Race 'Science'

[athon]

I'm not ignoring anything.

And the "it's obvious - just look" argument is still good, even according to science.

I think what you should first do is to look up the definition of race or sub-species as it is called in the world of science.

Were you aware that two sub-species don't need to have genetic differences at all in order to be called sub-species?

Yup. And sub-species is often used to denote a geographically distinct population. Once the populations merge geographically, they tend to no longer referred to as a sub-species. I did enough population genetics at uni to get that much.

But again, genetically speaking (not speaking about geographical populations or cultural distinctions), deciding upon a racial group is purely arbitrary. Sure, you could say 'has genes W,X,Y and Z', but the choice is not based on an distinct delineation. Why choose W,X, Y and Z, and not just X,Y and Z? How many races are there? Why is it population 'A' is a half-race rather than a race in their own right?

'Because it's obvious' unfortunately is not a valid argument. It's only obvious because we're biased to categorise based on grosse morphological characteristics. Yet genetically, there is no reason to categorise based on the genetic matrix for skin colour over, say, immune system discrepancies.

Athon

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yup. And sub-species is often used to denote a geographically distinct population. Once the populations merge geographically, they tend to no longer referred to as a sub-species. I did enough population genetics at uni to get that much.

Excellent! We are on the same page then.

But again, genetically speaking (not speaking about geographical populations or cultural distinctions), deciding upon a racial group is purely arbitrary. Sure, you could say 'has genes W,X,Y and Z', but the choice is not based on an distinct delineation. Why choose W,X, Y and Z, and not just X,Y and Z? How many races are there? Why is it population 'A' is a half-race rather than a race in their own right?

What is a "half-race"?

There are as many races as it taxidermaly makes sense to categorize.

'Because it's obvious' unfortunately is not a valid argument. It's only obvious because we're biased to categorise based on grosse morphological characteristics. Yet genetically, there is no reason to categorise based on the genetic matrix for skin colour over, say, immune system discrepancies.

Athon

Of course it is a valid argument. A "negro" is not a "northern Caucasian". And a "pygmy" is not a "negro". This is obvious.

 

[athon]

What is a "half-race"?

What would you call a population that has characteristics of both 'negro' and 'caucasian'?

There are as many races as it taxidermaly makes sense to categorize.

Based on what, though? Why draw the lines where we do? When does a population go from being Negro to Caucasian? Why is that the parameter?

Of course it is a valid argument. A "negro" is not a "northern Caucasian". And a "pygmy" is not a "negro". This is obvious.

'Obvious' is based on your subjective categorisation of morphologies, resulting purely from a visual paradigm. Think of it this way - it's like saying that colours don't exist as distinct categories if one looks at wavelengths. They don't. Yes, we can 'see' red is different to green based on the fact our eyes make the distinction. But that does not mean distinct categorisation of colour is an inherent property of wavelengths. It isn't. It's a property of our eyes and brains.

Race is the same. It's a distinct property of our brains creating categories based on morphology. This doesn't have a genetic equivalent any more than colour categories have a wavelength equivalent.

Athon

 

[bpesta22]

What would you call a population that has characteristics of both 'negro' and 'caucasian'?



Based on what, though? Why draw the lines where we do? When does a population go from being Negro to Caucasian? Why is that the parameter?



'Obvious' is based on your subjective categorisation of morphologies, resulting purely from a visual paradigm. Think of it this way - it's like saying that colours don't exist as distinct categories if one looks at wavelengths. They don't. Yes, we can 'see' red is different to green based on the fact our eyes make the distinction. But that does not mean distinct categorisation of colour is an inherent property of wavelengths. It isn't. It's a property of our eyes and brains.

Race is the same. It's a distinct property of our brains creating categories based on morphology. This doesn't have a genetic equivalent any more than colour categories have a wavelength equivalent.

Athon

I dunno if the dog breed analogy is valid, though I never understood the logic behind claims that race is only social (for reasons hashed to death in other threads). However, we had a pure bred cocker and pure bred shih tsu. They had puppies (kitty has one)!

We called them cocker shih's or shih cocker's, or if you like, half cocker and half shih.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What would you call a population that has characteristics of both 'negro' and 'caucasian'?

Human.

Yes, I know that the ever greater inter-breeding of different human races makes the determination of a given human's race more and more difficult. I personally welcome this development. I still find the PC attempts to show that humans races don't exist, and never did, to be an utterly unacceptable attempt at rewriting history.

They did exist. And they do so still.

Based on what, though? Why draw the lines where we do? When does a population go from being Negro to Caucasian? Why is that the parameter?

Based on the criteria that we can all see. The color of the skin, the presence or not of the epicanthal fold, the color of the eyes and the hair, the type of hair, the width of the nose and lips, etc, etc.

The things which make it obvious that there are different races.

'Obvious' is based on your subjective categorisation of morphologies, resulting purely from a visual paradigm. Think of it this way - it's like saying that colours don't exist as distinct categories if one looks at wavelengths. They don't. Yes, we can 'see' red is different to green based on the fact our eyes make the distinction. But that does not mean distinct categorisation of colour is an inherent property of wavelengths. It isn't. It's a property of our eyes and brains.

Every single one of the scales invented by science are arbitrary.

Race is the same. It's a distinct property of our brains creating categories based on morphology. This doesn't have a genetic equivalent any more than colour categories have a wavelength equivalent.

Athon

Yes, sub-species is not as well defined as species. It is nevertheless a term used by science and used so because it is useful and reflects reality.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus I remember promising you an article on false memory but then never coming through...

That's OK - they don't need to be published at the same time.

What would you call a population that has characteristics of both 'negro' and 'caucasian'?

What are the characteristics of "negro" and "caucasian"?

 

[dacium2007]

Ermmm if races are only 99% similair, this implies a difference. They must be genetically different. The question is do these difference effect things on a macrolevel to have any significant difference to the way humans live/act/think/grow etc.

 

[fuelair]

Ermmm if races are only 99% similair, this implies a difference. They must be genetically different. The question is do these difference effect things on a macrolevel to have any significant difference to the way humans live/act/think/grow etc.

IIRC, the source that listed that said 99.9% same (I have not calculated it on my own).

 

[dann]

Claus I remember promising you an article on false memory but then never coming through...

You could start by proving your accusation of "ad homming" in this thread. That wouldn't require the time it takes to write an article!

 

[dann]

What would you call a population that has characteristics of both 'negro' and 'caucasian'?

Well, you cannot call them negrasian.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

"Definition" of race is perhaps like a defintion of sex, seemingly obvious but in reality actuallly determined by several possible factors, genotype, phenotype, sexual orientation, etc and the conventional "rules" only being apparent when they are broken such as in intersex states, hormonal abnormalities etc.

 

[bpesta22]

You could start by proving your accusation of "ad homming" in this thread. That wouldn't require the time it takes to write an article!

Ok:

"But wait at minute!!! This is not just for fun! This is serious science! Psychology and behavioural science, if you please! "

Seems to attempt to marginalize the data by claiming experimental psych is not science. What's the argument here?

"Why are the IQ advocates so dull? "

Ok, does that need explanation as to why I think it's an ad hom?


"His particular kind of dullwittedness therefore is not a defect of nature and in his case nurture also cannot be blamed - at least not directly. "

What about this?

"He is dull by design which is an entirely different matter. Since they have an axe to grind, he and his colleagues would like to forbid the "IQ" to be as unstable and easily influenced by education as it actually is: They want to present the societal hierarchization of one generation after the other as the outcome of the natural qualifications of each individual.11 "

More of the same.

"or, expressed in words that even Nyborg cannot misunderstand:"

I'll stop here; the whole article is intellectualy condescending which is ironic because the author's wrong.


***

The Flynn effect is always touted here as the thing that falsifies 100 years of research on g; shows that IQ tests are invalid, blah blah blah.

Flynn has a new book out, and was interveiwed for it. Here's two comments:


"6. Recently, some IQ researchers have argued that if the Flynn Effect is g-loaded, then we should see a fall in the factor loadings across subtests over time. Their story is that cross-sectionally, we know that people with high IQ scores have more specificity–that is, they have greater strengths and weaknesses relative to the average person. Do you place much weight on that hypothesis, and do you think it might explain why IQ gains over time are distributed the way they are?

Flynn's answer: The IQ gains are not g-loaded so the prediction is beside the point. The importance of cognitive trends over time is a matter of their social utility. Whether they happen to be greatest on skills that have the highest g-loading is a distraction."


Here is Flynn asserting that the Flynn effect is not a g effect. It makes most of the article in SR irrelevant and wrong. It makes most of the posts here about the flynn effect being devastating to people studying g wrong too. IQ tests measure g very well, but not perfectly. IQ tests measure other things too. Seems like those other things are increasing a la the flynn effect. But, the data still show that only the g portion of the IQ test predicts anytthing, and g seems stable across cohorts. These other things might be interesting to study, but the Flynn effect does not discredit the conclusions that have been hashed to death about "g being the most powerful variable in social science." The flynn effect is not a jensen effect.


Flynn on Jensen:

"2. Over the decades, you've carried on an extensive correspondence with Arthur Jensen, the controversial and enormously influential intelligence researcher at UC Berkeley. You summarized some of your early thoughts about Jensen's work in your 1980 book Race, IQ, and Jensen, a book that, in my opinion, sets the standard for how do discuss this controversial topic. What have you learned about Jensen over the years, and what have your interactions with him taught you about the nature of scientific research?

Flynn's answer: I never suspected Arthur Jensen of racial bias. Over the years, I have found him scrupulous in terms of professional ethics. He has never denied me access to his unpublished data. His work stands as an example of what John Stuart Mill meant when he said that being challenged in a way that is "upsetting" is to be welcomed not discouraged. Before Jensen, the notion that all races were genetically equal for cognitive ability had become a dead "Sunday truth" for which we could give no good reasons. Today we are infinitely more informed about group differences. Equally important, the debates Jensen began are revolutionizing the theory of intelligence and our understanding of how genes and environment interact."


So, if we're going to use Flynn as the panacea against us racist g-men, at least accept that even flynn recognizes jensen as being at the forefront of the science here ("revolutionary" even), and no longer can we dismiss data here just because "jensen wrote it." Also, then, linking nyborg to jensen would sound like a compliment, wouldn't it-- at least given flynn's opinion of jensen?

 

[luchog]

Ok, does that need explanation as to why I think it's an ad hom?

Yes, since none of these are ad hominen arguments, they're simply derogatory personal opinions.

 

[bpesta22]

Yes, since none of these are ad hominen arguments, they're simply derogatory personal opinions.

Ok, let's quibble about whether the personal opinions are ad hom or not.
No, he didn't say x is dumb; therefore IQ tests are invalid. I'll give you that.

This thing's published in "skeptic report," and is supposedly academic (or at least purports to reject conclusions made by academics). That saddens me.

 

[athon]

Every single one of the scales invented by science are arbitrary.

Here's another comparison for you - when I went to uni many moons ago, we sat in a new subject called molecular phylogeny. Our professor was working on detailing the molecular relationships between individual species of bacteria, and was finding that the previous morphological and biochemical parameters set were insufficient in creating a good phylogenic tree.

Once, morphology was useful enough in exploring relationships. While on a gross level, it still confers some use, on the finer level it fell apart in describing much of anything faithfully. Genetic analysis revolutionised phylogeny and continues to do so.

Humans are much the same. Morphological categories without referring to geographical locations are like looking at sub-species without taking into account their being an isolated population. In other words, genetically it is a meaningless category - as inaccurate in phylogeny as pre-molecular phylogeny was for bacteria.

Yes, sub-species is not as well defined as species. It is nevertheless a term used by science and used so because it is useful and reflects reality.

You missed my point - it is only useful in the context of geographical populations. It potentially offers some insight into how gene flow could occur between distinct groups. Yet if simply looking at a genetic comparison, removing the greater context, the term 'sub-species' is effectively meaningless. That's why you won't tend to read the differentiation in molecular genetics circles, but you will in population genetics.

Athon

 

[latent aaaack]

Still though isn't the claim that "race doesn't exist" or is only a "social construct" a mostly political statement about the need to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity? I don't get the need to go over the top with misleading claims like that.

Because although correct on a scientific level that there is overlap between all races, it's true that the most genetically different people are those who's ancestors came from different places, leaving time to become genetically different and better adapted to things like the amount of UV rays.

That's what most people think when they think of 'race' not a straw man of having no similarities between races.

 

[dann]

No, he didn't say x is dumb; therefore IQ tests are invalid. I'll give you that.

OK, so he's right, isn't he? You don't disprove one single argument in my article. And I never argue that Helmuth Nyborg's ideas are wrong merely because the man is unintelligent! So ... no ad homs:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)

I do find it peculiar that the man as a criterion for participating in his test of children's IQ requires that they let themselves be photographed in the nude - "kriteriet for at deltage i undersøgelsen var, at børnene skulle lade sig fotografere nøgne" http://jp.dk/meninger/kronik/article1003349.ece - but that also isn't my argument against his alleged findings.

This thing's published in "skeptic report," and is supposedly academic (or at least purports to reject conclusions made by academics). That saddens me.

You may feel sad all you want to, it doesn't even sadden me that you do, but do you have anything to offer apart from appeals to authority (i.e. Flynn)?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority
Notice that I never used Flynn as an authority, and I doubt that anybody else did in this discussion. I do, however, refer to the Flynn effect - and to Nyborg's way of dismissing it: http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq2.htm

And, yes, I have no respect for the intelligence of the so-called intelligence testers. But that is not my argument against them.

 

[bpesta22]

Dann

A large chunk of the SR article was about the flynn effect.

Is there such a thing as a straw man version of ad hom? In practice, it seems like insulting someone is poor way to get one's point across. I dunno, but the article came across as sophomoric to me for what I perceived to be ad homs.

What data would convince you before I spend time posting to address this?

OK, so he's right, isn't he? You don't disprove one single argument in my article. And I never argue that Helmuth Nyborg's ideas are wrong merely because the man is unintelligent! So ... no ad homs:
I do find it peculiar that the man as a criterion for participating in his test of children's IQ requires that they let themselves be photographed in the nude - "kriteriet for at deltage i undersøgelsen var, at børnene skulle lade sig fotografere nøgne" http://jp.dk/meninger/kronik/article1003349.ece - but that also isn't my argument against his alleged findings.
You may feel sad all you want to, it doesn't even sadden me that you do, but do you have anything to offer apart from appeals to authority (i.e. Flynn)?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority
Notice that I never used Flynn as an authority, and I doubt that anybody else did in this discussion. I do, however, refer to the Flynn effect - and to Nyborg's way of dismissing it: http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/iq2.htm

And, yes, I have no respect for the intelligence of the so-called intelligence testers. But that is not my argument against them.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Still though isn't the claim that "race doesn't exist" or is only a "social construct" a mostly political statement about the need to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity? I don't get the need to go over the top with misleading claims like that.

.

I don't see it as "political correctness"
myself. If "race" exists then surely a more robust definition can be made which is other than "what people commonly think". People commonly think they know what gender someone is by what they look like but the science says the answer is not so clear cut. To continue my analogy, maybe "sex" is also a social construct.

Once defined, How do you determine race in an individual especially if you have only say remains? Where they were found? Bone structure? Genetics?

 

[athon]

I don't see it as "political correctness"
myself. If "race" exists then surely a more robust definition can be made which is other than "what people commonly think". People commonly think they know what gender someone is by what they look like but the science says the answer is not so clear cut. To continue my analogy, maybe "sex" is also a social construct.

Once defined, How do you determine race in an individual especially if you have only say remains? Where they were found? Bone structure? Genetics?

People categorise for different reasons; one is to perceive relationships between parts of a whole. For instance, you can categorise a family into parents and children to perceive generations. You can categorise to observe roles, functions and applications. So we categorise vehicles into trucks and buses so we can understand the functions of each. Categorisation is useful in science in order to predict possible characteristics which may not be immediately apparent. You can distinguish two birds according to their feather colouration in order to have a good chance of predicting that they might also have a variation in a given cell or organ.

Sex differentiation is useful for describing the function of a given morphological classification. It could also predict the chance of finding two features together (if you have breasts, for instance, there's an increased chance of also having a vagina). In other words, categorisation is useful in some contexts, but only if those contexts are kept in mind.

Observing morphological differences in relation to geographical locations can be useful. It allows us to increase our chances of predicting some associated characteristics; for example, Australian Indigenous people tend to have metabolic variations which increase their chance of becoming diabetic.

However, this population-based context is observable only when you take into account several qualifiers. Genetically, while this population is related, there is no distinct boundary to draw the line at where one group ends and another begins. We tend to make those distinctions based more on geography and culture.

I've got no problem with the term race or its use in some circles. Yet it's when people take it out of its useful context and stretch to apply it as if it is a defined category elsewhere that I feel it is misapplied.

Athon