# Are you a racist? Warning signs **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519 "2014-07-07T08:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/541 "2014-07-21T19:37:35Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And it’s your theory that the appearance of race groups which part of the apartheid history is unrelated to gene clustering? It’s not my theory, it’s a fact. The Apartheid government grouped people on cultural and historic lines, they didn’t cluster people based on appearance except in ambiguous edge cases. And [even then](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_%28South_Africa%29) they used cartoonish tests that were only specific to the local populations and had fuck all to do with genes (no-one with a jewfro would pass that test, never mind the completely non-African Australian natives) > [@](#): > > So…groups such as races cluster by appearance You can _try_ argument by assertion if you like, but I’ve got some Andamese who say you’re full of shit. “Races” cluster by appearance only if you define “dark, lippy and curly” as a race. Which I suppose _is_ what you do, if your cites are to be believed. But that’s hardly a scientific classification, now is it? But by all means, tell me more about how the regime that [classified](https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/602970_184182795091732_315927774_n.jpg) Taiwanese as “White”, Mainland Chinese as “Coloured”, Japanese as “White”, Indonesians as “Coloured” , Filipinos as “Black”, Koreans as “White”, Pakistanis as “Coloured” and only Indians as “Asian” had _anything_ to do with science in their approach to grouping. What’s next? Going to parade phrenology as a cutting-edge scientific classification system? > [@](#): > > Exactly how confused are you on what the concept of gene clustering means? It means that given gene variants–including ones coding for appearance types–appear more frequently within one group than another… So which “appearance types” are those, then? It’s clearly not dark, with curly hair. Unless your definition of “cluster” is as fucked-up as your grasp of genetic separation. Wait, I know, it’s blonde hair and blue eyes as a combo, isn’t it? That combo is a perennial favourite with … you people. I wonder why? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/542 "2014-07-21T19:43:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There have definitely been many people in these exchanges who have insisted that “nature has somehow exempted all functionally signficant genes from being maldistributed among human populations”. Cite them, then. Or be shown for the one-sided racist-cheerleading liar you are, Mr. “Oh, I don’t take _sides_! I’m just standing up for the little guy!” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/543 "2014-07-21T19:46:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You don’t think that making claims about the genetics of black people for intelligence, considering that we have pretty much no data whatsoever on the genes for intelligence in black people, is an error of high magnitude? It certainly has a high frequency! > > It’s not over the top to say that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent than other races, considering that (again) we have pretty much no data whatsoever on the genes for intelligence in black people? I don’t agree with those conclusions. But I don’t think they’re tremendously over the top by comparison with - for example - your claim that as long as you have not identified a specific gene that correlates with intelligence and varies by “race”, that there is “no evidence” (as opposed to inconclusive evidence) that intelligence varies by “race”. And so on. > [@](#): > > What exactly are you defending, with regards to what **CP** is saying? I don’t know, you tell me. I’ve commented on some specific issues here. E.g. some guy tried to prove that intelligence couldn’t vary by race because the genetic variation by race between groups of humans is less than that of chimpanzies. This is a silly argument but few people would point that out, mostly being allied with the other side of the debate, so I noted it. And so on for other issues. > [@](#): > > He distorts my position (either deliberately or ignorantly) To be honest, I’ve not noticed this. I assume you mean (as above in your reference to post #533) the notion that you believe that all “races” are genetically equivalent. I imagine there may be some confusion between the many people on the same side of the issue presenting a united front, but if not then he’s being dishonest too. > [@](#): > > consistently sidesteps with irrelevant information about the “primacy of genes for intelligence” (or other unrelated assertions) I don’t know that these are irrelevant, being that they’re central to his case and a lot of posters have either downplayed or outright denied them. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Cite them, then. > > Or be shown for the one-sided racist-cheerleading liar you are, Mr. “Oh, I don’t take _sides_! I’m just standing up for the little guy!” My first reaction was to dig some up, but I’m not interested in defending myself against this type of charge. If someone else is genuinely interested, I’ll hunt some down. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/544 "2014-07-21T19:56:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > some guy tried to prove that intelligence couldn’t vary by race because the genetic variation by race between groups of humans is less than that of chimpanzies. This is a silly argument but few people would point that out, mostly being allied with the other side of the debate, so I noted it. And so on for other issues. No I didn’t. That is a lie. You’ll need to find another cite because this is bullshit. I didn’t try to prove anything. I simply cited a statistic and asked a question, I neither made an assertion, nor attempted to provide proof of anything. I simply wondered why some people spend so much time and energy focusing on the differences in a population that is so similar genetically. I wondered what it says about those that so desperately need to find these differences to set themselves apart from others. Read my original post again, and tell me what assertion I made. It was apparently a very uncomfortable question for some to have asked of them, but that’s all it was. You are mischaracterizing what I said and hiding it behind this ‘some guy said’ condescending crap because you have no actual cite to back up your claim. You’ll have to do better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/545 "2014-07-21T20:02:12Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > No I didn’t. That is a lie. You’ll need to find another cite because this is bullshit. > > I didn’t try to prove anything. I simply cited a statistic and asked a question, I neither made an assertion, nor attempted to provide proof of anything. > > I simply wondered why some people spend so much time and energy focusing on the differences in a population that is so similar genetically. I wondered what it says about those that so desperately need to find these differences to set themselves apart from others. > > Read my original post again, and tell me what assertion I made. It was apparently a very uncomfortable question for some to have asked of them, but that’s all it was. You are mischaracterizing what I said and hiding it behind this ‘some guy said’ condescending crap because you have no actual cite to back up your claim. You’ll have to do better than that. I didn’t see any questions. CP said that the “races” differ in intelligence, and your response to this was: > [@Airbeck](#): > > There isn’t actually much genetic variation among humans. In fact two people from anywhere on Earth are more genetically similar than two chimpanzees from the same troop. > > [Producer's Notes: LCROSS Rocket to the Moon | KQED](http://science.kqed.org/quest/2008/03/17/explosive-hypothesis-about-humans-lack-of-genetic-diversity/) > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html) > > Considering how little actual genetic difference any two humans from anywhere on earth have, you sure want to assign a lot of significance to that 0.1% difference. My interpretation of that was that you were casting doubt on the ability of the 0.1% difference to create the difference in intelligence that CP was attributing to genetics. If I misunderstood you then I apologize (& for my earlier remarks as well) but I think my interpretation is the most straightforward reading of your post. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/546 "2014-07-21T20:08:08Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > My first reaction was to dig some up, but I’m not interested in defending myself against this type of charge. One-sided racist-cheerleading liar it is, then. No surprises there. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/547 "2014-07-21T20:09:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I didn’t see any questions. CP said that the “races” differ in intelligence, and your response to this was:My interpretation of that was that you were casting doubt on the ability of the 0.1% difference to create the difference in intelligence that CP was attributing to genetics. > > If I misunderstood you then I apologize (& for my earlier remarks as well) but I think my interpretation is the most straightforward reading of your post. No, I was simply wondering why the intense focus for some on the genetic difference among humans, when its such a small amount of difference. Humans are far more similar than we are different across the board, yet some focus so intently on those differences, and I simply wonder why, that’s all. I was not trying to present scientific proof of anything or make any scientific argument on the subject. My original post may not directly be written in the form of a question, but it’s purpose was to raise the question in the minds of those who focus so intently on this difference. Why is it so important to them to be able to separate themselves from others from different backgrounds and ethnicities when we’re all 99.9% alike? It was more philosophical than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/548 "2014-07-21T20:19:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > One-sided racist-cheerleading liar it is, then. No surprises there. OK > [@Airbeck](#): > > No, I was simply wondering why the intense focus for some on the genetic difference among humans, when its such a small amount of difference. Humans are far more similar than we are different across the board, yet some focus so intently on those differences, and I simply wonder why, that’s all. I was not trying to present scientific proof of anything or make any scientific argument on the subject. > > My original post may not directly be written in the form of a question, but it’s purpose was to raise the question in the minds of those who focus so intently on this difference. Why is it so important to them to be able to separate themselves from others from different backgrounds and ethnicities when we’re all 99.9% alike? It was more philosophical than anything else. Well again, if that’s what you meant, then I misunderstood you and I retract and apologize for my earlier comments. That said, the answer to your question is that, as CP observed, very small differences in DNA can create pretty big differences in actual outcome. So as long as the differences in outcome are significant enough to be relevant, then the possibility that these might be the result of genetic differences becomes relevant as well. [FWIW, I personally don’t think there’s much to be gained by focusing on such matters altogether, and I’m not the guy who keeps bringing up the subject. That said, I’m also not a fan of using disparate outcomes as prima facie evidence of discrimination requiring corrective measures either, so there’s that too.] ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/549 "2014-07-21T20:21:56Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OKWell again, if that’s what you meant, then I misunderstood you and I retract and apologize for my earlier comments. Fair enough. I appreciate that, and being the pit, I’ll retract any especially inflammatory remarks I may have tossed in your direction during this exchange as well. Misunderstandings don’t necessarily have to lead to full on arguments, even in the pit. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/550 "2014-07-21T21:00:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t agree with those conclusions. But I don’t think they’re tremendously over the top by comparison with - for example - your claim that as long as you have not identified a specific gene that correlates with intelligence and varies by “race”, that there is “no evidence” (as opposed to inconclusive evidence) that intelligence varies by “race”. And so on. I’ve said no genetic evidence. But how is the evidence for a conclusion about genes “inconclusive” rather than (mostly) “nonexistent” if we know nothing about the genes in question (in this case, black people’s genes for intelligence)? > [@](#): > > To be honest, I’ve not noticed this. I assume you mean (as above in your reference to post #533) the notion that you believe that all “races” are genetically equivalent. I imagine there may be some confusion between the many people on the same side of the issue presenting a united front, but if not then he’s being dishonest too. He’s certainly misrepresented my argument many, many times, despite my attempts to correct him. He _constantly_ makes claims about what I believe that are false. > [@](#): > > I don’t know that these are irrelevant, being that they’re central to his case But they’re irrelevant to any case about the genes for intelligence among black people. Do you disagree? > [@](#): > > and a lot of posters have either downplayed or outright denied them. Like who? To be honest, it certainly seems like you’re looking at **CP** ’s posts in a favorable light, and overlooking his many, many errors, while going through his opponents’ posts with a fine tooth comb, looking for anything that it might be possible to interpret negatively. And, at least with what you’ve said about my posts, you continue to walk it back – maybe this is a sign that you’re interpreting these posts with some biases that you’re unaware of? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/551 "2014-07-21T21:02:33Z")
**FP** , you’ve admitted you interpreted my mockery of **CP** ’s ‘cockroach’ statement wrongly. And you’ve interpreted **Airbeck’s** argument wrongly. So far, it seems that every time you’re challenged on these criticisms, you back down. Maybe your interpretation is just as problematic, or more so, as many of these arguments your criticizing. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/552 "2014-07-21T21:14:57Z")
Straightforward and simple question: Are we to believe that all races and ethnicities have equal average IQ? Yes? No? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/553 "2014-07-21T21:46:42Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Straightforward and simple question: Are we to believe that all races and ethnicities have equal average IQ? > > Yes? > > No? The test results show wide variation in IQ scores. But that’s not what’s being debated here. I’m refuting the claim that the evidence shows that black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average. I refute this chiefly because we have pretty much zero data about the genes for intelligence among black people. I also assert that such a claim about the genes of black people is a racist claim. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/554 "2014-07-21T21:55:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ve said no genetic evidence. But how is the evidence for a conclusion about genes “inconclusive” rather than (mostly) “nonexistent” if we know nothing about the genes in question (in this case, black people’s genes for intelligence)? I don’t think you’ve always used the term “genetic evidence” and even if you did, that itself is a red herring. If I see the ground it wet outside that’s evidence that it may have rained, even if I’ve not seen it raining and even if I can’t rule out the possibility that the sprinkler was on. And so on. > [@](#): > > He’s certainly misrepresented my argument many, many times, despite my attempts to correct him. He _constantly_ makes claims about what I believe that are false. I’ve actually looked around a bit and you appear to be correct about this. From what I can tell you’ve been pretty consistent in saying that there could be genetic variations between groups but that there’s no evidence for it. So I agree with you that CP is distorting your position WRT this matter. > [@](#): > > But they’re irrelevant to any case about the genes for intelligence among black people. Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. Because they’re a necessary component of any genetic variation theory. > [@](#): > > Like who? There’s been an enormous amount of material posted on this subject here, but [here’s one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16858111&postcount=114) > [@](#): > > And, at least with what you’ve said about my posts, you continue to walk it back – maybe this is a sign that you’re interpreting these posts with some biases that you’re unaware of? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **FP** , you’ve admitted you interpreted my mockery of **CP** ’s ‘cockroach’ statement wrongly. And you’ve interpreted **Airbeck’s** argument wrongly. So far, it seems that every time you’re challenged on these criticisms, you back down. Maybe your interpretation is just as problematic, or more so, as many of these arguments your criticizing. The real truth is that I don’t know for sure. Sometimes people offer reinterpretations of their words and you can look back and see that these are clearly bogus and they’re just weaseling and sometimes you can’t tell. In these cases, I agree that it’s possible that you meant what you now say so I’m not going to keep arguing my case. But I’m not at the point of making any sort of deductions from the fact that I misinterpreted your words incorrectly. It’s also possible that you’re the one walking back your words 🙂 That said, it’s very difficult for any person to conclusively rule out the possibility that they may be biased about things, because their bias might be influencing this judgment as well. So who knows. (And while we’re at it, maybe the people who are biased are less likely to back down, not more. You never know. :)) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/555 "2014-07-21T22:06:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think you’ve always used the term “genetic evidence” and even if you did, that itself is a red herring. If I see the ground it wet outside that’s evidence that it may have rained, even if I’ve not seen it raining and even if I can’t rule out the possibility that the sprinkler was on. And so on. In this case, I don’t see how it’s reasonable at all to make claims about the genetics for intelligence of black people when we know so little about the genes for intelligence among black people. > [@](#): > > I’ve actually looked around a bit and you appear to be correct about this. From what I can tell you’ve been pretty consistent in saying that there could be genetic variations between groups but that there’s no evidence for it. So I agree with you that CP is distorting your position WRT this matter. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you criticize **CP** the next time he does this. > [@](#): > > Yes, I disagree. Because they’re a necessary component of any genetic variation theory. It’s irrelevant to my refutation of his claims, yet he continues to bring it up. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/556 "2014-07-21T22:53:03Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s not my theory, it’s a fact. > > The Apartheid government grouped people on cultural and historic lines, they didn’t cluster people based on appearance except in ambiguous edge cases. And [even then](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_%28South_Africa%29) they used cartoonish tests that were only specific to the local populations and had fuck all to do with genes (no-one with a jewfro would pass that test, never mind the completely non-African Australian natives)You can _try_ argument by assertion if you like, but I’ve got some Andamese who say you’re full of shit. “Races” cluster by appearance only if you define “dark, lippy and curly” as a race. Which I suppose _is_ what you do, if your cites are to be believed. But that’s hardly a scientific classification, now is it? > > But by all means, tell me more about how the regime that [classified](https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/602970_184182795091732_315927774_n.jpg) Taiwanese as “White”, Mainland Chinese as “Coloured”, Japanese as “White”, Indonesians as “Coloured” , Filipinos as “Black”, Koreans as “White”, Pakistanis as “Coloured” and only Indians as “Asian” had _anything_ to do with science in their approach to grouping. > > What’s next? Going to parade phrenology as a cutting-edge scientific classification system? > > So which “appearance types” are those, then? It’s clearly not dark, with curly hair. Unless your definition of “cluster” is as fucked-up as your grasp of genetic separation. > > Wait, I know, it’s blonde hair and blue eyes as a combo, isn’t it? That combo is a perennial favourite with … you people. I wonder why? You appear to be arguing either that: 1. Blacks as a group do not have a “typical” appearance that–on average–creates a perception on the part of others that they are “black.” If that’s what you are arguing, make sure you aren’t one of those people who thinks blacks are treated differently just because the observer thinks they “look” black. But a lot of racist history would disagree with you. or 1. There aren’t gene clusters driving appearance differences among self-identified race groups. If that’s what you are arguing, I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to understand genes and clustering. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/557 "2014-07-21T23:24:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s been an enormous amount of material posted on this subject here, but [here’s one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16858111&postcount=114) The post to which you link has this introductory comment: "Right now, there’s no evidence even that intelligence has a genetic component, to the best of my knowledge. No gene has been identified that marks for any influence on intelligence, with the exception of serious mental illnesses or disabilities, and we’re not discussing those to this point in the thread. " This is really one of the stupidest and most ignorant comments I’ve seen. The scientific literature has long accepted that intelligence has a very high hereditary component. (Genes). I’ve already posted here in this lame thread a cite for one of the genes governing gray matter thickness, linked to intelligence. A single C for T substitution in HMGA2 has been linked to a 2% difference in intelligence. I posted in this thread a nice Princeton review by Gray and Thompson on some of the genes related to brain function. But in general, even a casual lay reading of the literature shows it is rife with papers demonstrating the importance of genes in every area of biology. The idea–even without specific examples–that brain function would somehow be exempted from functions such as muscle power, bone density, 0xygen exchange, toxin handling and so on is just pollyannish wishful thinking that mother nature has wired us all the same. It takes more than the three synapses iiandyiiii has to process the concepts, and given his recent foray into confusing what a cockroach is, I’m not that interested in patiently explaining to him yet again what the basic problem is. But it’s actually quite simple. 1. Almost any large human population grouping–including self identified races–has any number of observed outcome differences that follow a very consistent pattern across all systems 2. Any number of studies show genes clustering by populations, including self-identified race groups 3. Every anthropologist in the world accepts a basic tenet of migratory patterns that isolates human populations to a substantial enough extent that genetic clustering for descendant populations is not only likely, but inevitable 4. Physiologic differences, appearance differences and disease differences from abnormal genes all support the idea that gene frequencies differ at the level of self-identified race groupings 5. Many studies, including the one by Wang that I cited earlier, suggest genes that cluster have undergone Darwinian selection–that is, they were positively selected for, and this is strong support for the idea that genes differ in substantial ways and not just trivial ways. 6. As additional examples, MCPH1 variants and CDK5RAP2 variants have been shown to be linked with brain size and structure, and the haplogroup D variant of MCPH1 is so penetrated in non-african populations that anything but positive selection seems highly unlikely. 7. Given the introgression of Neandertal genes into post-african migratory groups, it isn’t even accurate to pretend we all got our genes from 200,000 years ago; that evidence pushes non-sub-saharan group gene pools back another few hundred thousand years, in contrast with modern sub-saharans. All this and much much more makes it a non-credible hypothesis that “races” share the same genes, or that the disparate genes among those races have not evolved in the tens of thousands of years since an L0-L1 post-africa split… Every study that comes out about genes and intelligence and brain function simply adds one more nail to the egalitarian idea that all groups are the same. There’s not a parallel anywhere in nature that says they should be, and the idea that humans somehow are exempted from the laws of nature is a backward Creationist hope which is dying in the face of modern gene study. And of course, at a practical level, the inequalities in outcome persist stubbornly, always showing the same pattern across every system… Were it not for the flinging around of “racist” and “eugenics” and the drivel from those of iiandyiiii’s ilk, we would have long since moved beyond pretending that races are biologically equal, on average, even for brain function. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/558 "2014-07-21T23:28:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Thank you. I look forward to seeing you criticize **CP** the next time he does this. You have continued with your mantra that there is “zero evidence” for genes as a substantive reason for observed intelligence outcomes among race-based groups. Controversial? Maybe, and certainly so, politically. Zero evidence? You need a few more neurons, or at least more synapses for the two or three you have. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/559 "2014-07-21T23:37:37Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The post to which you link has this introductory comment: > "Right now, there’s no evidence even that intelligence has a genetic component, to the best of my knowledge. No gene has been identified that marks for any influence on intelligence, with the exception of serious mental illnesses or disabilities, and we’re not discussing those to this point in the thread. " > > This is really one of the stupidest and most ignorant comments I’ve seen. It should be noted that that poster later backed off that assertion. Though there were others who have said things along the same lines (honesty in particular springs to mind). > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You have continued with your mantra that there is “zero evidence” for genes as a substantive reason for observed intelligence outcomes among race-based groups. > > Controversial? Maybe, and certainly so, politically. > > Zero evidence? You need a few more neurons, or at least more synapses for the two or three you have. Notwithstanding all this, it does appear correct that iiandyii accepts that there are genetic differences between populations. For example, he would presumably agree with the first five items in your previous post. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519/560 "2014-07-21T23:40:45Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You have continued with your mantra that there is “zero evidence” for genes as a substantive reason for observed intelligence outcomes among race-based groups. Zero evidence that black people have inferior genes for intelligence? Yep. Zero (or near zero) data about black people’s genes for intelligence. > [@](#): > > Controversial? Maybe, and certainly so, politically. And rejected by all major scientific journals and organizations (again, I’m talking about your claims about the genes for intelligence among black people). > [@](#): > > Zero evidence? You need a few more neurons, or at least more synapses for the two or three you have. Zero evidence about the genes of black people for intelligence, which you’ve admitted – you don’t know which genes are involved in intelligence for black people… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-racist-warning-signs/692519.md?page=29)