# At what level is racialism accepted in the scientific community? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257 "2014-08-10T18:55:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/101 "2014-08-12T16:52:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, I’ve paid attention and no one has ever made that argument. > > Interesting this is that you’ve probably paid attention too, and should know better. But you have other reasons for making this claim (as does the OP). Your lack of attention is not strange, because otherwise you would realize that you are indirectly defending scientific racists. And Nativists too, sorry but you do not have the previous experience I had with those fellows. Since nowhere they claimed that they denounce or stooped using sources like V-DARE it is really naive to claim that their intentions are no longer on pushing for societal solutions that do assume determinism. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/102 "2014-08-12T16:59:56Z")
> [@rsa](#): > > With all of your links I don’t understand why you are defending this one. > > I ask you, **Did Golub make any reference ANYWHERE that his summary was not of the _entire_ debate?** > > He states at the beginning _“After a brief introduction by Liebow, Fuentes began the discussion.”_ > > Then later, _“This is the point at which Wade’s connection went on the fritz, so Liebow invited Fuentes to talk about geographic drift.”_ > > Later still: _“Wade then rejoined the conversation and turned to the topic of the definition of a race.”_ > > And finally,_“And with that the session ended.”_ > > If you can’t agree that this is deceptive and unprofessional, then I don’t care one whit about anything else you have to say. Good lord. Stop. Just stop. 1. That is an pitch perfect description of what happened. [Out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=42m00s). [In](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=49m18s). 2. Golub summarizes the debate (talks in third person, etc), and says > [@](#): > > I’ve occasionally cleaned up speech, but the quotations here are as direct as we could manage He doesn’t need anything else. Your slings to his character are **unwarranted**. > [@](#): > > I would expect any debater to “take his opponent to task for almost everything” and vice versa. It doesn’t prove one or the other is right or wrong. Well, yes. Fuentes out preforming Wade shows the weakness in Wade’s racialism. > [@](#): > > Why do you not address that “assum[ing] that what you know is true, and explain[ing] away all contradictory evidence” is not a fair criticism. Your saying so, does not make it so. And why must you continue to raise the creationist strawman when no has called anyone that. That’s a direct quote from Wade: [36:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=36m18s) > [@](#): > > Seems like everybody has a different definition of “racialism”. It doesn’t seem like anyone here is arguing for “determinism” so I guess that is just another strawman in your barn along with the other muck. The “muck” is what is being peddled by the bullshitting racialists. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/103 "2014-08-12T17:18:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your post was self-contradictory, in that you said “piss-poor” but you also said “There’s no such correlation”. Yes, _mea maxima culpa_. I used the “no correlation” shorthand which any working scientist would understand meant “no _statistically significant_ correlation”. My bad. > [@](#): > > Based on context, I assumed the “There’s no such correlation” was what you meant. Well, of course you did…far be it for you to ask me to elaborate. > [@](#): > > You’re weaseling yourself here. Your claim that “we all know when something is said to be correlated, the implication is a strong correlation” is absolute nonsense. Ok. The _rest of us_ know what the implication is. > [@](#): > > As it happens, what we’re talking about here is a pretty weak correlation. Actually, until you can show us some numbers, we can’t say whether the correlation is weak, as you seem to think, or non-existent, as **Blake** said. I was leaning more towards “piss-poor” correlation when I made my initial post. On rethink, I’m inclined to say “No correlation whatsoever” is going to be closer to the truth. Unless you have some actual statistical measures that say different? > [@](#): > > The claim that what we’re talking about is strong correlation is a bogus strawman invented by you and others on your side of this debate Woo-hoo! Not just a strawman. A _bogus_ strawman. Wait, doesn’t that mean it’s not a real strawman at all? Why, yes, yes it does. And it’s not a strawman, to point out what the obvious intention is behind saying things are correlated. _Nobody_ uses it to weaken their own argument, If someone said “well, we can see this is very weakly correlated with that…” they’d just get laughed out of the debate. Especially when a [_much_ stronger correlation](http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/sickle_01.html) is pointed out immediately. So pretending that **Chronos** was saying there was a weak correlation is disingenuous, as far as I’m concerned. > [@](#): > > , so that you can refute it by pointing to variation within populations and/or among subgroups (as you do here). Who’s talking about variation _within_ anything? The global variation is the issue. _That’s_ what refutes any _significant_ ( mustn’t forget that, lest I inadvertently strawman someone bogusly :rolleyes:) correlation between skin colour and sickle cell. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/104 "2014-08-12T18:13:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Actually, until you can show us some numbers, we can’t say whether the correlation is weak, as you seem to think, or non-existent, as **Blake** said. I was leaning more towards “piss-poor” correlation when I made my initial post. On rethink, I’m inclined to say “No correlation whatsoever” is going to be closer to the truth. > > Unless you have some actual statistical measures that say different? I am not going to argue about the numbers for sickle cell (which I don’t know, anyway). But in general, if X% of “whites” have the gene for sickle cell and X% plus Y% of blacks do, then that’s some correlation, for all values of Y other than 0. The extreme of completely correlated would mean that X is 0 and Y is 100. Obviously nobody is claiming anything close to that. Which is why I said the only claim being discussed here is a weak correlation. And a similar possibility is what’s being contemplated WRT the intelligence question as well. Unlike the “blacks iz dumb” or “determinism” that your ilk would like to pretend. > [@](#): > > And it’s not a strawman, to point out what the obvious intention is behind saying things are correlated. _Nobody_ uses it to weaken their own argument, If someone said “well, we can see this is very weakly correlated with that…” they’d just get laughed out of the debate. Especially when a [_much_ stronger correlation](http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/sickle_01.html) is pointed out immediately. This has no meaning in context, particularly the last sentence. I return to my previous statement. You do not understand what correlation means. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/105 "2014-08-12T18:20:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I am not going to argue about the numbers for sickle cell (which I don’t know, anyway). > > But in general, if X% of “whites” have the gene for sickle cell and X% plus Y% of blacks do, then that’s some correlation, for all values of Y other than 0. But this will all depend on how “blacks” and “whites” are defined. If ‘whites’ are Sicilians, and ‘blacks’ are Australian Aborigines, then ‘whites’ have a greater correlation with sickle cell. If ‘whites’ are Europeans + Turks + Arabs + Persians, and ‘blacks’ are people in Africa, India, Australia, and various islands with skin with a reflectance-level darker than X value, then the correlation might be different. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/106 "2014-08-12T18:29:32Z")
Of course. That’s obvious. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/107 "2014-08-12T18:39:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes, _mea maxima culpa_. I used the “no correlation” shorthand which any working scientist would understand meant “no _statistically significant_ correlation”. My bad. I’d probably avoid talking about statistical significance and concentrate more on practical significance. Statistical significance is a function of sample size, and given that we are talking about potentially billions of people Even the slightest whiff of a correlation can be statistically significant. In actuality, due to within group genetic correlations and random chance, it is likely that there is some slight difference between racial groups (however you choose to define them) and any given characteristic. However the size of this difference is likely to be an order of magnitude or two less than the random variation within the racial groups. What you really want to concentrate on is the added predictive value that race gives you in determining a characteristic in a given individual. In general you will find that it gives you bupkis. So with possibly a few exceptions, there is no value in looking at a persons race when making any evaluation about them. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/108 "2014-08-12T18:40:14Z")
Yes, I’m quite aware that skin color isn’t the strongest correlation one can use to predict incidence of sickle cell. The correlation between skin color and sickle cell is because both skin color and sickle cell are correlated with latitude, and either of those correlations is stronger than the correlation between color and sickle cell. But that doesn’t mean that the correlation is statistically insignificant, and it certainly doesn’t mean it’s weak. If you showed me a lineup of ten randomly-selected people drawn from the entire population of the planet, and asked me if any of them had sickle-cell… well, the best answer I could give would be “no”, because it’s not that common in any population. But if you told me that one of them did have sickle-cell, and asked me which one, I would guess the one with the darkest skin (who is more likely to be African than Australian, just by the numbers), and I would have a greater than 10% chance of being right. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/109 "2014-08-12T18:45:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Of course. That’s obvious. > > What’s your point? The same can apply to any attempts to correlate being ‘black’ or ‘white’ and higher test scores. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/110 "2014-08-12T18:56:45Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I’d probably avoid talking about statistical significance and concentrate more on practical significance. Statistical significance is a function of sample size, and given that we are talking about potentially billions of people Even the slightest whiff of a correlation can be statistically significant. The strength of a correlation and the statistical significance, as discussed here, are separate but related matters. (Mr. Dibble is confused about this, among other things.) Statistical significance is about the strength of the correlation in a given sample being used as a test, and depends on both the strength of the correlation and the sample size as you say. But beyond testing, the strength of the correlation is a measure of relationship in and of itself. For example, if you took a given sample size and found an r-squared value of .8, that would be a pretty good indicator that there was some correlation for a decent sized sample. Whereas a value of .05 might not. But even beyond establishing whether there is or is not any sort of correlation, there is also a difference between strong and weak corrrelations even if the actual value is known. So even if you sampled every person in the world about some correlation, and there was no issue of “statistical significance”, there would still be a difference between r-squared values of .8 and .05 in terms of the relationship of the two values. ISTM that you’ve conflated the two issues as well in saying " _given that we are talking about potentially billions of people Even the slightest whiff of a correlation can be statistically significant_". This only makes sense if we’re talking about a test that was run on billions of people. But this has not been done, and anyway if it was you would know the actual answer and wouldn’t be concerned about statistical significance. > [@](#): > > What you really want to concentrate on is the added predictive value that race gives you in determining a characteristic in a given individual. In general you will find that it gives you bupkis. So with possibly a few exceptions, there is no value in looking at a persons race when making any evaluation about them. That depends what else you know about the individual. (In addition, it could also be relevant on a broader level for public health efforts, or marketing campaigns.) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The same can apply to any attempts to correlate being ‘black’ or ‘white’ and higher test scores. That’s equally obvious. Again, what’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/111 "2014-08-12T18:59:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IMO, this is an indicator, if any was needed, of the extent to which the anti-racialists on this board view the issue through political lenses. > > Most of Wade’s points (to the extent that your list is accurate), and much of what is criticized in your links, are not what has been supported by the “racial” side of these discussions. And yet, to you it’s all the same “black iz dumb” argument, and any attack on Wade is an attack on anyone that you’ve been able to identify with the “blacks iz dumb” crowd. > > One other general note: the 6th point is that scientists are intimated from speaking the truth about this. If this is correct, then you can’t refute Wade by pointing out that reaction in the scientific community is overwhelmingly negative, since it follows that those who support him will be silent. And another result will be that some of the scientists whose work Wade relies most heavily on will be particularly quick to disassociate themselves from him, lest they themselves be tarred as well. (In particular, I’m thinking there may be some scientists whose work is kind of close to the edge WRT these matters, and they really _really_ need to fly under the radar and not be held up as supporters of political pariah theories in popular books on the subject.) > > So then, the key question is: how plausible is the notion that genetic racial differences might be a political hot potato such that many scientists would be intimidated at the prospect of being identified with it? Personally, I find it highly plausible. So I don’t find this type of reaction adds much. (And that’s even leaving aside the circular “No True Scotsman” angle, in defining who counts as a scientist.) I agree. The opening list of Wade’s supposed position is highly slanted insofar as ‘white/asian peaceful’ v ‘black violent’, and then it hardly disproves Wade point that the ‘scientific community’ (at least in its public statements) fears the truth about race to show that many jumped all over Wade. Although it doesn’t prove Wade’s point either. I view it as a litmus test of reasonableness to admit that in the current political environment there’s a very high risk of being smeared as a public figure if you appear to entertain as plausible any connection between racial genetics and…really anything except appearance characteristics, if that. It’s certainly not ‘disproved’ that there might be more significance to race in general and on average (how each individual is to be treated is a different topic). Perhaps it will be disproved, and then everything will work out very nicely and comfortably, no uncomfortable truths at all. But if one claims the ferocious response people like Wade and Murray get is all because those authors ‘ignored scientific fact’ one is naive or dishonest. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/112 "2014-08-12T18:59:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s equally obvious. > > Again, what’s your point? Because you’ve said that there is a correlation between being ‘black’ and having lower test scores (IIRC) or having sickle cell. So I pointed out that, depending on how ‘black’ and ‘white’ are defined, these correlations can be in any direction we choose. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/113 "2014-08-12T19:03:15Z")
I still don’t see any significance. Of course you can change the values by changing the definition. But you can’t change the values for a given definition. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/114 "2014-08-12T19:10:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I still don’t see any significance. > > Of course you can change the values by changing the definition. But you can’t change the values for a given definition. Because ‘black’ and ‘white’ are so poorly (and inconsistently) defined, such correlations are pretty meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/115 "2014-08-12T19:13:42Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Good lord. Stop. Just stop. > > 1. That is an pitch perfect description of what happened. [Out](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=42m00s). [In](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=49m18s). What does the time when Wade was disconnected have to do with what I said? Golub wrote “~here it starts~ [summary] ~here it ends~” That was the point. > [@](#): > > That’s a direct quote from Wade: [36:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90tJ7w6rwvk#t=36m18s) [re: creationisn comment] I said: “It doesn’t seem like anyone here is arguing for `determinism`…” ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/116 "2014-08-12T19:13:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Because ‘black’ and ‘white’ are so poorly (and inconsistently) defined, such correlations are pretty meaningless. OK, we finally disagree about something. If the categories are poorly and inconsistently defined then the correlations (to the extent that they exist, in a given case) will be imprecise. They won’t be meaningless. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/117 "2014-08-12T19:15:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, we finally disagree about something. > > If the categories are poorly and inconsistently defined then the correlations (to the extent that they exist, in a given case) will be imprecise. They won’t be meaningless. Imprecise, and useless for trying to answer a question like “why do self-identified African Americans score lower on tests than other groups”. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/118 "2014-08-12T19:18:22Z")
The second doesn’t follow from the first. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/119 "2014-08-12T19:25:25Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The second doesn’t follow from the first. Considering the arbitrary definitions, it follows logically. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257/120 "2014-08-12T19:26:54Z")
No it doesn’t. We’ll have to leave it at that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-level-is-racialism-accepted-in-the-scientific-community/695257.md?page=7)