Jill, DDG:
The incidence of monozygotic (identical) twins is similar across different populations. It’s the frequency of dizygotic (fraternal) twins that varies among populations. As we have seen, one factor that could account for this may be differences in diet.
[And I didn’t even have to use the “R” word.]
No, you are being presumptuous regarding what I actually asked.
I have not asked that the thread be closed.
At some point in this sort of discussion, there is always a real possibility that the thread will be moved out of this Forum, regardless of the desire of the OP.
The vB software on which the SDMB runs makes it impossible to leave a closed version of a thread behind when it is moved to another Forum (one of the very few advantages that UBB has over vB).
My suggestion was that this thread contains information that is valuable in GQ (which would include your comments, as well).
I asked that IF the thread mutated into a Great Debate, this thread be closed, here, (implying that a separate new thread would be opened in GD) so that the factual information included in this thread would not be removed from GQ where it is both useful and appropriate.
If you continue to make unsupportable accusations of totalitarianism, however, you will, indeed, force this thread to GD, while incapacitating me with a fit of the giggles.
I’ll concede that I misunderstood your request–it looked as if you were asking that the thread be “clos[ed] here without moving it”–i.e., shut down completely.
I wouldn’t call you totalitarian, tomndebb, but Collounsbury gives me pause . . .
Let me try to understand:
You use “race” Why ? In order to differentiate between different “ethnic / population groups”. Hmm, but they are already groups. As you identify, they are ethnic / population groups. Why add another form of grouping (“race”) that is scientifically wrong, redundant and misleading when you already have the correct group ?
I think I’ve seen both Coll and tomnbebb also say that “race” remains a valid term in some (academic) contexts (whether it was in this context or similar, I can’t recall). It just seems to me it’s perpetuating a particularly unhelpful ‘Victorian’ myth - maybe I don’t understand ?
I don’t think anyone’s going to argue with you on that but, without making a point, it’s like saying “The sky is blue”.
Maybe my non-scientific mind misunderstands.
Zarathustra, you kind of missed Collounsbury’s point. He’s not saying that race MUST be discarded, just that it is a vague and unsatisfying word that can mean lots of different things. Everyone understands what you mean when you use “race” in casual conversation. But when you try to do scientific work, the concept starts to break down. I mean, I’d say almost half the world’s population doesn’t fall into the neat “black, white, asian” category. Where do indians and Indians and arabs and bushmen and aborigines and american blacks fall?
In america we use the word “black” to mean someone who had at least one ancestor from africa. But many “black” people have a majority ancestry from europe, or north america. It’s ludicrous to assign them to the “negroid” race when they are mostly “caucasoid”. What’s up with that? The point is that the more you think about racial classification the less sense it makes, and the more you realize that you cannot construct a logical consistent racial classification scheme. Which means that the word “race” confuses more than it clarifies…and so should be used less than it is.
Duck Duck Goose,
The fact that Rushton is a “well-known racist” (he can’t be that well-known if I had never even heard of him before!) means as much to me as the fact that it is a well-known fact that people are waking up in Las Vegas bathtubs with their kidneys missing.
The Skeptics Dictionary article did not mention Rushton.
I read about half of the article he wrote. Would you mind pointing out a single statement that you find particularly racist and unsupported by evidence? (Don’t tell me the studies he cites have been discredited–that would just mean that he’s doing bad science, not that he’s racist.)
You say that all of his theories have been thoroughly debunked. Fine. Show me that evidence. The only statement I saw in his paper that appears inaccurate is that there is no environmental explanation for racial differences in twinning. Apparently, yams are such a factor, but such evidence was discovered after Rushton’s article.
Interestingly, you mention that other researchers have no racist axes to grind. Quite the opposite: racism is such an unpopular idea that many scientists may have “anti-racism” axes to grind. That is, the idea of institutional discrimination or mistreatment based upon skin color or national origin is so abhorrent (as it should be), that scientists may be determined to show that differences between ethnic groups do not even exist, lest they provide fodder for racists.
Right after stating that his ideas have been completely debunked, you state that some of his colleagues “might very well agree with his conclusions.” I find it odd that someone who has been so thoroughly trashed by the scientific establishment still has enough cronies hanging around to push his papers through.
I realize that I’m in a very precarious position here, apparently defending the evil racist bigot pseudo-scientist. But I am well aware of the possibility that the modern scientific establishment might try (even unconsciously) to atone for its spotty past. The idea that people from a particular ethnic/geographic heritage might have differing intellectual abilities is as abhorrent to people today as it was desirable to them 150 years ago. Just as scientists then may have unconsciously (or even deliberately) fudged evidence to “prove” whites superior, they may now be doing just the opposite to “prove” that all groups are equal. We shouldn’t be so quick the racist finger at everyone who disagrees with such conclusions, especially if he appears to be operating entirely within the mainstream scientific community. (Especially when Rushton doesn’t even put whites, presumably his own race, at the top of the intellectual food chain.)
(A note on Rushton’s use of “race:” according to his analysis of the OoA model of human evolution–upon which I am too ignorant to comment–so-called racial differences are geographically based.
If this is true, then there would seem to be some legitimacy to the use of “race” as defined in this context. The splits between Africans and non-Africans, Europeans and East Asians were actual evolutionary events in the human past. While further splits into smaller groups occured afterwards, it is still true that “Africans,” “Europeans,” and “East Asians” are legitimate population groups, which roughly correspond to the traditional racial classification of “Black,” “White,” and “Mongoloid/Asian/Oriental.”)
Ugh. I know I’m going to get a lot of heat for all this. I’m not saying for certain that there are racial differences in intelligence. I’m way too ignorant to know if Gould or Rushton or neither are right. But I am in complete agreement with Rushton when he says that “[a]lthough Gould is comfortable talking about the evolution of different body types in humans, he often writes as though he believes that societies, cultures, and mental differences spring into being full-blown, as if from the brow of Zeus or the hand of God.” People who insist that there just can’t be any such societal, cultural, or mental differences, because such an idea is icky, instead of proving it, are no better than 19th century “scientific racists” who concluded the opposite for the same reason.
Opus1, the general point you raise in your last paragraph is a valid concern. There is no a priori reason to believe or accept that “modern” scientists “couldn’t” have their own biases or agendas to push.
The response (regarding Out-of-Africa) is twofold:
The evidence of geneticists is that rather than a clear tree-ring-like set of characteristics in the human gene pool with large groups of common genes found among the various “waves” of African emigrants, we instead find a great homogeneity among peoples throughout the world (specific pockets of biological populations notwithstanding). It is not simply that we don’t want to believe that people are different, but that analysts such as Cavalli-Sforza have been unable to find the differences at the genetic level when they looked for it.
The evidence of paleontologists and archaeologists is that the “waves” were not one-way affairs. Just as people migrated out of Africa to populate the world, (and just as the waves on a lake or sea are not one-way events), at different times the “waves” have washed back over Africa bringing people and genes from Europe, Asia Minor, and the Indian sub-Continent back toward or over Africa.
There is rather less immediate evidence for the “backflow” in the historical period (which only extends back 6,000 to 8,000 years), so we tend to overlook the great pre-historical migrations that wandered back and forth across most of the globe. (Even in the historical period we have tantalizing evidence of some previously unknown Asian-to-African migrations such as the Lemba of Africa who appear to have had ethnic Jewish origins and who migrated through Yemen, across the Red Sea, and settled in what is now Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and farther south sometime after the fourth century BCE.)
talk about crackpots, look at this guy rushton. he should be in the dictionary under “crackpot.”
i found the following quote:
Opus, sweetie, I already went through all of this with Daniel~ a while back. Go read this Pit thread, all of it, and read all the cites in it, and then come back and talk to me. The evidence for the debunking of Rushton and the “race and IQ” and “race and cranial size” theories is widely available on the Web. Here’s a link to my favorite search engine. http://www.google.com
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57167
Saying “Rushton can’t be a well-known racist because I never heard of him” doesn’t wash. It’s like me saying, “Alex Chiu can’t be a well-known snake oil salesman because I never heard of him.” Which, up till a few weeks ago, I hadn’t. 
My point about the SkepDic not mentioning him was that if you are familiar with his work as one of the leading proponents of the “race and IQ” theory, then their point is perfectly obvious–he’s wrong. It’s like reading an article dicussing whether an American President was right or wrong to allow a White House intern to perform oral sex on him–everybody (or most everybody) would know who was being referenced there.
There isn’t a “single statement” that you can pick out and point to, like that obtained from a politician speaking into an open mike. It’s his whole body of work, Opus, everything he stands for, everything he’s worked for, all his studies that he’s ever done, all have something to do with looking for proof that race is a biological fact, and that different races have different abilities, different IQs, different talents, different sizes of craniums, and even different sexual drives. When he gets his “data”, which is usually arrived at either through flawed statistical sampling or through flawed interpretation of his test results, he uses it to say, “There, now, you see? This race is genetically smarter, or stronger, or faster than that race.” And since other scientists have now proved that there’s no such biological, genetic thing as “race” (see the other cited “race” threads for that info), that’s what we call “racism”–categorizing another person solely on the basis of his “race”. “Orientals are smarter, blacks are better athletes, etc.”
Opus, I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but, really:
You need to get out of the house more, babe. There are plenty of reputable geneticists and psychologists and sociologists and anthropologists and biologists and all sorts of “-ologists” out there, busy trying to prove that their dark-skinned neighbors are stupider, sexier, and better dancers than they are. It’s called “having an agenda”. Lots of scientists have gone out with agendas looking for proof to support their pet theories, and most, if not all of them, have found the “data” they were looking for and have managed to get published. “Peer review” doesn’t mean that the peers who are reviewing are passing judgement on the underlying assumptions of the study, racist or not–they’re just deciding whether it’s worth publishing, or whether it’s claptrap.
Just because someone is a “scientist” doesn’t automatically make him a pillar of fairness and common sense, and without race prejudice. Rushton has plenty of cronies in the scientific establishment who think the same way he does.
[[. Why add another form of grouping (“race”) that is scientifically wrong, redundant and misleading when you already have the correct group ?]]
We’re talking semantics which are continually changing. Race is a short word that fits on my charts and graphs and is commonly understood (except when you get into debates about Hispanics). “Ethnicity” might be a better word. As an epidemiologist, I use terms and categories determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Thanks for the link to the yams/twins theory, DDG. I’ve been looking for that.
Jill
This topic never fails to piss-me off. How is it that it manages to generate so many fundamental mis-readings all at once. And somehow I’ve been at least obliquely referred to as a “totalitarian” and compared to holocaust deniers by posters who evidently can not be bothered to check the facts and fairly extensive amount of literature previously cited. I find that last part fundamentally annoying.
So then,
My Dear ** Zarathustra: **
I fail to see the * relevance * of your “newspeak” citation. As always, I am referring to the usage of the term race in a biological context, which I think should have been clear from the context of the message you responded to, * as I clearly stated the same in the self same message*. Since you have not done your homework, you’re having trouble following this. My apologies, but I do suggest if you follow through with the links you will find a full and complete argumentation. Or you can continue to argue against straw men and flail against political bogeymen.
I might add I ** was not ** arguing the term race should be discarded because ** it was politically inconvenient **, indeed I do not believe I mentioned anything political at all. If I may be so bold, I would like to point out you are the one bringing in politics with bad analogies to Trotskyites and irrelevant citations to Orwell. Perhaps if you step outside of politics and engage the science you will learn something. Otherwise, I call this merely illogical smearing based on a fundamental misreading of the comments. Deliberate? I don’t know. However, I don’t appreciate it. ** Your ** abusive mis-readings give ** me ** pause.
Autumn Wind Chick
Really now? “Race deniers” modus operendi resembles holocaust deniers?
What pray tell does this mean? My entire position is based on peer-reviewed literature in that wonderful new field, molecular genetics. Of course there is other evidence too, but the most relevant body of the evidence is there.
Now I hope I can be forgiven for taking exception to be inaccurately placed in the category of holocaust deniers – a rather disgusting and above all * inaccurate * insult. I divine from your comments that you simply do not understand the evidence. May I suggest some biology classes? Or do you have some substantive evidence to bring to the table — do recall we have dealt with this before. I would like to know what over-arching evidence for race being a useful biological category you have to demonstrate what I am missing.
JillGat
Just in regards to this conversation, you might enjoy the fairly extensive (scientific) literature citations in the linked discussions, presuming you may not have followed this before. I am not sure how to understand your observation on phenotypes or what importance you’re attaching to that, however I hope you do find the literature useful.
But, London:
Usage of race per se should not be construed as an error. Building on Jillgat’s own statement, insofar as a racial category in any given country may be useful to describe an population grouping with common socio-economic and environmental characteristics, it could very well be useful. The problem arises when observed differences are ascribed, unsupported now by the genetic evidence, to inherent biological differences between the “racial” population and whatever population it’s being contrasted with, as opposed to investigating socio-economic, environmental or cultural practices which may be inducing the difference. That’s good research design. Bad research design is the assuming of the genetic differences contra the evidence.
For example, as I recall, African Americans have elevated instances of hypertension. An error would be to ** assume, ** given present data, that this is due to some shared genetic trait through the population in contrast with say “whites.” One would be well-advised to look at social factors (impact of racial tensions, e.g., low social status ascribed), cultural factors (diet, perhaps parenting practices, etc.) among other things. And of course not assume that the Af. Am population is either genetically homogenous or homogenous with African populations. As I recall, research in this area — I’m afraid I’m operating on memory here so all caveats apply — indicated that West African populations (I believe if I recall correctly they were specifically Nigerian, so even the extrapolation to West African may be a bit much) do not, contrary to the researchers initial expectations (based on race) reflect elevated hypertension, but children of the same raised in the USA did. Interesting, no?
One might further note that the problematic of racial categorization is reflected even in the proposition that say, for example, Af Am pops did express at elevated levels a trait leading to increased risk of hypertension. As we know from other data, say sickle cell, that trait is not likely to be private to recent African descended populations. Let’s presume that it, like sickle cell, also expresses in elevated levels among Lebanese, who are ordinarily classified as “white” in popular schema and those levels are more or less analogous to the rates expressed among African Americans. What kind of observation do we make here. Quite clearly the “black” versus “white” category doesn’t work well at all, above all for truly capturing the epidemiological risks. Implicitly when the black versus white category is used, its really saying “North West European” versus “Black” — which may work for a number of risk areas, although certainly not all. However, it does distort our understanding of the issue and we do end up with analytical errors (perhaps ultimately trivial in this case given the numbers involved for a North American population) resulting from a fallacy of composition: (inappropriately lumping all blacks(*) into a risk group, inappropriately excluding some whites(**) from a risk group.) As a fast and ready rule of thumb it may be permissible, in fact useful so long as the medical practitioner understands this. For truly understanding population issues, I argue it is not and when medical practitioners do not understand this, we have, IMHO, a potentially serious problem of mis-delivery of services. I should let Edwino comment on this as we now get into his field.
(*: e.g. presuming my fictional trait has characteristics like sickle cell and not all “black African” let alone other “negroid” phenotypes express the trait)
(**: similarly, many white groups, e.g. Mediterraneans, Middle Easterners etc. may be in appropriately excluded from the risk group and thus go undiagnosed, again resulting in poor medical service delivery.)
Opus
Well-known is of course relative. I am sure lots of names well-known to me are not to you for the very good reason its not your field of interest. If you search on Rushton and my username you will find that in the past the bona fides have been provided. Reference to his falsification of data as well as cites to refutations. In re the original article in question, I do not have the particular journal available to me, however prior experience with Rushton’s work do not lead to confidence. Although I see DDG has provided some materials. I might add that his attacks on Gould are particularly disappointing since Gould at the very least is well-trained and well-respected in biological sciences, whereas he… is not. Frankly, Rushton’s charaterizations of Gould’s writing depend on his fundamental misreadings. But then his grasp of evolutionary biology is slim at best.
Oh yes, Opus, insofar as Rushton’s theories are based on (a) the presupposition of large genetic differences between “races” (b) poorly theorized and even more poorly supported a priori assumptions about supposed connexions between race based differences in (i) sex (ii) intelligence (iii) penis size (iv) climate -hot/cold- which he assumes ** a priori ** they barely merit direct refutation. However, in the context of what modern molecular genetics and its derived population information has taught us, (a) is false on its face and (b.i,ii,iii,iv) are quite simply fundamentally misconceived. You won’t find much in the way of direct refutations of him since he’s more or less in the league of “creation scientists” — real researchers have better things to do.
(Let me add parenthetically that Rushton does put whites at the top of the racial food-chain for his overall argumentation is that “whites” are “just right” — not too intellectual like Asians (in his schemata, really just the cold-calculating inscrutable Asian stereotype restates) nor too physical/emotional like blacks. Think of the bowls of porridge… Idiotic.)
Now, in re race usage: please see the past conversations, your misunderstanding about “splits” — based on a 1988 paper mind you — have already been dealt with. The genetic evidence clearly show no formal splits based on race occurred as genetic flow always remained relatively high. This has been developed in past discussions, you would do well to read them and avoid the obvious factual errors.
And in regards to suppression of “race based” differences: well if one is willing to believe in conspiracy theory, fine, but I suggest to you the body of data from modern population genetics adequately refutes the concept of “suppression” of data due to biases: You will note that no author dismisses population differences, only races as too incoherent. This has ** nothing to fuck to do with race being icky etc ad nauseum ** its about ** genetics ** and what it teaches. I hope this will finally become clear. I think when one begins to grapple with what current population genetic science is actually saying it will seem less threatening or strange.
Thank you all for the interesting information, theories, perspectives and links. I think this thread has run its course in GQ.