I’m still looking for a good opening to inject my chopstick hypothesis. If we could just get black kids to use chopsticks…
See here for one such study, which found about a 15-20% elevation in testosterone levels for healthy young black males over healthy young white males. I am not aware if a biological reason for this has been definitely proved.
So, in this thread and others, all you’re saying is that it’s “not insane to consider a genetic explanation reasonable”? That’s all your arguing for? There’s zero genetic evidence for it, but I’ll give you this- it’s a “reasonable” explanation (not that your “impulsive aggression” is a measurable quantity). Other “reasonable” explanations with no evidence could be (for example) that lower levels of Vitamin D cause “impulsive aggression”, and that people with dark skin in non-tropical climates get less Vitamin D on average. Or that black people on average eat more of certain foods (for cultural reasons, perhaps) that have compounds in them that heighten “impulsive aggression”.
In other threads you’ve argued that the evidence shows that black people are genetically less intelligent and more likely to commit violent crimes, or at least that’s what I thought you were saying (I’ll repeat again that there’s absolutely no genetic evidence for this explanation). In this thread that’s what you seemed to be arguing at first, but now it’s just “it’s not a totally insane idea”! That’s a pretty low bar you’ve set for yourself, but I’ll give it to you.
It’s not totally insane. But there’s absolutely zero genetic evidence for it. I’ll give it as much credence as other “not totally insane” explanations that have no evidence supporting them.
nm
Quit being an armchair scientist. Get out there with a tape measure and do some fieldwork!
I believe the reason you suggest there is “zero” evidence is that you take the assumption there are no real functional phenotypic differences among races as a matter of faith. This is a warm and fuzzy Creationist view that ignores how evolution works and ignores the history of the human population. It requires that one assume all the genetic pools are either completely intermixed (they are not, or we wouldn’t look different and have different prevalences for thousands of things like Hemoglobin types or muscle enzyme levels) or functionally equivalent.
Is there evidence our gene pools are functionally not equivalent? Do we see any repeatable patterns? Do we see juxtaposed populations where the same rank order for the same measurement is always the same? Or do we sometimes have population mixes where the black population is the most docile and the asians the most impulsively aggressive? Do we see a difference where the black population is in majority control versus a minority? Do we see patterns where, in a variety of immigrant populations, the black immigrant population is the least impulsively violent and the asians have the highest rates for impulsive criminal behavior? What about the originating nations? What are the patterns there? Does it make a difference if there has been a history of colonialism or not when looking at rates of impulsive violence among several groups?
Are there any lines of evidence that our physiological makeup can affect our behavior? Do men have more violent impulsive behavior than women? Are there animal models that show aggression is genetic and can be breeded out? Are there human studies that show some putative contributors (testosterone, for example) varies by SIRE group?
The problem with your “zero evidence” argument is that you raise a straw man standard which you would not apply were you arguing for a non-emotionally-charged issue. Your straw man is that you want the exact gene(s) identified and you want a double blind study to confirm it. Neither of these is currently possible.
But biology tells us human behavioral traits such as aggression are deeply affected by our biology. The evolution and migration history of human populations tells us that modern human groups belong to gene clusters related to geographic origin separated by tens of thousands of years. When we do measure phenotypic variation by those gene clusters, we almost always find a variance.
Why then, would the default assumption (unless you are a Creationist who thinks we all showed up 5,000 years ago, and that humans don’t evolve much) be that we’re all wired about the same? Nature is an ongoing experiment in throwing a bunch of genes to the environmental wall and seeing what sticks to create successful reproduction. There is a massive amount of genetic variation among all humans, and the longer any given population is separated, the more variation you will see–as much as 3-5% or more among human populations which have been separated. That is a huge amount given that it may take only a single gene complex to drive a huge difference for a given outcome. If, in one environment, raw aggression is the most successful reproductive strategy and in another, docility is more successful, only a single mutation might drive successful reproduction for an entire descendant population.
In short, I think it’s unfair to ascribe the level of evidence as “zero.” For those who do, the persistent outcome differences in human populations are likely to remain a puzzlement, resistant to all efforts to eliminate them until such time as modern population mobility completely remixes the gene pool.
Having said that, at a political and social level, your approach that the evidence is “zero” is certainly a warm and fuzzy way to look at the world, and in many ways may be a better reassurance for the public to consume than the harsh reality of Nature. Disney for the masses, sort of.
In this and other threads I have presented what I consider to be the evidence for my position. There is typically a default assumption that anyone arguing that outcome differences among SIRE groups are driven in part by gene pool differences is some sort of rabid neo Nazi, secretly promoting the superiority of his own “race.”
I find such folks silly and misguided. I’m interested only in the Straight Dope. The bar I set is to critically examine lines of evidence independent of social overlay. Given the current climate of Racism versus the Religion of Equality, it can be difficult to present arguments in such a way that I am not automatically lumped in with the “I have the Superior Race neener neener” crowd. But neither am I interested in converting to the Religion of Equality crowd, which has to ignore the biology of the animal world.
You may consider it a low bar for me to simply protest that it’s not insane to ascribe outcome differences to genes. I leave the evaluation of the actual evidence to all who read it. My experience with most of the posters on this board–including the OP–is that they have been conditioned to uncritically accept the notion it is insane to postulate genetic differences as key drivers for outcome differences. My bar may not even be low enough for those types of folks to jump over.
This implies that the horrors were under orders, rather than impulsive rapes and murders. Got some backup for this? Like, a cite that it wasn’t just a bunch of men getting away with what they could, a-la Nanking, vs e.g. the Holocaust?
my bolding. This just indicates you know absolutely nothing about the history of race relations in South Africa. Apartheid was never as simple as “White” vs “NonWhite” - there’s good historical reasons why Indians were and remain advantaged over Blacks.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I believe there’s no evidence for your genetic explanation because there is no evidence for it. There’s no genetic evidence that shows that different races/ethnicities/groups/whatever have any different tendencies towards high or low intelligence or aggression. None. Zero. If you have such genetic evidence, please show it. I’m not saying that there are no genetic differences between races/ethnicities/whatever (though the way populations are different genetically does not neatly coincide with the social concept of race). But there’s no evidence for your explanation.
Yes- the problem with my argument is that I actually want to see evidence. Wow. Whether it’s within the realm of current technology or not, why should I believe genes are responsible for these disparities until there’s actual evidence for it?
Yes, it’s so unfair to demand genetic evidence for a genetic explanation. Just as if someone made a “melanin explanation” I would demand evidence that higher levels of melanin cause different behaviors, or a “nutrition explanation”, etc.
You’re already convinced. You don’t need more evidence. That’s the difference between us on this- I’m not making any claims- I’m just saying your claim has no supporting genetic evidence. And until it does, all your spouting off about what’s “real” and “warm and fuzzy” is just an evidence-free rant.
The fact that your argument has no supporting genetic evidence ought to give you considerable pause, and at least a healthy respect for the possibility that it’s wrong. The fact that it aligns pretty closely with the completely pseudo-scientific racial “science” of the early 20th century ought to give you pause as well. I guess in your mind, those guys just stumbled upon the truth.
Comparing their opponents to Creationists is a popular tactice among “race-realists”, I’ve noticed. But you’ve got it backwards- Creationists and IDers (creationism in disguise) don’t actually have any evidence for their own assertions- all they do is try to tear down evolution (they fail at this, of course). They think if they just show that evolution is false or even in doubt, then they’ve “proved” their case for Creationism.
And so it is with you- you think if you just tear down the “nurture” argument, then you’ve “proven” that it is genetic. This is unscientific- the only evidence that can support the genetic explanation is genetic evidence. Even if you completely disproved the “nurture” argument, that provides zero evidence for the genetic explanation.
So not only is this an unscientific tactic, it completely fails even in its intent. It’s obvious to all that discrimination exists and has existed, that there are historical economic disparities, and systemic biases in the law and justice systems throughout history and across the globe. And it’s obvious to all that these biases and forms of discrimination have had at least something to do with disparate economic and crime outcomes. It’s not clear that the totality of these disparate outcomes can be explained by this, but it’s certainly clear that they’re at least part of the story.
The “nurture” argument may not be on quite the rock-solid ground, scientifically speaking, that evolution is. But your genetic explanation has the same complete lack of evidence to support it as Creationism and Intelligent Design. You can pretend that your opponents are saying “genes have nothing to do with behavior”, or “there is no genetic difference at all between races/ethnicities/populations”. Perhaps even a small amount of your opponents in this argument even do say this. But you have no genetic evidence to support your genetic explanation. There is no other sort of evidence for a genetic explanation. We can find the genes for many traits- it’s been proven that genes are involved in various disease-susceptibility, superficial traits like hair and skin color, etc… and someday we will probably find specific genes and alleles tied to various types of behavior like intelligence and aggression, as well as things like addictive behavior, libido, etc. And when these are found, some scientist will look at the relative prevalence of these genes in various populations.
What I’m asking for is science.
Genes? 
Hey, I’m just pulling your chain, Mr Dibble. Surely you’ll permit a tiny chuckle since we’ve beaten me up enough here. I’m certainly not going to try and out-expertise your first-hand knowledge, but let me just admit up front that of course it’s more complicated than my shorthand.
Still the Indians have done good pretty much wherever they’ve gone and pretty much under any local circumstance, 'cept maybe under Mr Amin. And while they were at it, they didn’t do too much impulsive violent criming, either. Damn pacifists.
There are two possible explanations for outcomes: Nurture and nature. Unless maybe you have thought up a third.
If it’s not nurture, it’s nature. It’s a process of elimination. I might have absolutely no idea which genes make chimpanzees smarter than dogs. But if I can’t nurture a dog to be as clever as a chimpanzee, then I know their “smart genes” are different. And the fact that normalizing nurture between the two does not normalize their outcomes is excellent evidence the difference is genetic.
It’s fine to complain that I cannot normalize nurture. Each person has to make that call. But to say completely disproving nurture does not prove genes is kind of silly.
If “nurture” means socio-economic circumstances, and “nature” means genetics, then there could be tons of other explanations- it could be a virus that hitches a ride on melanin, some nutrient that expectant mothers aren’t getting enough of, a secret conspiracy by The Man, or a million other (similarly evidence-free) explanations.
Obviously you haven’t disproved nurture- that would be a monumental task- you recognize that discrimination exists, and there are and have been biases in the justice system, and surely you acknowledge that these things have and have had at lease some part of disparate outcomes. But even if you could disprove “nurture” (or at least upbringing/economics/education/etc), then you have not proved that the genetic explanation is the right one- just like if the IDers somehow disproved evolution, it would say nothing about the validity of Intelligent Design. The only thing that proves your genetic explanation is actual genetic evidence.
Perhaps you could use my monkey/dog example above and explain your reasoning. Nurturing is a good deal more than socio economics, which are easily corrected for and certainly don’t eliminate disparate outcomes.
It is everything that isn’t genetic.
Are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans not ethnically Indian?
Stop bothering us with the facts.
I actually nearly pissed myself laughing at his claim.
Apparently he doesn’t correspond to much with his fellow “race realists” in the UK. If he did he’d find most of them are as terrified of “Asians” as American “race realists” are of blacks.
Monkeys and dogs are different species, and not comparable to groups of humans. If nurture is everything that isn’t genetic, then you’ve obviously not even come close to disproving, normalizing, or even addressing “nurture”. There’s millions of possible explanations that haven’t been disproven or eliminated even if you did show that it wasn’t related to socio-economic status, discrimination, or other biases.
I’m not sure I understand the point of this question.
Can you help?
Are you asking me if I think these groups, as immigrants, have underperformed black immigrants?
The whole point is not whether or not we are talking about what a species is, but the obvious fact that I do not need to identify a specific gene to have evidence the difference is genetic. Humans, on average, are smarter than watermelons. I don’t have to identify a single allele to know this. I just have to understand that no amount of nurturing a watermelon is going to get it past first grade.
I do not dispute completely your point about “millions” of nurturing variables, which is why my position is that it is reasonable, but not absolute, to suggest that genes underpin performance outcomes among groups with known different gene pools.
However I do note that the many more obvious explanations, including socioeconomic advantage, lack of opportunity, and ‘discrimination’ have failed to hold up. As more populations are juxtaposed, and more opportunity extended to the previously disadvantaged, I predict with confidence that outcome differences will not go away. I predict that various nurturing explanations will continue to be advanced, without proof they are correct. And I predict that in the end, science will win the day from the Creationists who want us to be a single genetic family, recently dispersed from the Garden of Eden.
In the interim the various population pools we have discussed in this and other threads will continue to reflect their average genes. We are, alas, mostly our genes. Individually we can rise to our individual genetic potential but not beyond; collectively as a population we reflect our collective gene pools. Perhaps you will find it reassuring to look through the rose-colored glasses provided by the Religion of Genetic Equality until such time as we unravel the actual genes. And perhaps you will find some small satisfaction in defending the faith and scolding those not so easily persuaded to be a Believer.
I’m not Mr Dibble, but it seemed to me pretty clear that he was calling you out on your attempt to link low levels of violent crime among South Asian immigrants in foreign countries to the influence of pacifism, which you seem to be insinuating is somehow related to Indian genetics.
But what you sloppily call “Indian” immigrants who “have done good pretty much wherever they’ve gone and pretty much under any local circumstance” includes many other South Asians from the same ethnic groups as Indians. So there’s evidently nothing about being Indian per se, as opposed to, say, Pakistani or Sri Lankan, that accounts for the success of those South Asians in general as immigrants in other countries.
Moreover, trying to explain that success by asserting that South Asians in general are somehow genetically more pacifistic and well-behaved would not account for the fact that some South Asian countries have more unrest and violence than India, despite the ethnic similarities between their populations.
The problem with your arguments in this situation is the same as with all your attempts at so-called “race realist” arguments. Namely, although there is nothing intrinsically wrong or implausible about the hypothesis that different genetic populations on average have some inborn social/cognitive/neuropsychological/whatever difference, there’s as yet no actual scientific evidence showing that any such observed difference between any two social groups really is genetic.
Scientific study of human psychology and sociology and their various genetic and cultural influences is really complicated, and really difficult, and still in its infancy. Like it or not, it’s going to take us a long time and a lot of hard work to be able to say anything definite about how population genetics interact with extremely complex traits like intelligence and behavior.
You keep on thinking you can shortcut the scientific-study process with naive inferences from sloppily-constructed arguments, but you’re wrong. That doesn’t mean that the “egalitarian” null hypothesis is necessarily true. Nobody knows yet whether it’s true, and nobody is justified in thinking or asserting that it must be true. But anybody who thinks that they already have valid scientific justification for asserting that it’s false is kidding themselves.