our land, they took our money, they took our freedom. Now they're taking our race away. Won't white people let us have anything?"

May I respectfully suggest that you convince your wife to stop saying that? It reeks of victim mentality. Why the heck should white people let you have anything? You can have what you earn. No more, no less.

Now, in the past, minorities have been denied even what they earned. That was wrong. To the extent it goes on today, it is wrong. But the notion that individuals should be given anything in exchange for what happened to a class of people is absurd.

May I also point out that white people gave you your freedom. It was white men who died to end slavery. Plenty of white people showed up for the Civil Rights struggle. It was white men and women who changed the laws to bring equality to the South. And it was black people who sold your ancestors into slavery.

The point of this is not to say whitey=good and black=bad; it is to say that people did good and bad things, and race was not an issue. Economics, morality, bigotry, hatred, evil, yes: race, merely a fault line that the earthquake followed.

I think this is incorrect. The scientific definitions of race have varying strategies.

How many times have I said "social" theory of race? Are you drowning in strawmen, or do you just not bother to read what I write?

Also: geography is not necessarily a bad guide for genetic relationships

When did I say it was?

What I said was that genetic populations are grouped by geography. Then I said that we have no reason to think those populations have any significant impact on that gigantically complex phenomona we call "character." Specific gene issues, like sickle-cell anemia; sure. Broad genetic clusters whose effect we cannot even reliably measure: premature. Way premature.

Most approaches propose three African races (Khoisian, Pygmy, Negroid), Asian, Caucasiod, and Austrailoid.

I need know no more than this to recognize that you got it from some idiotic Black Power website. To divide Africans into 3 races, while lumping the rest of the planet into 3 races, bespeaks an overwhelming bias.

South America, anyone?

So: what's the rationale for saying we should stop exploring the scientific basis for race? Scientific or political?

The rational is that the classic social theory of race is bunk, and cannot possibly be true.

You can explore your scientific genetic populations all you want, but who cares? They have nothing to do with politics, because no one commits racism based on your scientific genetic populations. People commit racism based on skin color. That kind of racism is logically incoherent and unjust. Since that is the kind of racism we are dealing with on the political arena, since that is what the vast majority of people mean when they use the word race, that is what I mean by the word race.

Again, exactly like arguing with a Christian who says, "Well, my definition of God is a cheese grater, so how can you argue that the Catholic god is bunk?"

I'm not sure that follows. Height has increased, but height is not 'bunk'.

That's the whole point. Height has actually increased. Do you think intelligence has actually increased?

How much stock would you put in a ruler if they told you that 60 years ago it was 6 inches shorter?

Also: I'm doubtful that tests have been 'modified to hide this fact'. The nature of IQ is that the average is always 100 points. It's not deceptive. The Flynn effect is not some sort of secret.

Ok, not hide. But if the Flynn effect is not a secret, why do so many people still put stock in IQ tests as a measure of historical value?

To most psychologists and scientists, it's evidence that IQ is very dependent on social factors. It is entirely possible that people are, on average, getting smarter.

Maybe you should read Flynn's paper on this. Absolutely everyone in the field agrees that this is not the case. The fact that you seriously suggest people are 30% smarter than they were 60 years ago immediately disqualifies anything else you have to say about intelligence. Don't take my word for it; ask the people you think you think you are defending (i.e. psychologists).

We have a lot of metrics in medicine, pcsyhiatry, and psychology that are used for diagnostics, even though they're known to be imperfect.

But they are not known to be less accurate than the effect we are trying to measure.

Nobody is suggesting black people score 30% lower on tests than white people. Yet we know the tests are imperfect to that level.

"Yes sir, I know my ruler only measures to the nearest foot, but I'm telling you white people are 2 inches taller!"

IQ testing is, in my opinion, better validated than many other psych surveys, such as the MMPI.

I probably agree with you. But all that tells us is that other psych surveys are even more useless.

A question: what do you mean by 'gorilla'? Is there such a thing as a 'gorilla'? Isn't this just a human social convention?

If that's the best argument you have to offer, then I can see I'm in the wrong room.

Welll... we'll have to disagree about this analogy. If I had two people in front of me - one white and one black - I could tell them apart.

And you would be WRONG.

Are you completely unaware that there are black men who look as white as David Brinkley? When I say black, I mean, born to a wide majority of black ancestors, and hence genetically more closely related to Alabama negroes than anything else. When I say white, I mean they look white. They get sunburns.

Your eyeball test has just proven my entire rant. The social theory of race - the pernicious disease of racism - is about skin color, not genetics.

Genetics and science have no place in it, because it is not about them. Even you don't care about genetics. You care about perception, and social response. Which is as it should be. Our society treats people with dark skin badly - regardless of how they came by that dark skin. This is a problem and it should be corrected. Correcting it does not require us to endorse the idiotic theory of race; it simply requires us to recognize that a certain irrational prejudice is deeply ingrained in our culture.