Of "In-Group" & "Race"

[Yahzi]

do these studies also compare geographical location, rural vs. suburban vs. urban students, economic levels with I.Q.?

"The Bell Curve," in a nutty shell:

Q: How do we know blacks are stupid?
A: Because they are poor!

Q: Why are blacks poor?
A: Because they are stupid!

QED.


If you go looking for these studies, this is the kind of logic you will find.

 

[Yahzi]

It is possible that the population is getting smarter...

The evidence strongly suggests that the Flynn effect is caused by a reduction of low-IQ scorers...

That's a lot of possiblys and suggestions to rescue a metric that otherwise cannot measure what you are trying to measure.

Until the unexplained error bars in IQ tests are smaller than the differences measured between "races," it is simply unacceptable to draw conclusions about the differences between "races."

Didn't anybody pay attention in high school science class?

We can measure intelligence to, at best, a 30% variance. Any percieved measurement finer than that is no different than N-Rays.

 

[joobz]

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!"

Nicely stated.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

I'm curious to know why you edited out "and exclusion" from my statement. Explanation?

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Phylogeny is a study of genetic relationships. This can be done between species (humans and chimpanzees) or within species (humans). But noting the phylogenetic differences within the human species is not the same as confirming "race". Phylogeny has been advanced tremendously by modern genetic science such as the mapping of the human genome. These very phylogenetic data show that the races that humans commonly identify do not match up to the genetic relationships of the human species. As an example let's look at Aboriginal Australians. If visual cues are used to try to establish phylogeny then most, if not all, would group the native Australians with those of African origin. But the genetic fact is that native Australians are the least related to Africans and most closely related to Asians.

To quote The History and Geography of Human Genes:

It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. But the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection.

The variation within the human species is due to phylogenetic differences, but then so is the variation between you and your siblings or cousins.

I think part of the problem is that you may be confusing "race" and "culture". Please don't take that as a condescending remark on my part as I mean not the slightest disrespect by it. But when I and others have said things to the effect that "Race is a cultural construct with no biological legitimacy" we are not saying "Black people (for example) don't exist". I happen to be quite fond of African American culture. Especially jazz. (Not that smooth-jazz crap, but real jazz like Dizzy, Coltrane, Monk, Davis, Mingus etc.) I love the fact that the United States has a great mix of cultures and peoples with origins from around the globe. My own extended family is a dizzying array of cultures and I love it. All those cultures are important to what makes us what we are collectively. But ultimately, we are all one species the world over.

Steven

 

[Yahzi]

But ultimately, we are all one species the world over.

As I understand it, humans are the least genetically diverse large mammal on the planet.

We have been systematically killing the "other" for 250,000 years, driven by a force no animal population ever had to suffer: culture.

After so much relentlessl pruning of anyone who looks or acts differently, the idea that we can still measure significant genetic differences in groups of people seems like a hard sell.

 

[fuelair]

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.

If that is the case, you are going to have to find one or more anthropologist/biogeneticist teams studying each subpopulation and either work with them/ wait for their research to be published. As explained here, you are looking at a massive study which I doubt you will get anyone on this (or any) thread to be able/have time to perform. Even a one per thousand survey/study for each subpop will keep teams busy for years (assuming you want to understand rather than simply catalog the ability variation - as the former requires biochemical, ecological and cultural factors all be evaluated thoroughly). And quit procrastinating and get back to work!!!

 

[Dave1001]

I'm curious to know why you edited out "and exclusion" from my statement. Explanation?

Steven

I went back and looked. I just did it for brevity, because it didn't seem relevant to my only point in that reply, which is that you seemed to me to be presenting falsely limited options: that doing both of the things mentioned wasn't an option. That's it. No shifty motivation to try to alter the meaning of your post.

 

[Dave1001]

To Dave1001: All of your arguments are in the general. Every attempt to bring to examples that can be argued you shy from.

Not only is that an untrue characterization of what I've done in this thread, it's easily to demonstrate. I've brought in examples of multigenerationally brilliant families and of folks who are severely intellectually retarded due in part to genetics, to provide two specific examples I've used in this thread. So, no.

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.

I think it's very likely that selecting "intelligence" would possess negative consequences. For example, it would likely increase instances of tay sachs disease, given the numers of very intelligent (and perhaps heritably intelligent) ashkenazi jews. Same with other populations with disproportionately high levels of (perhaps) heritably intelligent people in them.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

I think it's not unlikely that those who were busy controversializing scientific study of intelligence may have successfully incentivized the brightest scientists from going into that field -at least in the 20th century.

Now, in the 21st century, most of the work being done with intelligence is NOT within the field of psychology. It's about as cross-disciplinary as it gets and top geneticists (as well as people from a dozen other disciplines) are doing work that will probably add a lot substantively in the next few years to what is admittedly a relatively weak body of knowledge.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

okay, now that you got that out of your system, like the previous 10 guys who entered this thread, let's drop discussion on this subtopic, or save it for a different thread where each of us can take turns basking in the glory of being The One who made that point, that it's bull**** to say that white people are smarter than black people.

 

[Dave1001]

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.

You seem to me to be stuck with him in an either/or frame. I don't see why breeding and peak-performer identifying and project-channeling can't be done in tandem.

Your comment about horses, although I have no idea how analogous the limits of human cognitive performance and the mechanical speed of a horse-type structure are, implies that the "short term" for getting results from "breeding humans" would still be quite long.

And as for genetic diversity, what I'm proposing wouldn't stifle genetic diversity, because I'm not suggesting in this policy hypothetical that nobody else in our population of 6 billion have children.

 

[Dave1001]

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?

I'm surprised by this comment. I have no idea if he got that from a black power website or not, but what surprised me was that Africa was only 3 races. I think most of us in this thread are aware that most of humanity's genetic diversity is within its sub-saharan african/black population, because that where humanity has existed (and differentiated) for most of our existence. Your comment implies a lack of awareness of that fact, at least to me.

 

[Dave1001]

"The Bell Curve," in a nutty shell:

Q: How do we know blacks are stupid?
A: Because they are poor!

Q: Why are blacks poor?
A: Because they are stupid!

QED.


If you go looking for these studies, this is the kind of logic you will find.

Right. It doesn't get more strawman that that. So, let's actually talk about good science (or the best science available, and how its specific shortcomings can be corrected) involved in studying human populations and differences in ability.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Right. It doesn't get more strawman that that. So, let's actually talk about good science (or the best science available, and how its specific shortcomings can be corrected) involved in studying human populations and differences in ability.

Do you have any studies in mind?

Steven

 

[Dave1001]

Do you have any studies in mind?

Steven

As I find them I'll post them. But I hope that the collective intelligence of the participants in this thread is also harnessed to contribute such studies to the thread.

What ARE the best studies within the topic of ability difference between human subpopulations?

 

[Foster Zygote]

As I find them I'll post them. But I hope that the collective intelligence of the participants in this thread is also harnessed to contribute such studies to the thread.

What ARE the best studies within the topic of ability difference between human subpopulations?

Well if by "ability" you mean intelligence then the problem is still the overwhelming difficulty in measuring intelligence so I don't see how there could be legitimate studies that weren't extremely speculative.

Steven

 

[blutoski]

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

If it quacks like a duck...

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.

Mm. OK. This sounds like a distinction without a difference, though: that the concept of genetic populations is legitemate, but that 'races' are not examples of a 'genetic population'.

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.

I don't follow. I'm not sure what X and Y mean in this paragraph. Could you be more specific?

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.

Nah. A biological theory of race could be abused just as easily. We know what AIDS is, and there is no 'social theory' of AIDS, but these patients are still mistreated. Perhaps more so because scientific reification carries legitemacy. My impression from past discussions on this topic is that one motivation for resisting a scientific exploration of race is exactly because it may legitemize abuses.




I wrote:

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

You replied:

No it isn't.

I'm disappointed with this response. Particularly since I had some examples in another post which demonstrate that most of the scientific racial classifications use objective metrics such as visible anatomy, metabolic factors, and biochemistry such as MHC.

The debate is about the subjective process that is used to select the objective criteria. However, I pointed out that this is a common problem in science with parallels in other fields. Again: planets have to be a certain size, shape, &c. These properties are objectively measureable, but the choice of how big is subjective.

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

Well, sure. In this case, I consider 'compensation' the synonym for 'justice.' So: yeah. And by 'hang onto' I mean 'defend'.

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.

I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm white.

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?

I guess I glossed over the term because I'm unfamiliar with it. Wasn't "Social Theory" the postmodern magazine that hosted the Sokal hoax?

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.

Agreed.

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.

Mmno. This is from peer-reviewed Anthropological literature. I believe it was popularized in a Discover magazine article in November 1994, (incidentally, written by James Shreeve, with sidebars by Stephen Jay Gould and Jared Diamond, who are not, imo, collaborating with 'idiotic black power websites').

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

Maybe. I'm not sure, exactly, what this 'social theory' is. Is this a postmodernism thing?

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.

I'm not sure this is true. Particularly where people of blended race are concerned, and in particular, I'm thinking of Jews who infiltrated gentile society by changing their names, and also that in states that made the distinction, light-skinned blacks were classified as 'colored' regardless of their appearance. The birth certificate's racial category was based on the parents' birth certificate with the 'one drop' principle.

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

Average intelligence increase? Sure. Why not?

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

Bad analogy. The test scores are adjusted to be conveted to an IQ score. However, the raw scores are still available. Modern test-takers score better on average than previous testees on these tests. That's the observation that Flynn made. The average of course will always be 100 by definition. However, modern subjects get more answers correct than our ancestors, and they get further through the tests. They do the timed components faster, and more accurately.

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?

I don't understand the question. What do mean by "as a measure of historical value?" Do you mean: why would they be used in a longitudinal study? See above.

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).

Mm. Well, I get a different impression from the field. I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'psychologist,' but I do have a B.A. in psychology, and my peers are of a mixed opinion on this subject. Flynn has many papers on this, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about. The theories vary, but the most popular theory I'm aware of is consistent with the belief that there's an increase in average intelligence brought about by reducing the number of underperformers. What is controversial is the explanation for what has happened to this cohort to cause them to improve. The most popular explanation is 'diet'. I'm not convinced that there is one single factor, so much as we are seeing the fruits of social programs directed to those who would have been completely lost in previous generations.

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!"

Well, that's an exaggeration. Psychological testing has validation standards, and one of them is that we're looking for consistency, especially longitudinally within-subject. One of the reasons some people believe that IQ reflects an innate property is because it's so consistent over a subject's lifetime. My interpretation of this is different, but the observation is that individuals' test results don't vary much, and random noise is mitigated by increasing the sample size anyway.

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

Ah. A psychology denier, too. Lots to do here (rolling up sleeves).



I said:

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.

I'll let the other readers decide if this is a satisfactory demolition of my claim that science has many examples of human classification being somewhat arbitrary, but still useful.

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.

I've already indicated that this is a logical fallacy called corruption of the continuum. Ethnoclines are not proof against the concept of races. My neighbour has a wolf-dog. This doesn't mean wolfs and dogs can't be distinguished.

Another poster raised the example that we don't use mere colour to classify genetic populations as distinct species. Sure we do! Two examples: one is dog subspecies (ie: dog races, varieties, breeds)... cairns and westies. Westies are white-furred Cairns. That's the only difference. The other example is big cats... panthers are leopards whose spots have merged. Lions and tigers look diffrerent and are geographically isolated, but are otherwise the same. We speciate them because we have a tradition to do so. They mate and form hybrids. But a child can tell them apart.

 

[blutoski]

As I understand it, humans are the least genetically diverse large mammal on the planet.

We have been systematically killing the "other" for 250,000 years, driven by a force no animal population ever had to suffer: culture.

After so much relentlessl pruning of anyone who looks or acts differently, the idea that we can still measure significant genetic differences in groups of people seems like a hard sell.

Doubtful.

Especially considering that many large mammals are endangered and down to their last thousands, or recovering from recent near-extinctions. I'm thinking specifically of elephants, tigers, jaguars, rhinos, and the three other apes.

 

[bpesta22]

That's a lot of possiblys and suggestions to rescue a metric that otherwise cannot measure what you are trying to measure.

Until the unexplained error bars in IQ tests are smaller than the differences measured between "races," it is simply unacceptable to draw conclusions about the differences between "races."

Didn't anybody pay attention in high school science class?

We can measure intelligence to, at best, a 30% variance. Any percieved measurement finer than that is no different than N-Rays.

This is simply not true-- you'd be throwing out all of social science if this were required.

Imagine two bell curves, the black one shifted left; the white one shifted right.

Sure, there's lots of overlap, but the mean difference is a full standard deviation.

So, the average white scores at the 84% of the average black.

We don't know what causes it, but we sure know the effects...look at 35 years of case law on the issue of adverse impact against blacks resulting from IQ (and other testing). Still haven't figured out how to remove that and still keep the tests' validity.

by the way, the flynn effect is only 3 points per decade, not 10.

It's been reliable since ww I.

The almost lawlike progression upwards to me suggests we're measuring something real; whatever it is.

How rapidly has the world record for the 100 meter dash been increasing in the last 100 years?

Could the top runner in 1940 even compete with elite runners today? Does this mean our clocks were / are messed up?

**

the tests do sorta mask the flynn effect in that they're renormed every decade or so. The raw score that woulda got you an IQ of 100 in 1990, would give you an IQ of only 97 on a 2000 test.