There’s a correlation between sickle cell and ancestry in regions with a high risk for malaria. You can split people from those regions into multiple racial groups, and some of them aren’t all that dark- although of course that depends on what you consider dark. I don’t think most people consider that racialist and it seems to me it’s the exact opposite.
Tell me - based on your “correlation”, would you say the incidence of sickle cell in Australian Aborigines is? And New Guinea Highlanders? Southern African Xhosa (ethnographically and genetically much, much closer to West Africans than, say Sicilians or Gulf Staters)?
There’s no such correlation. The correlation is strongly between geographic malaria occurence and sickle cell. But since skin colour doesn’t share the same geographic distribution as malaria (being latitudinal not continental), the correlation there is piss-poor.
Much smaller groupings are becoming increasingly common. We have the tech and awareness now to see race-level lumping as unnecessary. Even counter-productive.
ISTM that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “correlation”. It’s not all or nothing, and something which is weakly correlated is still correlated.
Assuming you mean #3 and #4 from the OP’s list, I would say its oversimplification to the point of distortion. As noted, he steers clear of IQ as a general trait – though he does get a bit into whether specific types of intelligence are selected differently in different conditions.
The OP also makes Wade sound a lot more confident than he comes across to me in print, where he tries to separate what is solid from what is speculation.
That sounds suspiciously like “he’s saying something that reminds me of something else, and I don’t like the something else, so I don’t like this.”
And aside from the specifics of this issue, yes, there is a major distinction between “all members of group X have trait Y” and " members of group X are statistically more likely to have a trait Y"
Oh there’s a difference, but it’s still racist to say black people are ‘statistically more likely to have genes for lower intelligence’, just like it’s still bigoted to say (for example) ‘Jews are statistically more likely to have genes for greed and dishonesty’. And not only racist, but false and unsupported by the evidence, of course.
Golub didn’t “carefully summariz[e]” anything. His intern carefully transcribed the debate.
A casual (although less casual than yours apparently) reading of the 16 comments following the transcription hardly shows the evisceration of Wade’s position that you imply.
In reply to a comment on this statement by Wade:
“Race is just a reflection of recent human evolution, and to deny it puts you in the category of creationism.”
Golub had this to say:
I also found these comments informative:
And this reply:
In my opinion there is a societal taboo which prevents any sober discussion of the issue.
Orcenio posted pages and pages of sober discussion at the start of this thread. Are you having difficulty following these discussions, or do you just disagree with their conclusions?
You’re merely inventing disagreements.
- Yes, its a summary of the 1 hour webinar. Yes, his intern did most of the work.
- Yes, Fuentes destroyed all of Wade’s points.
- Any rational reading of Golub doesn’t point to him calling Fuentes a “creationist”, but mocking Wade for making that call.
- Your faith in the truthiness of the first part of this comment: “Wade’s argument has two components: that meaningful genetic differences between regions exist, and that these differences are responsible for some important regional differences in intelligence and behaviour” is laughable.
Wade uses 5 races, not “regions”, not “geographic populations”. Race. Race. Race. Race. What do you think we are criticizing? human genetic variation based on small population…or friggin “blacks iz dum” You trying to “clean up the message” in order to deflect criticism is transparent.
To tell the truth, Wade uses everything from race, region, population, or whatever to describe “genetic behavioural differences” (about “the races”). It was this basic disregard to rigour which cause Fuentes to write
No. Not counting the initial links directly related to the debate he posted 26 links to articles and such. As I recall the SDMB is not intended for posting a bunch of links and then saying read these, they prove I’m right. That’s not a debate. The OP did not propose any debate at all; he simply provided a bibliography of links representing his beliefs. Even if this thread has now turned into a bit of a debate I’m not going to go read 26 sources as a prerequisite to participating.
With commentary. Not just links, commentary (for half of them at least). The volume merely serves to show how crazy the racialists are to claim legitimacy among scientists; the debate is explained as a continuation of the linked pit thread.
Wasn’t that many decades ago that the shape of different “races” skulls were measured to give credence that sort of racism. All humans are capable of interbreeding so therefore there is just one race the human race.
Anyone want to know just how insane racialists in this debate get? Check out Wade’s reply to the 144 population geneticists who claim that Wade perverts their own research.
[QUOTE=Nick Wade]
This letter is driven by politics, not science. I am confident that most of the
signatories have not read my book and are responding to a slanted summary
devised by the organizers.
[/QUOTE]
I assume the authors would have (at least) read the parts where they were cited. Also, one wonders why Wade would even cite authors who are so easily corruptible by politics? The conspiracy continues…
Do we remember The Bell Curve from 20 years ago or so?
Just you’re being clear: is your position that
-
There is not definitive proof of a genetic explantion for racial differences. (Though it is possible that such evidence may emerge at some future time). This is the position you seemed to argue in the Pit Thread.
-
There* is *definitive proof that observed racial differences are *not *genetically based, not even partially.
Or something else? Please be specific.
Wade’s position is – I think, and perhaps I am misreading him – is essentially #1. He’s not contending the evidence is in that definitively say that this or that group is more or less possessed of a propensity to this or that trait – but that the findings of genetics make it extremely likely that groups do indeed have some traits.
To pick one specifically: in chapter 3, he discusses research into one specific genetic sequence that has been strongly linked to aggression. In one study, 5% of African-Americans have the sequence, but only 0.1% of Caucasians do. He goes on to clarify that that’s not definitive of more African-Americans having genetics that make them more likely to be aggressive, because there are multiple other genes that have also been linked to aggression, and likely even more that we haven’t yet identified. It’s possible there are twenty other genes for aggressiveness that Caucasians possess and others don’t … but that it would be highly improbable for multiple populations, all evolving under different conditions, to somehow reach some kind of perfect equilibrium so that in during the exact moment of evolutionary history that we find ourselves in, each of the human population groups had exactly the same level of aggressiveness.
Again: Wade’s point is not that we know, specifically, what all the traits are for all the population groups; his point is that just the evidence is mounting that groups are indeed likely to have traits, and the claim that race is nothing but a social construct is increasingly untenable.
At which point my eyes glaze over and I start to loll back in my seat. If your argument involves an appeal to some massive conspiracy or “PC censorship” to explain why none of the experts are on your side, it’s a lousy argument and you should feel bad for making it! Full stop! This is simply not how scientific inquiry works, no matter what bigots and denialists want to claim! It’s the same bogus excuse given for all pseudoscientific crap that finds no support. “Oh, it’s just being suppressed”. Okay, well, prove it! Don’t just sit there flinging incredibly nasty allegations at essentially the entire scientific profession you belong to.
fumes
Sorry, some things just make me mad. Like racism. And anti-science bullshit. And how much racism *is *anti-science bullshit. This is yet another stupid troll (the author of the book in question; the OP is well-written, well-sourced and not at all what I was expecting when I opened this thread, and I appreciate that 
) making the same long-debunked arguments that, from a perspective of human genetics, make no sense whatsoever.
[ol]
[li]I see it is paraphrased more than I recalled from first reading it. I don’t see any mention by Golub at all that it was not a complete description of the entire debate. [/li]
So Golub paraphrased what his intern transcribed, decided which parts to include, and then implied that his “summary” was of the entire debate. I am not endorsing Wade by any means, but Golub has three strikes right there.
[li]“Fuentes destroyed all of Wade’s points.” [/li]What? Did you read all of the 16 comments following Golub’s summary? There seem to be a variety of views there with refreshingly little of the obtusiveness I see here. If you tell me that those comments support your claim that all of Wade’s comments were destroyed by Fuentes, then I would have to say that would reek of either ignorance or mendacity.
[li]Nobody said that Golub called Fuentes a creationist. Golub explained what he thought Wade meant: “that both Fuentes and creationists make the same epistemic move: assume that what you know is true, and explain away all contradictory evidence.” I don’t know if Golub agrees with that or not but it is a fair criticism. [/li]
[li]Not sure what you’re getting at here, but since you’re the OP and you’ve defined the debate as “argue for ‘blacks iz dum’” I guess I’ll bow out.[/li][/ol]
P.S. I see that the pit thread that apparently inspired this thread is 28 pages long. I haven’t read any of that, so don’t know the prior history.
Hey, I’m right there with you. I hate willful ignorance of science, Racism (capital R), and especially lying (politics anyone?) Regarding this subject, I’m wierd I guess. That chokehold homicide of that guy selling cigarettes in New York – I saw the video right after it happened and that was pure out and out murder. The guy didn’t resist at all. Even though I see racism and discrimination, I am frustrated by a topic like this since it seems to be a bunch of black and white (no pun) arguments and cites being thrown back and forth. All smoke and little light. :smack: