Race 'Science'

[athon]

So your qualm is that data on IQ differences across races for example is unreliable because it uses "black" as a category when in fact one genetically different population group of blacks might have a score of 100 and another a score of 90 and another 80?

I'm saying that it is one possibility which is unaccounted for when we look at a few morphological features spread across a range of geographical locations.

The main problem with that arguement is that most racist scientists believe the differences in genetically caused IQ differences are caused by environment and natural selection. The arguement is that alleles for increased intelligence became most prevalent in Europe and north east Asia because of natural selection pressures.

What else would the dominance of certain genetic influences on IQ themselves be influenced by?

A study comparing a similar sized portion of Europe and another region which shows higher IQ scores in Europe isn't invalid just because there may be small populations caught in them that are genetically different and have a much different IQ than the average.

Of course this is the core of the problem - at what level of a population does one need to aim which would give an accurate picture of the genetic relationships between the related constituents?

There's no arguement that conventional racial classifications reflect actual genetic lines and that there's no overlap and similarities.

I'm not so sure that this isn't presumed by a number of scientists who focus on race as a biological category to study. I can see why one would study the socio-cultural and socio-economic relationships with races, as these are heavily influenced by the self-association one nominates for their own racial group. But to study each race across different environments as if they are biological groups assumes there is a genetic basis. It makes as much sense as using blood groups (actually, less, as blood group is at least a firm phenotype which is easily and objectively discerned).

Athon

 

[bpesta22]

Yes, Denmark's own Helmuth Nyborg hypothesized that the superior IQ of European Jews (or maybe it was just Ashkenazi Jews (a very unfortunate suffix, in my opinion)) was the result of the "natural selection pressure" called Hitler. According to this hypothesis the smart Jews got the hell out of there in time ...
Social science usually says that since Jews weren't allowed to own land in many countries in Europe, they were prone to invest in education instead - and educated people, naturally, tend to have higher IQ's (see also: Flynn effect).
Exit Hitler ...

or, smart people naturally tend to get educated...

Why is the flynn effect a problem here? According to Flynn itself, it's not a g effect:

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?

A. The IQ gains are not g-loaded so the prediction is beside the point.


If interested, here's what bell curve jew charles murray says about the high group IQ mean for jewish people:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/v...ntarymagazine.content.Article::10855&search=1

 

[dann]

or, smart people naturally tend to get educated...

Why is the flynn effect a problem here?

Where's the problem?

According to Flynn itself, it's not a g effect:

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?

A. The IQ gains are not g-loaded so the prediction is beside the point.


If interested, here's what bell curve jew charles murray says about the high group IQ mean for jewish people:

Not particularly interested, no. Stephen Jay Gould was a Jew, I think, and Richard Lewontin too. I don't know if any of them have Ashkenazi backgrounds, though, and I think it is fairly irrelevant anyway. They weren't racists.

 

[bpesta22]

Where's the problem?Not particularly interested, no. Stephen Jay Gould was a Jew, I think, and Richard Lewontin too. I don't know if any of them have Ashkenazi backgrounds, though, and I think it is fairly irrelevant anyway. They weren't racists.

Dann, I mentioned this in another thread-- you might not have seen it, but since you seem to be a Gould fan I'll mention it again.

I sent an article to Intelligence (the premier journal in this field) which was sent off to blind review. I cited Gould early on in my paper. One of the reviewers-- indeed an expert in the field-- said this about gould (in 10+ years of trying to publish, I've never seen a comment like this):


"CITING FOOLS: Why cite an amateur (read idiot) like Gould? The man is an advocate, not a scientist. Would the authors cite people who claim the earth is flat in a paper on geography".


Needless to say, Gould's mismeasure was not very influential among people who research this area for a living (did you know that something like 50% of the cites in Mismeasure were over 75 years old--iirc-- I can get the exact data if you're interested).

 

[latent aaaack]

I mainly disagree that "it all starts with the premise that racial grouping is an actual biological phenomenom." As far as I know it starts with the premise only that skin pigmentation is a real biological phenomenon and is what needs examining and refuting if necessary, hence the really long Watson thread.

And my hunch is that if the data is accurate and the differences have a genetic component then the environments which cause those differences wouldn't be distributed randomly and fairly across all continents and latitudes. There isn't the diversity in environments in those continents and sub continents that would result in that pattern of IQ differences in genetically different popultion groups within races. That's why the important question is whether the differences are all environmentally caused or if part of it is genetic.

It would be really cool if the causes of the differences could be understood and replicated and also maybe some persistent inequalities fundamentally changed.

I'm saying that it is one possibility which is unaccounted for when we look at a few morphological features spread across a range of geographical locations.



What else would the dominance of certain genetic influences on IQ themselves be influenced by?



Of course this is the core of the problem - at what level of a population does one need to aim which would give an accurate picture of the genetic relationships between the related constituents?



I'm not so sure that this isn't presumed by a number of scientists who focus on race as a biological category to study. I can see why one would study the socio-cultural and socio-economic relationships with races, as these are heavily influenced by the self-association one nominates for their own racial group. But to study each race across different environments as if they are biological groups assumes there is a genetic basis. It makes as much sense as using blood groups (actually, less, as blood group is at least a firm phenotype which is easily and objectively discerned).

Athon

 

[athon]

I mainly disagree that "it all starts with the premise that racial grouping is an actual biological phenomenom." As far as I know it starts with the premise only that skin pigmentation is a real biological phenomenon and is what needs examining and refuting if necessary, hence the really long Watson thread.

I agree, however skin pigmentation and facial morphology are as arbitrary as immunology, cell markers, average height or any other inheritable trait when it comes to defining a large population over a broad geographical area.

And my hunch is that if the data is accurate and the differences have a genetic component then the environments which cause those differences wouldn't be distributed randomly and fairly across all continents and latitudes. There isn't the diversity in environments in those continents and sub continents that would result in that pattern of IQ differences in genetically different popultion groups within races. That's why the important question is whether the differences are all environmentally caused or if part of it is genetic.

It would be really cool if the causes of the differences could be understood and replicated and also maybe some persistent inequalities fundamentally changed.

I can't disagree with any of this.

Athon

 

[latent aaaack]

I agree, however skin pigmentation and facial morphology are as arbitrary as immunology, cell markers, average height or any other inheritable trait when it comes to defining a large population over a broad geographical area.



I can't disagree with any of this.

Athon

But I don't see what 'defining large populations over a broad area' has to do with the kind of data that bpesta for example posts. I see various posters' focusing on the question of archaic racial classifications and ignoring of the far more portentous questions of environment vs. genes as almost an implicit acknowledgement that it's genes. But from the tone of the posters' replies I don't think they'd agree with that which is confusing.

Yes, skin color is as arbritary a trait as freckles and doesn't necessarily denote a 'race' in the way believed in the past. But if the average IQ of someone with freckles is a lot different than it's connected with another variable(s) that isn't arbritary, like in the case of race latitude, temperature, diet over the long term, or things along those lines.

 

[athon]

But I don't see what 'defining large populations over a broad area' has to do with the kind of data that bpesta for example posts.

The correlation is between IQ and people who define themselves as belonging to a particular racial group. Traditionally, racial groups are defined by morphological features which are associated with populations across a large geographical area.

I see various posters' focusing on the question of archaic racial classifications and ignoring of the far more portentous questions of environment vs. genes as almost an implicit acknowledgement that it's genes. But from the tone of the posters' replies I don't think they'd agree with that which is confusing.

Most people here are arguing that the categories of 'race' are social constructs rather than a feature easily defined biologically.

Yes, skin color is as arbritary a trait as freckles and doesn't necessarily denote a 'race' in the way believed in the past. But if the average IQ of someone with freckles is a lot different than it's connected with another variable(s) that isn't arbritary, like in the case of race latitude, temperature, diet over the long term, or things along those lines.

No argument there, so long as the parameters are defined as such - there is a positive correlation between people with freckles and low IQ. Fine. However, the correlation with Pesta's work is 'people who associate themselves with race X'. That's not the same thing.

Athon

 

[This is The End]

I agree, however skin pigmentation and facial morphology are as arbitrary as immunology, cell markers, average height or any other inheritable trait when it comes to defining a large population over a broad geographical area.

What are the odds of two tall people having a short child? Now how about two short people having a tall child?

What about the odds of two African Americans having a Native American child? How about the odds of two Japanese having a Chinese child?

I've seen a few short kids with tall parents, and a few tall kids have short parents, but never have I seen the latter cases.

Direct blood only in all cited examples, of course, (no adoption, step-parents).

 

[dann]

What about the odds of two African Americans having a Native American child?

That would depend on their ancestors, wouldn't it? Are they able to prove genetically that one of them, and therefore also the child, has Native American ancestors? Off to the reservation! (In other words: What exactly are "African Americans"? Obama and Condoleezza?)

How about the odds of two Japanese having a Chinese child?

I don't know the rules, but I guess that the odds are much higher if they move to China before they give birth to the child.

I've seen a few short kids with tall parents, and a few tall kids have short parents, but never have I seen the latter cases.

Shouldn't be too hard to find if you start looking, I think.

Direct blood only in all cited examples, of course, (no adoption, step-parents).

You do know that nationality and biology are different fields, don't you?

(If you are trying to prove that Obama and Condoleezza wouldn't be able to beget the Swedish Bikini Team (even though I doubt that they are all natural blondes!), I, for one, am convinced!)

 

[This is The End]

Excuse me?

 

[This is The End]

dann, you may want to rethink that answer that approaches "all Asians look alike" racism. A Japanese couple that moved to China would have a Japanese child, only it's citizenship would be Chinese. Also, you may note, my questions were merely questions, not approaching statements of fact by any means, and they were quite clearly directed at what exactly Athon meant by "arbitrary".

You also seem to imply my mother isn't Native American and that my father isn't African American. Though I have had many meetings with and have seen many pictures of ancestors from both sides of the family, meetings are naturally limited by death as pictures are limited by the year in which photography was invented; though my grandparents' memories and oral tradition surely predates the invention of photography. What level of confidence of interbreeding prior to this generation would you expect?


In response to the OP, I would be the first to acknowledge that a child’s financial/poverty level has way, way, way, way, way, more to do with performance than the child’s race/variety/sub-sub-species/ethnicity. That doesn’t suggest that the latter has zero effect does it, just relatively miniscule compared to other factors.

Isn’t this the old nature vs. nurture debate? People wanting to draw specific lines when only broad ranges exist?

 

[dann]

Or I might not since there is nothing whatsoever approaching "all Asians look alike" racism in my post! Now that you have made the accusation, I would like you to point out to me where exactly this alleged/approached racism occurs!

But let me try to help you because I know where your problem is:
If a Japanese (Chinese, whatever) couple moved to Denmark and had a child here, it would be a Dane! Now I know that you will object that "only it's citizenship would be" Danish, but that's the whole point: Japanese is the name of a nationality (so is Dane), not a race.
Now feel free to accuse me of 'all Eurasians look alike' racism.

I know absolutely nothing about your ancestors, but I have every reason to believe that they were human, nor do I know anything about their tendencies to interbreed.
I have Danish ancestors for the past several generations, but people said that my paternal grandmother had a few Jewish ancestors a long time ago (even though she was a Catholic). Somewhere along the line there also was a Caribbean Indio great-great grandmother from the Danish colonies, I think, which is why I would also have a hard time begetting Swedish Bikini Team Mates (without the help of peroxide) even if my wife weren't black.

 

[Kotatsu]

If a Japanese (Chinese, whatever) couple moved to Denmark and had a child here, it would be a Dane!

[aside]
Curiously, the reverse is not necessarily true, though. A friend of mine went to Japan and got himself a girlfriend there. Her grandparents (all four of them) came from Korea. Therefore, her parents are called "Korean" despite being born in Japan. Further, the girlfriend is also Korean, despite never having been in Korea before she went there with my friend. She has to renew her visa (or some similar document) every year; this gets an automatic approval, of course, but she doesn't count as Japanese. I have no idea what kinds of practical consequences this has, however, apart for the requirement for renewal.

Now she lives in Sweden, though, and has no desire to go back.

Thank you for your patience!
[/aside]

 

[dann]

PS

dann, you may want to rethink that answer that approaches "all Asians look alike" racism.

Well, I'm actually much worse than that!
I once mistook a woman, with whom I had shared a taxi from the José Marti Airport to Vedado, Havana, for Japanese, until she told me that she was actually Mexican with many Indio ancestors ...

 

[athon]

What are the odds of two tall people having a short child? Now how about two short people having a tall child?

I probably should have not used height as an example, it being a rather subjective description. Nonetheless, if given a family of mixed 'height' background, it is possible to have a child to two tall parents who is significantly shorter. Likewise, it's just as possible for parents of a 'mixed race' background to have a child with morphological characteristics not clearly evident in both parents.

What about the odds of two African Americans having a Native American child? How about the odds of two Japanese having a Chinese child?

Please define 'African American' with a set of morphological features which is as clearly distinctive as height or blood type and we can then compare them. Otherwise, your comparison falls flat.

My point is this - we could use any mix of inheritable characteristics to define a group, and then refer to those characteristics when we explore relationships. To therefore assume that race based on select morphological features is a distinct genetic classification which increases likelihood of associating other exclusive genetic factors is misleading.

Athon

 

[CapelDodger]

I think t/o these debates, I've been willing to admit when I am wrong. I think now I was wrong about using infant differences in face perception to argue that race might be biological (doesn't disprove that race is biological; only that infant face / race perception differences seem best explained by non-bio factors)

It might be explained by an innate ability to distinguish family features, based on early exposure. I can see some selective advantage in that. Not in race, though, which is a modern concept for a modern phaenomenon - the regular mixing of people from widely distant origins.

 

[bpesta22]

It might be explained by an innate ability to distinguish family features, based on early exposure. I can see some selective advantage in that. Not in race, though, which is a modern concept for a modern phaenomenon - the regular mixing of people from widely distant origins.

I suspect some part of it is innate even despite the articles I looked at arguing it's learned.

I would think that race would be much more distinct visually than family features.

 

[CapelDodger]

[aside]
Curiously, the reverse is not necessarily true, though. A friend of mine went to Japan and got himself a girlfriend there. Her grandparents (all four of them) came from Korea. Therefore, her parents are called "Korean" despite being born in Japan. Further, the girlfriend is also Korean, despite never having been in Korea before she went there with my friend. She has to renew her visa (or some similar document) every year; this gets an automatic approval, of course, but she doesn't count as Japanese. I have no idea what kinds of practical consequences this has, however, apart for the requirement for renewal.

Now she lives in Sweden, though, and has no desire to go back.

Thank you for your patience!
[/aside]

I pride myself in being able to get my head around most cultures, but the Japanese defeat me. It's not just the racism, there's all sorts of other weirdery, most of it icky.

I used to know some Japanese kids in North London, perfectly normal teenagers who'd grown up there, who had to take special classes to prepare them for life in Japan. I lost touch long ago, but I bet they got out again at the first opportunity.

 

[CapelDodger]

I suspect some part of it is innate even despite the articles I looked at arguing it's learned.

I would think that race would be much more distinct visually than family features.

Why would race have featured in our evolution, the vast bulk of which occurred when people didn't mix much across continents? They didn't even mix much outside the group they were born into, and lived their lives amongst.

Distinguishing and bonding with family within the group has obvious survival advantages, and it's something we still feel and expect others to feel.

Given that the group will all appear pretty similar, the mechanism involved will have to be acute - and easily overwhelmed by gross differences, such as between Bantu and Han Chinese.