Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[EgalitarianJay]

You might have a point there, if all of the people who ever analyzed the results of an intelligence test whose subjects' races (or ethnicities) had been recorded, were all named "Rushton".

I'm just using Rushton as an example because his evolutionary arguments have been cited by several other racialists and it's much easier to see the racist bias within his research. What compelling arguments have other researchers made that you feel give credibility to the genetic hypothesis?

 

[Jono]

If you know that screenname then you are in some way involved with The Phora which only supports my point that this research appeals to people with racist ideological views. The researchers themselves are motivated by racist ideology. The evidence is the nature of their research.

Actually I remembered some of your almost verbatim postings (your penchant for Joseph Graves, which is all well and good, and your correspondence with him) from the MootSF offshot, the new defunct (to my knowledge) "race-debate"-forum which was set up by folks against Stormfront.

Pointing out that some people behind given work have questionable motives is quite reasonable. Using it as a 'card' to slam down in order to frame it all into a stigmatic ball of crap to avoid alltogether (as per the OP), ignoring the ideological bias of people on the opposite end, is less reasonable (if that).

E.g, of your quoted example:

Rushton starts with an a priori faith in the existence of "the races...
This means that his acceptance of "race" is ultimately arbitrary and subjective.

The more specific critique of Rushton's book aside (which I have not even read myself, only later papers), the above comments are perfect examples of the oddity that is, imo, race-denial. So, if the criticism of the book there is valid then the book is probably an example of ideological preference over science. However, the same can be said about Brace's critique there. The irony here about Brace is that he had almost the same racial clusters as figured in Coon's work, only the former called it "geographic clusters").

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Actually I remembered some of your almost verbatim postings (your penchant for Joseph Graves, which is all well and good, and your correspondence with him) from the MootSF offshot, the new defunct (to my knowledge) "race-debate"-forum which was set up by folks against Stormfront.

I see.

Did you post there yourself?

Pointing out that some people behind given work have questionable motives is quite reasonable. Using it as a 'card' to slam down in order to frame it all into a stigmatic ball of crap to avoid alltogether (as per the OP), ignoring the ideological bias of people on the opposite end, is less reasonable (if that).

If the work in general is pseudoscientific and motivated by ideological bias surely that should be pointed out. We're not talking about a few bad apples here within an otherwise respectable field of study. Racial hereditarianism is a fringe theory which has been thoroughly discredited and is known to appeal to people with racist ideological views.

E.g, of your quoted example:


The more specific critique of Rushton's book aside (which I have not even read myself, only later papers), the above comments are perfect examples of the oddity that is, imo, race-denial. So, if the criticism of the book there is valid then the book is probably an example of ideological preference over science. However, the same can be said about Brace's critique there. The irony here about Brace is that he had almost the same racial clusters as figured in Coon's work, only the former called it "geographic clusters").

The difference between Coon's racial classification scheme and Brace's geographic clusters is that Coon believed that human physical characteristics were reliable indicators of unique evolutionary lineages within the human species while Brace views human variation as clinal and that genetic affinity could form clusters when you compare diverse populations. It may appear that Brace's geographic clusters parallel racial groupings because geographic isolation and genetic drift are key variables in why we see physical differences between populations. Coon saw this as evidence of different ancestral origins for modern humans while Brace recognized this physical diversity as the product of different selective forces acting on human populations as they inhabited different regions of the world over long periods of time.

The problem Brace has with the race concept is that racial classification relies on the existence of populations with discrete differences in characteristics rather than recognizing that trait complexes exist because of multiple selective forces within a given region.

There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning. - C Loring Brace

I feel that the race debate issue can be simplified by acknowledging that human genetic variation exists. There are different heritable traits which have traditionally been used to group people based on common ancestry but there are differences in the definitions of biological and social races which are the root cause of debate over the existence of race itself.

I'm more interested in what differences are alleged to exist and where is the scientific support for these differences then how people are classified.

 

[Jono]

We're not talking about a few bad apples here within an otherwise respectable field of study. Racial hereditarianism is a fringe theory which has been thoroughly discredited and is known to appeal to people with racist ideological views.

Your statement there and view, while certainly appliable on a handful of cases, extends in reality to dishonestly lump together a whole slew of highly respectable scientists doing work in an important field. People whose work are notably targeted and politically tarnished because of 'guilt-by-association' with either a fund, an aquaintence or (chiefly) by weighing in heavily on the nature-side of the old nature-vs-nature wars. The past three decades (since the peak of the red Blank-Slate boom), science has if anything slowly and steadily affirmed the more balanced view of including biological components in order to explain human behaviour, interaction, individual and group-differences/similarities et al. However, several people involved in clarifying the acualities of the latter have (quite undeservingly) been lambasted by contemporary 'lysenkoists' as either being racists, vile determinists, nazis et al or at least somehow so unfavourably connected to something like that (like the Pioneer Fund) that their work should be cast off by that ill-conceived virtue alone. Pinker (as well as Sarich in his book on race) has described this bit of unfortunate part modern history many a times, most notably perhaps in his book "The Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature". Perhaps you do not approve of much in that book, though I consider him a (generally) balanced and sensible source on these issues.

The difference between Coon's racial classification scheme and Brace's geographic clusters is that Coon believed that human physical characteristics were reliable indicators of unique evolutionary lineages within the human species while Brace views human variation as clinal and that genetic affinity could form clusters when you compare diverse populations.

And for the bulk of it, how is this not really a semantic "potatoe-potato" game?
1. (nitty gritty of Coon's groups). Physical characteristics (morphological and extended, i.e phylogenic) indicate a notable enough ecotypical lineage.
2. (nitty gritty of Brace's groups) Variation with clustering groupings observed to form clinal 'hotspots', which align more or less consistently with the ones in point 1.

Now, either there is something very biological these groups are observed or... it's an increadible coincidence they are even comparable with each other from two authors who couldn't have been more of their ideological opposites.

Coon saw this as evidence of different ancestral origins for modern humans while Brace recognized this physical diversity as the product of different selective forces acting on human populations as they inhabited different regions of the world over long periods of time.

Once more, how is this not; Mr Potatoe, meet Mr Potato??

I feel that the race debate issue can be simplified by acknowledging that human genetic variation exists. There are different heritable traits which have traditionally been used to group people based on common ancestry but there are differences in the definitions of biological and social races which are the root cause of debate over the existence of race itself.

Without going into that further, you do know there are (while less political and sociologically jolted) similar controversies with the term 'species' yes? You have heard of the 'species problem' no?

I'm more interested in what differences are alleged to exist and where is the scientific support for these differences then how people are classified.

I actually agree. The latter venture tends to mark on the same observable similarities, and differences, while creating a rather elaborate game of semantics and taboos to muddy the waters as opposed to simply agree that what is observed is biological (regardless of the choice of words or terms preferred).

 

[Jono]

I see.

Did you post there yourself?

Maybe I did. Maybe I was a friend of Kamandi's, who assisted her with work and arguments regarding the "9-11 Truth Movement" debacle. I also remember you were very undeservingly mocked for being an afro-american who didn't fit the 'brotha' stereotype (which might explain your penchant for Joseph Graves who I know have endured similar hardship).

 

[Perpetual Student]

It's unfortunate that research in this area is so loaded with negative and hateful social problems. I think it would be interesting and even potentially useful to learn if any human populations while in isolation developed any special or enhanced specific cognitive skills.
Someday we may have the tools (perhaps through the imaging and analysis of brain structures -- as opposed to culturally tainted tests) to find out if this indeed occurred. Hopefully, then we can overcome the issues brought about by the misuse of this ill-defined and unscientific term "race."

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Maybe I did. Maybe I was a friend of Kamandi's, who assisted her with work and arguments regarding the "9-11 Truth Movement" debacle. I also remember you were very undeservingly mocked for being an afro-american who didn't fit the 'brotha' stereotype (which might explain your penchant for Joseph Graves who I know have endured similar hardship).

Kamandi is a guy. I don't feel I was mocked for not conforming to stereotypes so much as I was simply a target of racism for being an African-American and accused of being a Jew for presenting well-reasoned arguments. My penchant for Joseph Graves is the fact that he has spent a lot of time on this subject and speaks from the position of a prominent evolutionary biologist. It is ironic that he is an African-American himself refuting racist claims that Black people are intellectually inferior to other races.

As far as what you wrote in the previous post I'm not familiar with every researcher on the hereditarian side so I can't make generalizations about the work of all of them but I do believe that there are many fallacies in the argument itself which makes all of them wrong. There can ofcourse be bias from the other side but only one side can be right. As for the Blank Slate Theory you don't have to believe in it to disagree with the idea that there are mental differences between groups such as races and sexes. Beyond our basic instincts behavior is not fixed by our genes though genes have a strong influence on behavior and behavior itself can be modified. The variation in mental characteristics are continuous across populations, that's what I believe and what the evidence seems to show.

I think Brace and Coon would have agreed that human genetic variation exists they just had fundamental differences in how that variation is structured which is relevant to important issues such as human health and human nature.

 

[Jono]

As far as what you wrote in the previous post I'm not familiar with every researcher on the hereditarian side so I can't make generalizations about the work of all of them but I do believe that there are many fallacies in the argument itself which makes all of them wrong. There can ofcourse be bias from the other side but only one side can be right. As for the Blank Slate Theory you don't have to believe in it to disagree with the idea that there are mental differences between groups such as races and sexes. Beyond our basic instincts behavior is not fixed by our genes though genes have a strong influence on behavior and behavior itself can be modified. The variation in mental characteristics are continuous across populations, that's what I believe and what the evidence seems to show.

I think Brace and Coon would have agreed that human genetic variation exists they just had fundamental differences in how that variation is structured which is relevant to important issues such as human health and human nature.

On the note you made regarding mental differences between races and sexes. Setting aside the issue of intelligence, I can think of several genetic differences inbetween, for example, men and women which at least in some way influence behaviour. And, on an individual basis, personality traits are chiefly, as far as we can tell, a mix between genetic and X factors (X standing for surrounding enviroment, excluding the in-house enviroment were one was reared). Bringing intelligence back into it, I do not believe we can say we 'know' that the differences we observe between different races/ecotypes et al are mostly genetic. They may be, but as it is we can't know that. That being said, I do not believe there is the, for some ideologically preferred, 'even stephen' case scenario either. With so much genetic (and then some) variation between groups of different biogeographical clusters, I do not expect 'intellectual capacity' to be completely evenly dispersed.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

On the note you made regarding mental differences between races and sexes. Setting aside the issue of intelligence, I can think of several genetic differences inbetween, for example, men and women which at least in some way influence behaviour. And, on an individual basis, personality traits are chiefly, as far as we can tell, a mix between genetic and X factors (X standing for surrounding enviroment, excluding the in-house enviroment were one was reared). Bringing intelligence back into it, I do not believe we can say we 'know' that the differences we observe between different races/ecotypes et al are mostly genetic. They may be, but as it is we can't know that. That being said, I do not believe there is the, for some ideologically preferred, 'even stephen' case scenario either. With so much genetic (and then some) variation between groups of different biogeographical clusters, I do not expect 'intellectual capacity' to be completely evenly dispersed.

There are genetic differences between men and women that impact personality. I agree. As for geographic populations there's no reason to assume that alleles impact intelligence are unevenly distributed across geographic populations when you consider that there is wide variation in mental traits even within families. What we know about intelligence suggests that the variation in the genes that influence it are continuous across populations.

We don't all have the same intellect but there's no basis for claiming that there is a limit to which a certain population can learn and IQ tests can't determine that because they aren't based on the ability to learn.

 

[Jono]

There are genetic differences between men and women that impact personality. I agree. As for geographic populations there's no reason to assume that alleles impact intelligence are unevenly distributed across geographic populations when you consider that there is wide variation in mental traits even within families. What we know about intelligence suggests that the variation in the genes that influence it are continuous across populations.

I ment that, in particular considering the wide variation in mental traits, if a person of one group differs from a person of another group then the genetic variable (however large or small) is likely to be there just as it is when comparing two individuals from within a given group is. That there is a 'continuous' influence of our genes across populations tell us very little about the differences we consistently observe between such populations (and individuals).

We don't all have the same intellect but there's no basis for claiming that there is a limit to which a certain population can learn and IQ tests can't determine that because they aren't based on the ability to learn

Well yes and no. Psychometric measurements of one's cognitive abilities, while not interchangable with certainty or absolute destiny, are consistently showed to have a predictive battering-average that simply dwarfs many (perhaps even most) of behavioural predictive yardsticks used by politicians, philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, military strategists et al. In all humbleness, this tells us there is some probability to suspect at least partial/greater than zero influence of heredity and nature onto mental faculties within as well as between the continously observed and recorded clustering differences of human groups and variations thereof.

The heart of the matter is that the aptitude for learning and understanding is tied to ones ability to learn and apply. We can only, in our lifetime, with all the lessons and teachings thrown at us, increase our perfomance level on such tests by a small degree at best. I.e we can from our basic uneducated state, through tailored education toward such tests, learn to perfom a little bit better on them. But we're all in the same boat on this note and the same or similar difference between our perfomances still remain.

Not even within comparison of financial brackets is there equality of intelligence. In my experience, one reason some folks do not want to even consider that it has something to do with the hereditary part of intelligence (which is consistently demonstrated in mainstream science as an "as much or often larger part than enviorment") must be because they react emotionally or ideologically against such a proposition, as I've come to understand it. It might not always be the case, of course, but in my experience that has indeed been the case, though I withhold judgement of your reason for believing as you do with respect to that. The fact that we can with enough imagination correlate anything to anything does not nullify or disqualify the value of correlations in observing and explaining probabilities of what the causation might be. While it can't be noted on enough that there's no single gene or base-pair that is predominantely responsible for ones IQ, unlike gender differences or thereof. We're looking at cognitive abilities, and yes we do have a lot of them, several which relate either directly or indirectly to how well we might perform in society in general, in interactions et al and specifically when dealing with complexities, tests, challenges, related competition and so forth (like language, creativity, attention/rapid learning/memory, comprehension of complex concepts/multi-hypothesizing simultaneously, logical/mathematical/pattern abilities). The, by far, best 'predictor' for success in the given areas, that require a high degree of acuteness in any of the formentioned attributes, is intelligence, and IQ predict those in turn quite consistently. I'd recommend you to read "Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction" by Ian Deary and the paper "Variability and stability in cognitive abilities are largely genetic later in life" (Lichtenstein, Plomin R, McClearn, Pedersen).

 

[batvette]

This is always one issue that causes some to hide behind intentional feigned ignorance or cite cultural inequalities. A black child which grows up on the same block as a white child, watches the same television channels, goes to the same school, etc, will be determined to face unfair testing procedures.
There are evolutionary differences in many physical areas of the world's main race divisions, except the brain it seems.
People only accept differences when they look flattering. Say "White Men Can't Jump" and blacks think it's funny and will go see a movie about it. Tell them they have large genitalia and you'll get no argument. (Except from Asians)
I wonder how a move called "Black Men Can't Do Algebra" would do?

 

[psionl0]

I wonder how a move called "Black Men Can't Do Algebra" would do?

You would get howls of protest from everybody because of a racist presumption that only white men can take a joke.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

A black child which grows up on the same block as a white child,

'black', 'white' - what difference does it make?

Sadly, a lot more than it should. In a society which is infused with racism to the core, people are treated differently according to nothing more than the color of their skin. Even if a 'black' and a 'white' child grow up on the same block, watch the same television channels, go to the same school etc, even if they both have identical intelligence and personalities, the 'black' child will still suffer from racial prejudice - simply for being 'black'.

There are evolutionary differences in many physical areas of the world's main race divisions, except the brain it seems.

There are no evolutionary differences in the brain corresponding to 'race divisions', because human 'races' are not divided according to evolutionary differences. What they are divided by are cultural differences which can be associated with cosmetic physical characteristics. And when they can't, people still imagine that they can - eg. the 'jewish nose'.

How To Tell A Jew

“One can most easily tell a Jew by his nose. The Jewish nose is bent at its point. It looks like the number six. We call it the Jewish six. Many Gentiles also have bent noses. But their noses bend upwards, not downwards. Such a nose is a hook nose or an eagle nose. It is not at all like a Jewish nose.”

“Right!” says the teacher. “But the nose is not the only way to recognize a Jew...”

The boy goes on. “One can also recognize a Jew by his lips. His lips are usually puffy. The lower lip often protrudes. The eyes are different too. The eyelids are mostly thicker and more fleshy than ours. The Jewish look is wary and piercing. One can tell from his eyes that he is a deceitful person.”

The teacher calls on another lad. He is Fritz Müller, and is the best in the class. He goes to the board and says:

“Jews are usually small to mid-sized. They have short legs. Their arms are often very short too. Many Jews are bow-legged and flat-footed. They often have a low, slanting forehead, a receding forehead. Many criminals have such a receding forehead. The Jews are criminals too. Their hair is usually dark and often curly like a Negro’s. Their ears are very large, and they look like the handles of a coffee cup.”

 

[batvette]

I have debated internet racists on this subject on numerous occasions.

You could have spared some of us (obviously some may agree with you) from the pseudo intellectual essay and ended with that statement. Attaching a racist label to those you disagree with is a cheap substitute for a rational argument-which, despite the superficial appearance of academic presentation, you do not present.
The position you present is in essence that it's too complicated for anyone to figure out, so it can't be isolated to race alone. I think you can do better.
You assume people want to assign the results for ideological goals. It's obvious you want the results obscured for your own ideological goals.
Have you ever considered there may be some benefit toward applying the results toward maximizing the educational resources applied to these children?

 

[batvette]

How To Tell A Jew

thank you for a thoroughly worthless, race baiting reply.

 

[Dinwar]

I've recently been reading this book due to the fact that taphonomic studies on large mammals tend to be focused on humans (what can you do? We're interested in our own past). In the chapter on non-metric variations in skeletal morphology they discuss how rice farming vs. specific groups of people moved into Japan. As an aside, they argued that rice farming spread first, and that the humans remained relatively isolated for a bit longer.

When someone can demonstrate that that study is invalid, I'll accept that asking about correlations between race and intelligence are invalid (not that they can't be scientific--again, science needs to be free to pursue the data wherever they lead--but at least that the questions have been answered). Until then, the arguments for banning such research are emotionally based, and are precisely the type of arguments that scientists are obligated to oppose.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

In all humbleness, this tells us there is some probability to suspect at least partial/greater than zero influence of heredity and nature onto mental faculties within as well as between the continously observed and recorded clustering differences of human groups and variations thereof.

But it doesn't. You see for the idea that there are mental differences between populations to be probable there would have to be some genetic reasoning to assume that. The mere fact that IQ tests have high predictably for life outcomes is not genetic evidence nor valid genetic reasoning to assume that intelligence is distributed unevenly across geographic populations. I have already explained why population genetic theory doesn't support this position nor can psychometric data support this position.

Not even within comparison of financial brackets is there equality of intelligence.

IQ scores between demographic groups such as Black and White Americans can be equalized when Socioeconomic Status as well as family and neighborhood quality are controlled for:

A white in the top socioeconomic quintile based on income has more than twice the wealth of a black in the top quintile.12 A still more important point is to note what happens when one adds to the socioeconomic measurement of opportunity several measures of the environment that include family and neighborhood structural and resource measures including measures of the learning environment. When this adjustment is made, the blacks at a given "opportunity level" are now very close to the whites at a given level.13 Herrnstein and Murray note correctly that such attempts to equate for the full range of environmental variables are based on purely correlational data: it could in principle be the case that mother's IQ drives the other variables. However, the same regression equation that produces the results just presented predicts nothing more when mother's IQ is included. The data are thus more consistent with a purely environmental interpretation of the B/W gap than with one that leans on a genetic interpretation.

Source: The Bell Curve Wars p. 43

In my experience, one reason some folks do not want to even consider that it has something to do with the hereditary part of intelligence (which is consistently demonstrated in mainstream science as an "as much or often larger part than enviorment") must be because they react emotionally or ideologically against such a proposition, as I've come to understand it. It might not always be the case, of course, but in my experience that has indeed been the case, though I withhold judgement of your reason for believing as you do with respect to that.

I could claim just the opposite. One reason why I believe many folks insist or strongly believe that there are genetic differences between populations that effect intelligence is because they want to believe them for emotional and ideological reasons. We can question people's motivations but ultimately what this comes down to is the science because honest scientific research doesn't adhere to ideology. The problem there is that there are competing scientific theories and even scientists can give in to ideological bias. The way to distinguish legitimate scientific theories from pseudoscientific theories is to see whether research follows the scientific method. If it does not than it isn't science even if it is considered to be "mainstream" within a specific field of study.

Now ofcourse to recognize and understand scientific research takes some degree of scientific literacy which ironically requires a high degree of intelligence to begin with. Most people don't have the time or patience to delve in to the subject in depth.

This is the most pertinent question that I think needs to be asked of all people who support the racialist position:

What genetic reasoning do you have for assuming a genetic basis for mental differences between races and what critical experiments support your position?

My sources have shown that when it comes to presenting a do or die test of the genetic hypothesis psychometricians don't even come close to fulfilling the task. They do take a pseudoscientific approach to the issue which is why for them it is always an open case rather than a resolved issue.


Pseudoscience does not progress.

There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

 

[EgalitarianJay]

You could have spared some of us (obviously some may agree with you) from the pseudo intellectual essay and ended with that statement. Attaching a racist label to those you disagree with is a cheap substitute for a rational argument-which, despite the superficial appearance of academic presentation, you do not present.
The position you present is in essence that it's too complicated for anyone to figure out, so it can't be isolated to race alone. I think you can do better.
You assume people want to assign the results for ideological goals. It's obvious you want the results obscured for your own ideological goals.
Have you ever considered there may be some benefit toward applying the results toward maximizing the educational resources applied to these children?

You did a nice job at misrepresenting my position but there can be no doubt that many of the people I have debated were racists and overtly so. Perhaps you didn't understand my argument or didn't want to but it can be simplified by saying that there is no scientific basis for assuming that there are genetic differences between geographic populations that can account for differences in IQ which can easily be explained by environmental factors. You didn't provide any evidence refuting that point and I did provide scientific sources backing my position.

You talk about maximizing educational resources for "these children". Sadly you miss the point of this research entirely. The argument being made is that some people are too dumb to be educated and that programs like Head Start don't work because they can't develop their minds to a normal standard of intelligence. I do believe that there are genetic pathologies which stunt intelligence or can prevent a person from attaining normal intelligence all together. For people unfortunate enough to be afflicted I think we should invest in cures. But those are genetic outliers. Racialists want to argue that whole geographic populations are some how mentally challenged in general because of genetic differences which is an unfounded idea constructed by people who want to believe such things because they are motivated by racist ideology.

I am not trying to obscure the facts here. Just the opposite I have tried to explained in detail why this theory is wrong based on sound scientific reasoning.

 

[psionl0]

Racialists want to argue that whole geographic populations are some how mentally challenged in general because of genetic differences which is an unfounded idea constructed by people who want to believe such things because they are motivated by racist ideology.

Should we ban scientific research that would test this racist theory?

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Should we ban scientific research that would test this racist theory?

No.

"I don't think that banning such research is the answer because it does embolden racialists who declare that they are being censored. I firmly believe that such research should be subjected to rigorous scientific critique to investigate whether or not it has any validity." - EgalitarianJay