# Australian Aborigines and Memory **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2001, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793 "2001-04-21T18:20:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/1 "2001-04-21T18:20:53Z")
(I meant to post something like this in the GQ thread on race, but it was closed as I wrote, and I lost a half hour worth of work. So here’s a briefer version of it.) [Here](http://www.smh.com.au/news/0012/03/features/features2.html) is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, which originally appeared in the London Sunday Telegraph, about a recent study of recall abilities in Australian Aborigines. According to the article, Clive Harper, a professor of pathology in Sydney, has found “that the visual cortex - the part of the brain used in processing and interpreting visual information - was about 25pc larger in Aborigines than in Caucasians. He also found that they had many more nerve cells.” Needless to say, this research is very controversial. As I’ve been informed many times in the recent GQ thread about race and intelligence, “race” is not even a valid biological concept, and it’s not even _possible_ for different ethnic groups to have differing intelligence, much less true. Now, this is just a newspaper article, not a scientific one. But I’d like to ask a few questions about it. 1. Are such findings even _possible_? Or are they as absurd as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5? 2. Assuming that Harper’s research is valid, what do you make of it? 3. If Harper had done the exact same research, but had instead found that Australian aborigines and caucasians had exactly identical recall ability and visual cortex size, do you think it would have been rejected? 4. Again, assuming the research to be accurate, might it be _possible_ that there might be differences in other mental faculties (such as perception or problem-solving) in other geographically distinct groups? If not, why not? I have held, and still hold–much to the chagrin of many SDMB members–that most modern scientists have an anti-racist bias. That is to say, that they are quite eager to reject any studies that find differences between certain groups of people. For example: > [@](#): > > Science journal editors “were anxious”, Harper explains, “that this was going to be seen as some form of discrimination - which I was very disappointed about”. Harper was even refused permission to outline his findings at a conference in the United States. Even the original research that demonstrated the Aborigines’ superior memory skills has been buried. > > The cause of the anxiety was - and is - simple: the fear that the detection of any physical difference in the brains of different racial groups leads straight to Auschwitz. > > The idea that there are inherent, genetic differences between the different racial groups’ mental abilities has about as bad a pedigree as it is possible to imagine. (from the article) or > [@](#): > > Because, of course, once you’ve proved scientifically that one race is inferior, the next logical step is to get rid of them, isn’t it? Geez. (from Duck Duck Goose, [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57167](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57167)) This all seems vaguely reminiscent of creationists arguing that “once you’ve proved that humans are just animals, the next logical step is getting rid of societal mores and acting like animals, isn’t it?” I’m not claiming that the article is necessarily correct. But we shouldn’t just dismiss it out of hand as many people want to do. So, fire away fighters of ignorance, and show me why it is that Harper’s data are fundamentally flawed, and not even sensical since “racial” classifications like “Australian Aborigine” and “caucasian” don’t even exist. P.S. Frankly, I’d love for research to demonstrate unequivocably that there are absolutely no differences of any kind in any sort of intellectual ability between various geographically distinct groups of humans. But my desire for this to be true does not change the fact that the veracity of that conclusion must be demonstrated by exhaustive research, not claims that believing otherwise is racist and deleterious to humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Amedeus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Amedeus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amedeus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/2 "2001-04-21T19:41:37Z")
Well, personally I don’t see how it is a “racial” difference. It could be merely a developmental thing rather than a genetic. If you use one part of the brain more, it develops more, if you don’t, that part of the brain does not develop to its fullest. Take a white baby, or black baby, or hispanic baby, or one of each, let them grow up in that enviroment, and see if that portion of the brain is as developed as the aboriginals. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/3 "2001-04-21T20:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > \*\* > > Needless to say, this research is very controversial. As I’ve been informed many times in the recent GQ thread about race and intelligence, “race” is not even a valid biological concept, and it’s not even _possible_ for different ethnic groups to have differing intelligence, much less true. > > Now, this is just a newspaper article, not a scientific one. But I’d like to ask a few questions about it. > > 1. Are such findings even _possible_? Or are they as absurd as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5? \*\* You can breed dogs, horses, cats, and cows to the point where certain traits are very common. I fail to see why it would be impossible to do something similiar with human beings. Granted there’s no evidence of a purposful breeding program but I don’t see why it isn’t possible for a group of isolated humans to have certain traits. Imagine if for the next 1,000 years we attempted to breed the ultimate track runner. I bet we could do it. Would he be genetically different? Nah, but his genes apparantly contain a different program then those hockey goalies we’d breed. Marc Marc ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2001, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/4 "2001-04-21T22:45:08Z")
Opus1 gets a pat on the back for his intellectual honesty. Good penguin. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/5 "2001-04-22T00:30:44Z")
Until there is a citation to follow through on, I’m afraid it’s hard to comment. (I did a literature search for other materials also, nada) His claims on why his article has been rejected are also impossible to evaluate although they strike me as unlikely. See below. Nonetheless, a few comments in general. (a) Until we know how the samples are taken and defined, it’s terribly difficult to know what populations we’re talking about (b) in the context of genetic data, and the fact of population mixing, even in good old Australia, leaping to race based conclusions seems highly suspect as © one has to address environmental effects. Further, > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > originally appeared in the London Sunday Telegraph, about a recent study of recall abilities in Australian Aborigines. According to the article, Clive Harper, a professor of pathology in Sydney, has found “that the visual cortex - the part of the brain used in processing and interpreting visual information - was about 25pc larger in Aborigines than in Caucasians. He also found that they had many more nerve cells.” > [@](#): > > Needless to say, this research is very controversial. As I’ve been informed many times in the recent GQ thread about race and intelligence, “race” is not even a valid biological concept, and it’s not even _possible_ for different ethnic groups to have differing intelligence, much less true. I do not recall you being informed it is not “possible” for different populations to have differing intelligence. What is true is (a) intelligence is both poorly understood and defined to the extent it is difficult to adequately describe scientifically (b) the only objective data we have is on environmental effects on expressed intelligence, allowing us to say with some confidence environment is clearly very important © given present knowledge of population genetics it would not appear likely or even possible for racial defined genetic differences to exist (d) population based genetic differences, in gross potential of course are another matter entirely, although one needs to consider this – like all genetic expression – in the context of the interplay between the genetic template and environment from conception to early childhood. > [@](#): > > 1. Are such findings even _possible_? Or are they as absurd as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5? Impossible to say from a fairly poorly written article in terms of science journalism. (E.g. the little girl is a wonderful journalistic device for human interest but utterly meaningless.) > [@](#): > > 1. Assuming that Harper’s research is valid, what do you make of it? One has to investigate how the presumed difference in the two populations occured. > [@](#): > > 1. If Harper had done the exact same research, but had instead found that Australian aborigines and caucasians had exactly identical recall ability and visual cortex size, do you think it would have been rejected? Why? I thought, in any case, that his research is in re the size of the visual cortex, not in re recall etc. He’s using this, per my understanding from the paper article, to explain observed strength in Aussie Aboriginal pops in re memory. However, to be frank, since my understanding is most pre-literate societies show strong memory capacities, this is not particularly unusual. > [@](#): > > 1. Again, assuming the research to be accurate, might it be _possible_ that there might be differences in other mental faculties (such as perception or problem-solving) in other geographically distinct groups? If not, why not? It is possible. You might be well-advised to read the citations and some of the discussions linked previously. > [@](#): > > I have held, and still hold–much to the chagrin of many SDMB members–that most modern scientists have an anti-racist bias. Insofar as racism is unscientific and depends on a priori beliefs, this is a good thing. > [@](#): > > That is to say, that they are quite eager to reject any studies that find differences between certain groups of people. Absolute rubbish. Go to the pit, follow the link in re Rushton, a clear racialist. He publishes away. If you have good data, a defensible hypothesis supported by that data and a properly theorized argument, you can publish. > [@](#): > > For example: > > > [@](#): > > > > Science journal editors “were anxious”, Harper explains, “that this was going to be seen as some form of discrimination - which I was very disappointed about”. Harper claims. He can claim anything he wants – hell no journals are even id’d here. So, on the basis of one man’s unsupported claim, you’re willing to come to the strong conclusion that somehow data is being suppressed. Just recently PNAS (Or was it Genome… memory fails me now) published an article which raised the possibility of a MREH type input into Aborigines, an argument no less controversial than this one if it could hold up to scrutiny. They got published. So, the argument is… Bullshit. > [@](#): > > This all seems vaguely reminiscent of creationists arguing that “once you’ve proved that humans are just animals, the next logical step is getting rid of societal mores and acting like animals, isn’t it?” No, not at all. > [@](#): > > I’m not claiming that the article is necessarily correct. But we shouldn’t just dismiss it out of hand as many people want to do. So, fire away fighters of ignorance, and show me why it is that Harper’s data are fundamentally flawed, and not even sensical since “racial” classifications like “Australian Aborigine” and “caucasian” don’t even exist. Well, may I be so bold as to note **we don’t have Harper’s data**? Not even a reaasonably good description of it or his research. As such it is quite impossible to critique it. Now, in re your second, misplaced sarcasm, may I once more invite you to trouble yourself to actually read the citations rather than making hand-waving arguments based on a year old and otherwise unsupported article? > [@](#): > > P.S. Frankly, I’d love for research to demonstrate unequivocably that there are absolutely no differences of any kind in any sort of intellectual ability between various geographically distinct groups of humans. But my desire for this to be true does not change the fact that the veracity of that conclusion must be demonstrated by exhaustive research, not claims that believing otherwise is racist and deleterious to humanity. Nice speech. Why not give some evidence of a reality behind the words by doing some reading? Otherwise I’m afraid I have to take this as mere posturing. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2001, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/6 "2001-04-22T07:28:31Z")
I’m curious to know precisely what population was studied too. Australian Aborigine does not equate with preliterate now. Did Harper study urban Aborigines or tribal Aborigines? Tribal Aborigines are likely to be literate in this day and age and very unlikely to living a traditional life. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Wind\_Chick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Autumn\_Wind\_Chick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Wind_Chick)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2001, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/7 "2001-04-22T12:58:38Z")
Opus, I would say of course it’s possible that different groups have different mental abilities - just use your common sense. Certainly, there are different groups with different physical abilities. And there is no a priori reason to draw a line between the physical and the mental and say that one can vary as between groups and the other cannot. Whether science is biased against such findings is harder to say, but if I were an aspiring scholar, I would be reluctant to propose studying any ethnic or racial differences. Too much risk of offending someone who could damage your career. Also, there is a group of “race-deniers” who are hell-bent on denying the existence of ethnic and racial differences no matter what the evidence. Who would want to tangle with these unhappy people as part of their professional life? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2001, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/8 "2001-04-22T15:16:56Z")
I see AWC once more adds content free participation. > [@](#): > > Certainly, there are different groups with different physical abilities. And there is no a priori reason to draw a line between the physical and the mental and say that one can vary as between groups and the other cannot. (a) There is an a priori reason to draw a line between the physical and mental presently – unlike many, if not all physical abilities we can not adequately test in an objective and unbiased manner mental abilities outside very gross ranges. The **phenomena** of intelligence is of a different **order** than physical, per our present understanding. (b) Of course again, variation between groups goes with all the caveats I have previously stated in prior threads which you can consult, noting (i) group variation does not mean ipso facto it is based on fixed or even aggregate genetic differences (ii) one must strictly and objectively define the populations in order to > [@](#): > > Whether science is biased against such findings is harder to say, but if I were an aspiring scholar, I would be reluctant to propose studying any ethnic or racial differences. Too much risk of offending someone who could damage your career. Rubbish. Motherfucking rubbish. All one has to do is define the study well, avoid clearly racist agendas and present data collected from well-theorized tests. I see tons of papers – many of which I have cited on this very board – which investigate population based variation, from a genetic basis. Claims to the contrary, such as this one are mere hand-waving barely worthy of the electrons used. [qutoe] Also, there is a group of “race-deniers” who are hell-bent on denying the existence of ethnic and racial differences no matter what the evidence. Who would want to tangle with these unhappy people as part of their professional life? [/quote] Second time you have mentioned these race deniers AWC: now a direct question to you (a) who are these so-called race deniers and what do you mean by the term (b) from whence do you derive your information, as you seem innocent of the genetic data which might permit one to comment in an intelligent, informed and non-ignorant manner. ---
**Author:** ![sjgouldrocks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@sjgouldrocks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjgouldrocks)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/9 "2001-04-22T19:17:29Z")
funny how you ASSUME physical differences between groups. let met guess - white men can’t jump? look, before you point your finger at the olympics or professional sports, let me remind you that nobody has convincingly shown that any of those differences are not PURELY cultural. ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/10 "2001-04-23T01:57:10Z")
> [@](#): > > funny how you ASSUME physical differences between groups. let met guess - white men can’t jump? look, before you point your finger at the olympics or professional sports, let me remind you that nobody has convincingly shown that any of those differences are not PURELY cultural. How many pygmies are there in the NBA? Is their shortness a cultural artifact, or genetic? What about the fact that virtually all the great long-distance runners come from Kenya, and from a very small geographic region in Kenya at that? Is there some sort of Kenyan culture, confined to a specific part of the country, that highly values marathon running, but not short distance running? Okay, just looked it up. The great Kenyan long-distance runners belong to the Kalenjin tribe. Apparently, they’re pretty good at medium-distance running as well (800m+), but they truly excel at the longer distances. Other tribes from the same region do not fair as well, even when living in remarkably similar environments. But linguistically related tribes from other parts of Africa are among their country’s running leaders as well. Cultural too, I suppose? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/11 "2001-04-23T03:23:59Z")
From the linked article: > [@](#): > > Against that background, it may not be surprising that most geneticists would rather work on something less controversial than the genetics of intelligence. But the work is, nevertheless, going on. Robert Plomin and Peter McGuffin, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, are two scientists who are trying to locate the genes for intelligence… Looking for Robert Plomin. Robert Plomin’s resume. [http://www.kcl.ac.uk/teares/researchProfiles/resPros\_pub/rplominiopkclacuk.html](http://www.kcl.ac.uk/teares/researchProfiles/resPros_pub/rplominiopkclacuk.html) As of last July, he was Deputy Director of the Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatric Research Department Institute of Psychiatry at the King’s College Denmark Hill Campus. > [@](#): > > Expertise > My interests focus on the interaction between nature(genetics) and nurture (environment) in the development of normal and abnormal behaviour. My research inmcludes quantitative genetic (twin and adoption) and molecular genetic (DNA) studies of cognitive and language development. So he is not a lab geek like Crick and Watson working on DNA on a technical level. He’s a psychiatry department chairperson. > **[Ideas & Trends: The Story of Us; The Other Secrets of the Genome...](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-story-of-us-the-other-secrets-of-the-genome.html)** > > Speculation about how new revelations regarding human genome may influence thinking about how genetics may contribute to human behavior, and sophisticated human endeavours like art and religion; photos (M) > [@](#): > > February 18, 2001 > THE STORY OF US > The Other Secrets of the Genome > By NICHOLAS WADE > BIOLOGISTS have taken their first look at the human genome and report that its 30,000 genes, though fewer than expected, will help decipher the genetic basis of many diseases and in time revolutionize medicine. But what will the genome tell us about human nature? > > \ > > “Nearly all human behaviors that have been studied show moderate to high heritability,” write Dr. Robert Plomin and colleagues at the London Institute of Psychiatry in a commentary in the current issue of Science. They believe that, in time, “the human genome sequence will revolutionize psychology and psychiatry.” > > Dr. Plomin, who discovered the first gene that affects human intelligence, describes the influence of genes on human behavior as “probabilistic rather than deterministic.” He is the editor of > **[netstoreusa.com domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com](http://netstoreusa.com/sabooks/071/0716728249.shtml)** > > netstoreusa.com - Make an Offer if you want to buy this domain. Your purchase is secured by Epik. > [@](#): > > Behavioral Genetics > By: Plomin, Robert (Edt)/ Defries, John C./ McClearn, Gerald E./ Rutter, m He is also the editor of > **[netstoreusa.com domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com](http://netstoreusa.com/pvbooks/155/1557983968.shtml)** > > netstoreusa.com - Make an Offer if you want to buy this domain. Your purchase is secured by Epik. > [@](#): > > Nature, Nurture, And Psychology > By: Editor Plomin, Robert // Editor Mcclearn, Gerald E. Now I’m looking for this Nicholas Wade factoid: > [@](#): > > _Dr. Plomin, who discovered the first gene that affects human intelligence…_ [http://www.luna.co.uk/~health/issues/hm130.htm](http://www.luna.co.uk/~health/issues/hm130.htm) > [@](#): > > A new pressure group has been formed to draw attention to the potentially damaging social and political effects of funding scientists to look for a genetic basis for IQ. > The group, called the Campaign for Real Intelligence, is asking the Medical Research Council not to support a search for ‘genes for intelligence’ without a full and open public debate on the issue. > The campaign has been formed in response to research proposed by Professor Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, to take DNA samples from 5000 pairs of twins with the aim of identifying a specific gene for intelligence. It follows in the wake of the recent controversy over the views of so-called ‘scientific racists’ who argue that there is a genetic basis for the difference in IQ scores observed in black and white populations. > > The group believes that Professor Plomin, who has recently moved to Britain from the US, would not have been able to obtain funding in that country in view of the extensive public debate which followed the publication of The bell curve, which purported to show a genetic basis to IQ test differences between ethnic groups, and argued that social and educational programmes to help children from low income families should therefore be withdrawn. All I can find under a Google search for “intelligence gene” that’s relevant is another article written by Nicholas Wade. [http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/chem227/nucleicfunction/transcription/sci-gene-intelligence.html](http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/chem227/nucleicfunction/transcription/sci-gene-intelligence.html) > [@](#): > > May 14, 1998 > Newly Found Gene May Be Key to High I.Q. > By NICHOLAS WADE > Psychologists using a new genetic technique have found a gene associated with high IQ The technique, they say, should help to identify several more of the many genes thought to affect human intelligence and personality. If the work is confirmed by other researchers, it would be the first time that a gene contributing to intelligence had been found. > > The gene was pinpointed by studying about 50 children whose SAT scores were equivalent to an IQ score of 160 or higher, and by comparing their DNA with children of average IQ > > The research, published in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science, was conducted by Dr. Robert Plomin, a leading American behavioral geneticist who works at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. His co-authors include Dr. David Lubinski and Dr. Camilla Benbow. Their talent search program, known as the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, supplied the test subjects. > > Plomin has sought to move the debate forward by arguing that if genes for intelligence exist it should be possible to track some of them down through the powerful new genetic scanning techniques that have recently become available. Searching through a small part of the human genome, the long arm of chromosome 6, he found that a particular variant of a certain gene was twice as common in his sample of children with ultra-high IQs than in those with average IQs The gene has a very small effect, accounting for about 2 percent of the variance, or four IQ points, Plomin said. > > So slight an effect would be expected in a trait influenced by many genes. There might be 50 or more genes affecting intelligence, experts say, and a person with a high IQ would have the favorable versions of only some of these genes. Only half the children with high IQs in Plomin’s study had the intelligence-promoting form of the gene he detected. I don’t see “Robert Plomin discovered the gene for human intelligence” anywhere. Back to the Sunday paper soft feature. > [@](#): > > “We have one very serious candidate for one of the genes involved in intelligence,” says McGuffin. “It’s on chromosome six, and it’s called IGF 2R.” A Google search for “IGF2R” turns up not a chromosome for intelligence, but a chromosome for “insulin growth factor 2R”. [http://www.bioscience.org/2000/v5/d/luvalle/fulltext.htm](http://www.bioscience.org/2000/v5/d/luvalle/fulltext.htm) > [@](#): > > The imprinted IGF-2 receptor ( also known as the cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate receptor, IGF-2R ) plays a role in IGF-2 turnover, thus effectively regulating the amount of IGF-2 available to the IGF-1 receptor. Mouse embryos that have null mutations in the maternal allele of the IGF-2R gene (Igf2-r) show fetal overgrowth, premature ossification and skeletal anomalies, and are perinatally lethal due to cardiac abnormalities and the inability to initiate or sustain respiration (12) (36, 37). ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/12 "2001-04-23T04:13:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > \*\*What about the fact that virtually all the great long-distance runners come from Kenya, and from a very small geographic region in Kenya at that? Is there some sort of Kenyan culture, confined to a specific part of the country, that highly values marathon running, but not short distance running? > > Okay, just looked it up. The great Kenyan long-distance runners belong to the Kalenjin tribe. Apparently, they’re pretty good at medium-distance running as well (800m+), but they truly excel at the longer distances. Other tribes from the same region do not fair as well, even when living in remarkably similar environments. But linguistically related tribes from other parts of Africa are among their country’s running leaders as well. Cultural too, I suppose? \*\* I read a long newspaper feature on this recently. The gist of it was that one runner from the Kalenjin tribe had done extremely well, became very much the tribe’s most admired hero, and caused middle and long distance running to become the number one aspiration amongst young people from his area. They and the government see it as a way out of poverty, and they compete fiercely for places in tough, well-funded (by African standards)training camps to become the greatest in this field. The article went on to discuss other nations and groups that had at various times dominated the sport, usually due to one member of that group or nation doing well and causing a wave of aspirants from the same background to do well subsequently. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/13 "2001-04-23T04:35:14Z")
I read the article linked to in the OP some time back, and the thought struck me at the time that while higher than average visual acuity would make perfect sense in evolutionary terms, I wouldn’t have expected the researchers to have explored whether other nomadic people from other very arid nations exhibited the same tendency towards enhanced visual memory. After all, wouldn’t the nomadic tribes of Africa also benefit from developing the kind of visual memory which allowed them to recall the location of shelter and water in terrain which was seemingly unchanging. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that the original observations are correct - the ability of black trackers to glean information from the landscape is awesome and was exploited by farmers and police forces alike during my childhood. It seems at least possible that over a period of 40,000 years plus this capacity has been reflected in physical development. Sadly, these days, one of the biggest problems facing our non-urban Aboriginal communities is blindness caused by glaucoma - which makes me kind of curious. If the premise in the orgiginal article was correct and Aboriginal people had physically adapted to select for increased visual acuity, could that adaptation also provide a physical basis for their increased rates of glaucoma? ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/14 "2001-04-23T06:52:33Z")
I don’t get why everybody assumes that if we proved one group of people to be inferior in some way that we would immediately want to get rid of them or rob them of their rights. Historical examples don’t really cut it for me - that was more of a case of people saying that a race was inferior to justify their treatment of them, I don’t think that people sat around and thought ‘Let’s pick an inferior race to be slaves’ but rather certain races were more available as slaves and excuses were made. If we proved that people of Swedish ancestry averaged 10% lower on IQ tests, I doubt that would change anything today. Even if it was accepted by the scientific community and made public that Race X was less intelligent on average, it wouldn’t mean that they didn’t have exceptional people who were more intelligent than most everybody, it would in no way mean you could automatically assume that a person of Race X was mentally retarded…I just don’t see how it would cause that kind of problem. The kind of people who would use the data to justify prejudice are the kind of people who were already prejudiced against that group. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/15 "2001-04-23T09:42:16Z")
I suppose I should thank Opus for illustrating so clearly and precisely the fallacy of _assuming_ genetic bases for an observed difference. But let’s get to the meat. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opus1 \* > How many pygmies are there in the NBA? Is their shortness a cultural artifact, or genetic? Now, now, this is really a straw man Opus my dear fellow. I believe that what SJGL was getting at was within a reasonable range of population variation. Clearly there are limits and advantages. The question is how to understand **group** variation, which as you know is a quite minor part of overall variation. Now, onto the Kenyan runners: > [@](#): > > What about the fact that virtually all the great long-distance runners come from Kenya, and from a very small geographic region in Kenya at that? Is there some sort of Kenyan culture, confined to a specific part of the country, that highly values marathon running, but not short distance running? As Princhester has kindly provided, it is a **grave** analytical error to jump from this kind of observation to the conclusion of genetic difference. Above all in the context of what we know about variation. However, that being said, it is certainly possible given what we know that the Kalenjin ethnic group might harbor a somewhat higher incidence of traits favorable to marathoning. Possible, but not to be \*\* assumed \*\* as we can easily point to the cultural issues already noted by Princhester, thank you by the way, as well as would have to consider other environmental issues – it may be the Kalenjin harbor as of yet poorly understood dietary etc. practices which also have an effect. It could be that a positive combination of **all** the above are what is necessary to give them that added boost. So, again, \*\* leaping \*\* to conclusions based on this kind of observation is not very helpful. At this point in re the Kalenjin ethnic group and its runners we don’t have data to presume one way or the other, although one does have cultural data to suggest this is at least a significant factor. We have no genetic data to my knowledge so we simply have to take this as an unknown possibility. > [@](#): > > But linguistically related tribes from other parts of Africa are among their country’s running leaders as well. Cultural too, I suppose? Possibly as (a) linguitic connexions have no necessary connection with (b) genetic connexions. However, they do often imply cultural connexions. (In re the issue of lang.-gene connexions I frankly don’t care for Cavalli-Sforza and refer you to Bateman’s 1990 paper in _Current Anthropology_ critiquing C-S’s logic in re connecting the two as he does.) Now, onto some more poorly considered evolutionary thinking, e.g. **reprise** , who also demonstrates the fallacy of leaping to genetic conclusions: First, I find it strange, bordering on the bizarre that so many people writing here make the implicit assumption of a substative environmental difference between currently “primitive” (in the writer’s mind) peoples and westerners **meaningful** in evolutionary terms. Hunter-gatherer and related lifestyles represented the majority lifestyle for all-humanity until perhaps 10000years BP. The past ten thousand years are not enough to produce major changes between populations, especially given known genetic exchanges. Differences in memory and eyesight between sedentary populations and modern hunter gatherer populations depend largely on environmental differences (e.g. eyesight is negatively effected by our close-up sedentary world) and usage (memory, in the West we externalize memory to books.). So, turning to this, > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t have expected the researchers to have explored whether other nomadic people from other very arid nations > exhibited the same tendency towards enhanced visual memory. I see no reason to presume differential selection for eyesight acuity, and as settled lifestyles are largely too recent to shift the populations traits, especially given gene flow it strikes me as a sterile search. > [@](#): > > After all, wouldn’t the nomadic tribes of Africa also benefit from developing the kind of visual memory which allowed them to recall the location of shelter and water in terrain which was seemingly unchanging. Africa, the seat of primitives eh? I turn this around, would not the paleolithic tribes of Europe and Central Eurasian steppes who contributed so much to our modern Eurasian populations have beneffited mightily from developing the kind of visual memory which allowed them to recall the location of shelter, water, salt licks etc ad naseum in terrain which was seemingly unchanging? (I may note that you see to be thinking of the Sahara, nota bene the Sahara was wet until at least 20k year before present, and not a true desert until early historical times.) Shrug. > [@](#): > > It seems at least possible that over a period of 40,000 years plus this capacity has been reflected in physical development. As noted above, I see no reason to presume it was terribly different from selection elsewhere, if we are speaking to fixed genetic differences. > [@](#): > > Sadly, these days, one of the biggest problems facing our non-urban Aboriginal communities is blindness caused by glaucoma - which makes me kind of curious. If the premise in the orgiginal article was correct and Aboriginal people had physically adapted to select for increased visual acuity, could that adaptation also provide a physical basis for their increased rates of glaucoma? Here we presume fixed genetic differences… **BM** Do a search on Eugenics. Read the spew, think about it. There is enough there to justify concern. Mind you, I don’t see the id of a population containing a package of advantageous traits in some area to lead ipso facto to eugenics – when one understands, as clearly many here do not – the complex interaction between genetic heritage and environment (in the widest sense of the term) one begins to realize that largely speaking the “ubermensch” concept rooted in inherent genetic superiority is ridiculous. However, I do think that the labelling of a group as “inferior” per your usage contains serious risks which you would not be well-advised to hand-wave away. Historical examples, continued attraction Eugenics style thinking (even if many people don’t realize that is what they are doing, see the never ending bio-engineering of human threads here), and I have some concerns. However, you are right, those who are prejudiced will be so regardless in large part. (Would it be unkind of me to note AWC silence in re my direct questions?) ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/16 "2001-04-23T12:24:03Z")
The Kenyans are good runners because of the environment they live in. As The best of their runners come from the Higher climates of Kenya, they are physically able to use the oxygen they take in more efficiently, as there is less of it in the air they breed. Also, coming from a tribe of Physically strong individuals, their strenght lies in long distance, where endurance is paramount to success. The Aborigines come from a long line of “storytellers”. Having no real written language for a good part of thier history meant that the memory was used more, and as a result was built up. The more you use an area of your body, be it lungs or brain, as in these 2 examples, the more efficient they/it becomes. Im sure you all know this, its just my 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![jharding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@jharding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharding)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/17 "2001-04-23T13:48:53Z")
It seems there at least two related issues being discussed here. First, some races (defined here in three broad categories of caucasian, negro, and mongol) are genetically different from other races. Well of course there are genetic differences between races–we most often identify these differences through casual observations. Caucasians have less melanin (sp?) than members of the negro race. Members of the mongol race typically have straight hair rather than curly. I recall an article by Bob Green several years ago (sorry no cite) where he wrote about the manufacturing of condoms and those shipped to Asian countries were \ a smaller size than those produced for North American and European markets. So the question becomes–so what? What do any of these differences mean? Nothing really as far as extending basic human rights to other people outside one’s own group. Peter Singer makes a similar argument in favor of animal liberation (a spin on the animal rights position). Singer’s point is that sure there are differences between humans and cows and cheetahs and cedar waxwings. Of course none of these differences should lead to a difference in moral consideration–all creatures possessing a central nervous system are equally considerable. The second point in this thread seems to deal with the topic of intellectual differences between different groups. The suggestion is that some groups may be more or less intelligent than other groups. Well, as Collounsbury already pointed out, intelligence as a thing that can be measured is poorly understood. Stephen Jay Gould actually addresses this very same topic in his book, “The Mismeasure of Man”. I take the following quote from the introduction of the revised edition to this book. “This book, then, is about the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups–races, classes, or sexes–are innately inferior and deserve their status.” In short, Gould lucidly debunks any measure of intelligence as at best, incomplete, and at worst completely invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/18 "2001-04-23T14:17:34Z")
That noise you hear is C-bury busting a gusset upon reading this: > [@](#): > > First, some races (defined here in three broad categories of caucasian, negro, and mongol) are genetically different from other races. Well of course there are genetic differences between races–we most often identify these differences through casual observations. I didn’t know sound could carry that well across the Atlantic. They say you could hear Krakatoa around the world. 🙂 J Harding, read some old threads that are linked in this thread and in the OP, look through the thread archives under “race genetics”, do a Web search (here’s a link to my favorite search engine [http://www.google.com](http://www.google.com) under “race genetics”), and finally, go back and read everything that’s been said in **this** thread, right here. Short answer, J Harding: there is no **genetic** difference between “races”. We are all genetically _homo sapiens._ Minor differences like skin color and kinkiness of hair do not constitute “genetic racial differences.” **Opus,** the short answer on the Kenyan runners is that yes, you can say, “Kenyan runners are faster **than other blacks** ”. What you **cannot** say, however, is, “Black runners are faster than whites.” The ethnic group known as “Kenyans” is a **subset** or **subgroup** of a larger group known as “blacks”. The issue of subsets and subgroups was covered by Tom~, I believe, in the GQ thread that you linked in the OP that is now closed. And here is the Straight Dope on some condom research. [http://www.medisafe.co.nz/news4.html](http://www.medisafe.co.nz/news4.html) > [@](#): > > Research on condom size preferences has been done in some Asian and African countries. > > In the first part of this study 4,000 condoms were distributed amongst convenience samples of 150 men in the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Each man compared condoms of 49mm and 52mm width and rated them with regard to which size stayed on better, which was more comfortable to wear and which they would prefer to use in the future. Results from the three countries showed approximately equal proportions of men preferred the smaller or larger of the two condom sizes (Andrada: Neupane). > > The second part of the study was conducted amongst samples of 272 men from the African countries of Ghana, Kenya and Mali. Researchers used larger condoms than in the Asian study (standard 52mm and the larger 55mm width) because they assumed penis size might affect acceptability of different sized condoms. Results were similar to the Asian study with roughly equal proportions of men choosing the smaller or larger of the two sizes based on the same criteria used to rate the condoms as before. The exception was Mali, where about two thirds indicated a preference for the larger condom (Joanis). > > These results show that no one condom size will suit all users; they like to be able to choose between condoms of different sizes. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/19 "2001-04-23T14:45:15Z")
Well, alhtough I appreciate Jharding’s internvention, I do believe there are a number of misconceptions in re the race part of the posting. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jharding \* > It seems there at least two related issues being discussed here. First, some races (defined here in three broad categories of caucasian, negro, and mongol) are genetically different from other races. Well of course there are genetic differences between races–we most often identify these differences through casual observations. Caucasians have less melanin (sp?) than members of the negro race. Members of the mongol race typically have straight hair rather than curly. Fallacious thining. I’ve grown averse to repeating the same old information again and again in regards to this. I understand this needs to be repeated, but since it is always more or less the same, let me direct you to the following: Entitled “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): Race and Genetics” [http://www.eneubauer.com/](http://www.eneubauer.com/) The page helpful gathers together some basic materials including cites I have provided in the past as well as several lengthy discussions here at SDMB. The short of it is that the superficial morphological differences which are used to create racial categories per those refered to above in no way adequately describe underlying variation, either by group or by individual. As such we can not ascribe “racial variation” at all. Please do follow through the threads in the past – I particularly recommend the Peace Worthless Piece of Shit thread, which despite the name from page three forward or so delves into a number of important issues. Let me add, however, > [@](#): > > I recall an article by Bob Green several years ago (sorry no cite) where he wrote about the manufacturing of condoms and those shipped to Asian countries were \ a smaller size than those produced for North American and European markets. And? This proves what per se? Does it prove anything at all? I don’t wish to be too harsh, however the question occurs to me, How many times do I have to caution about poor leaps of logic? Do we know from objective data that there are aggregate differences in penis size that are not correlatable with average differences in height for example? (Assuming penis size in the aggregate may vary with body size) Do we know that North Americans and Europeans may not have preferences for larger size condoms for cultural reasons, such as an unseemly obsession with penis size (a la Rushton) or that the market of condom makers if representative of the population in Asia (and which ones?). These questions and more need to be answered before even considering a genetic component. Sloppy thinking leaping for an answer rather than approaching these questions in a scientific manner. ---
**Author:** ![jharding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@jharding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharding)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2001, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793/20 "2001-04-23T17:59:12Z")
Well, I guess it was bound to happen. Sorry for re-introducing well-worn examples and thoughts. I guess that’s the inherent problem in all message boards where newbies (me in this case) chime in on debates that others have weighed in on so thoughtfully many times previously. Also, thanks to Collounsbury and Duck Duck Goose for the cites and the FAQ page reference–many a good discussion therein. Further, I apologize to Collounsbury if I misinterpreted his/her previous posts. After reading a few (sorry that work thing prevents me from reading all of them) of the threads suggested, I think we are actually on the same page, this despite my hastily worded first post. I realize now that I should provide a bit more clarity to what I wrote earlier. First, I didn’t mean to suggest that the races I defined as causasian, negro and mongol are at all static and discrete entities. Moreover, I didn’t intend to imply that race is itself a composite of specific so-called genetic markers (as debated in the “Peace…” thread). Quite the contrary–I see races as social constructions in much the same way that we have social constructions for many aspects of nature. Likewise, I’d agree (and reaffirm from my previous post) that this type of distinction is in fact meaningless–as meaningless as dividing the world into those with an even number of hairs on their head and those with an odd number, and those unfortunate among us who have none. I’ll offer up another citeless quote (I must be getting more senile as the day wears on!)–“A group exists in that individuals recognize themselves as being a part of or apart from the group.” Thus, races exist because (rightly or wrongly) people subscribe to belonging to one group and not another. And I would hazard to say that race as many people use the term simply reflects a loose and possibly ill-defined basket of physical traits much like those I previously mentioned. BTW, the three racial terms themselves were lifted from another book (sorry no cite again). Following an email I received, I likewise recognize the unfortunate connotations we attach to the words negro and mongol and I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone. I’ve read much (though not all) of Cavalli-Sforza et al’s book The History and Geography of Human Genes–this after reading Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. Of the many cites offered in the [http://www.wneubauer.com](http://www.wneubauer.com) site, this is the only one I have familarity with. Thus, I can only offer a response to that one. I can and do appreciate the depth with which these scientists have studied the distribution and transfer of human genes. However, I’m left with the unfortunate feeling that while they argue quite articulately for the problem of genetic make up in DETERMINING races, they didn’t address the social/cultural practice of creating meaning–which is of course a task more aligned with the skills of social scientists. I understand the reasoning behind variation within group versus that of between group–typical ANOVA testing. The question seems to me to be: are races the same thing as morphological differences? I’d respond that yes they are, however, poorly, and indeed mistakenly, we apply them. When someone checks off on some form/questionnaire that they are caucasian, we have a certain negotiated set of criteria that defines that group. Clearly the fact that such a question exists on a questionnaire proves nothing about the reality of race as a genetically determined category, nor should it. However, it does illustrate that race in some sense exists because most people have historically recognized it. Perhaps with more enlightened discussion on the fallacy of biologically determined races, conventional conceptions of race will erode. Clearly I failed to state my position explicitly in my previous post and more; when I stated that genetic differences exist between races I failed to explain what I meant by races–sorry. Finally, point well taken about the cultural preferences for larger condoms. And I would echo the correlation (if indeed one exists) between penis size and height which was the essence of what I meant by referencing the Bob Green article. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/australian-aborigines-and-memory/62793.md?page=2)