Well is that the best you can do to support your argument that the high prevalence of a “brain gene” in Papuans is indicative that the brain gene is ineffective ?
I think you may be missing Belowjob’s point. The argument is that according to the conclusions of the “racial realists” themselves, the microcephalin and ASPN genes couldn’t be “brain genes” whose presence produces high intelligence.
Because, according the “realists”, East Asians and whites have higher intelligence than Native Americans and blacks. However, the distribution of MCPH1/ASPM genes doesn’t fit with that ranking. Native Americans and Papuans have a very high incidence of the alleged “brain gene”, and East Asians a low incidence.
So if you’re saying that Papuans have low intelligence (and Belowjob isn’t the one saying that; the “racial realists” are), while East Asians have high intelligence, then microcephalin can’t be the genetic cause of high intelligence.
Why is this an important question? Why do some seem to have so much invested in arguing that “race” is a meaningful genetic cohort with implications for intelligence?
I readily accept that “nature” plays a large factor in whatever gets measured as IQ and many other traits and weaknesses. I also readily accept that environmental impoverishment can blunt the expression of genetic potential and that culture can influence the manner in which a genetic potential expresses itself as well.
I find it most silly however to try to include all “Blacks” as one genetic cohort.
“Black” is an amazingly diverse group. It includes to begin with an African component which is itself a most diverse genetic substrate. All other groups are offshoots of African sub-populations; more narrow cohorts from the start.
And particularly within America that diverse starting population has then intermixed to varying proportions with various European, Native American, and even Arab, Asian, and Islander genetic cohorts. The end results have little else in common other than being labeled as “Black” by a society that effectively still operates with the phenotypic equivalent of the “one drop rule”.
With that genetic diversity one can reasonably assume that, for any trait with a strong genetic basis and given equal “nurture” (including opportunity and cultural exposure), and an equal sized population pool, the elite, the sigma outliers, will include an over-representation of Blacks. Including on measures of intelligence.
Yet some want to classify this group as one genetic cohort and posit that it correlates significantly with intelligence, and seem heavily invested in doing so. Strange.
:shrug: Maybe it’s because you are weaseling. I have my own rules of debate. Rule 2 says that you cannot pretend to have said something different from what you actually said.
Your earlier position was, in essence, that any evidence against the egalitarian hypothesis must rule out all possible “nurture factors.” Otherwise it’s not evidence against the egalitarian hypothesis.
More recently, you seem to have taken the more reasonable position that not every “nurture factor” would have to be ruled out in order for something to constitute evidence.
You’ve changed your position, which is fine, but you must own up to it. Your choice.
Another rule I have is “no strawmen.” As far as I can tell, you did not ask me before this post what my position was. Thus, you are misrepresenting my position by accusing me of “dodging” and “ducking”
So your choice is this:
(1) show me where you earlier asked me for my position and I evaded the question; or
(2) admit that you did not ask me before, and ask again nicely
Your choice.
And by the way, just so that nobody thinks I’m trying to hide my position, I will be happy to share it if Belowjob, Chief Pedant, or anyone else asks. I will also share it with Kimstu if he or she can satisfy the above issues.
As far as the Egalitarian Black/White Hypothesis goes, it’s an important question because (at least in the USA) many people regularly attribute black problems wholly to white racism. This leads to policies which consume societal resources but don’t really fix the problems.
Really?
So it is your belief that if any evidence that the mean of genetic potential on whatever someone decides constitutes “intelligence” was found to be higher for some group of other than “Black” genetic cohorts then that would justify the reduction of efforts to equalize educational opportunities (from early education on), to equalize opportunities for quality medical care, and to prevent discrimination in the workplace?
It is your belief that if proof existed of that difference in the mean score on one arbitrary measure of intelligence was due to some genetic factor that therefore “nurture” (which for the sake of this discussion could include any or all of overt racism, systemic racist effects that are unintended, historic effects of racism, and/or deleterious effects of Black culture … according to your belief set) is of no consequence?
Really?
It would depend on the circumstances. In particular, if inequality of outcome is essentially the only evidence present for inequality of opportunity, then my answer is, generally speaking, yes. Otherwise, my answer is, generally speaking, no.
No that is not my belief. Any other questions?
Why yes there are! 
So you accept that even if there was proof that there was a genetic component to measures of intelligence that were demonstrably different between “Blacks” and other phenotypically and culturally identifiable subgroups of America that it would not negate the role of, broadly stated, environmental effects. Or demonstrate that there is not inequality of opportunity. Or demonstrate that inequality of opportunity is not a larger factor. Okay there. And you would merely state that inequality of outcome alone is insufficient to prove inequality of opportunity. Okay there too.
Is it then your position that the only evidence for inequality of opportunity in America is inequality of outcome?
Because, logically, putting your bits together the question of this thread is only important under that circumstance. Or am I misunderstanding you somewhere?
Yes.
Standing alone, yes.
Standing alone, yes.
I’m not sure I understand your question, but I agree that that in many situations, there is independent evidence of discrimination. In other situations, there is not.
Maybe I should give you an example:
Suppose that a large employer has a policy of not hiring blacks. As a result, there are no black employees. I believe that the civil rights laws properly forbid such conduct.
By contrast, suppose that the employer makes use of an IQ test in hiring employees. As a result, there are far fewer black employees than their numbers in the general population, i.e. there is an inequality of outcome. Absent other evidence of discrimination, I do not believe that the civil rights laws should forbid such a policy.
The issue in your specific hypothetical would be whether or not the IQ test was a valid means of predicting job performance or was serving more as a means of discrimination without having an overt policy in place. And that determination is in no way influenced by the outcome of the question in this thread.
Anyway, are there many circumstances in which a valid predictive measure of job performance is not allowed (by governmental fiat) to be used by a company or institution that wants to use it to make hiring decisions because it results in an outcome that is disproportionate racially? I think that companies are allowed to hire those best qualified for the job whatever their skin color. Heck, even affirmative action at its most blatant and extreme didn’t meet that standard.
I disagree. Many people have made – and still make – the argument that inequality of result means that there must have been inequality of opportunity and/or discrimination. If the issue in this thread is resolved against the egalitarians, it undercuts this argument.
Of course there are.
Well, I’m gonna give you credit for the persistence gene, that’s for sure.
And I’ll take what I can get with the admission that intelligence is largely genetic. After all, the issue at hand is whether or not nature v nurture has been settled.
I understand your consternation about trying to explain to me that a given phenotypic similarity doesn’t imply a common genetic pool that unites all phenotypically similar cohorts, and I am trying, desperately, to get you to understand that I agree with you on that.
There is a phenotype associated with self-described black, and that particular phenotype is mostly genetic. It doesn’t mean the cohort is perfectly defined or even a very tight cohort. It does mean that at some practical common-sense level there is likely to be a common genetic influence that underlays that phenotype. That’s why it’s funny when Navin Johnson says he was born a poor black child. Yes, culturally; no phenotypically and genetically. It’s why a blue-eyed pink-skinned fine-blond-haired Swedish fella isn’t gonna get into a race-based affirmative action subset for blacks by arguing that he was born a poor black child.
Now I hold that the genetics underlying phenotypic blackness does, in fact, represent a common gene(s) generally from the sub-saharan african pool. If it comforts you to point out that I can’t prove it, OK. You are welcome to find solace however you can. I think there is a reasonable enough correlation between the self-identification of blacks and a phenotype of “black” to imply a common heritage for that phenotypic trait regardless of however much other diversity may exist and however many other cohorts (tall; short; athletic…) may also be created.
But as long as we agree that intelligence is (probably) largely genetic, I’ll be on my way. The race crapola is a large distraction to that central proposition, and we apparently agree on that.
I am unhappy with propositions that academic underperformance of racial groups in today’s world must be primarily the result of racism and bigotry. If we can agree that intelligence is genetic, than we can have separate discussions in another thread about whether intelligence promotes academic and social success. And there, I suspect, your hackles will find full arousal. As you can imagine, I hold that intelligence is genetic , is measurable, and does promote academic and social performance. (Well, except for Paris Hilton, maybe.) I further hold that opening the entrance playing field for the NBA to all groups reveals the underlying genetically-based (group average) superiority of black athletes. But if I can’t talk you into that one, it’s unlikely I’ll be able to talk you into race-based differences in more politically/socially sensitive traits. If we do get to be aliens choosing up our NBA sides, though, I am gonna kick your ass dibbing self-described blacks for my selection pool, and I’ll give you 5 years head start. 
There is wide evidence that self-describe blacks perform more poorly on standardized testing, here and everywhere.
There is good evidence that intelligence is genetic.
Race-based cohorts are loose cohorts.
Nature beats nurture in establishing adult intelligence.
We are making progress toward common ground. I leave to you the contortions required to show that although intelligence is genetic, results of intelligence tests showing differences between cohorts do not reflect genetic origins.
There is so much bullshit and nonsense being tossed around in this thread that I really don’t have time to respond to it all, but I think you all are missing one very important point I made earlier.
We know that IQ is highly heritable but heritable does not mean genetically determined.
Let me tell you what we know about IQ and heritability and then explains what it means.
First of all, heritability measures the total variance in the phenotypic expression of a trait within a specific population that is due to genetic factors. This does not mean genetically determined! For example, painted nails is a trait that is highly heritable. This is true because when one encounters an individual with painted nails, that individually is more likely to be female and thus of a different genotype than a non-painted nails people who are more likely to be male.
When we do twin studies, we are measuring heritability. Depending on the study you read, IQ has a heritability between 0.3 and 0.8. Let’s be generous and say that IQ has 0.8 heritability. What this means is that within that population, 80% of the variety in IQ scores can be attributed to different genotypes (but not necessarily genetically determined!). As this is a population level parameter, you cannot say that an individual’s IQ is 80% determined by genes and 20% by the environment.
Furthermore, heritability only measures variance within the population, not between populations. It is bad science to say that to say that 80% of the difference in IQ scores between two (or more) populations is due to differences in genotypes.
On top of that, heritability changes! The heritability IQ score only pertains to that specific population at that specific time. Heritability can change as the environment changes. IQ heritability changes as the individuals being studied get older!
Finally, even above and beyond that, a high heritability values doesn’t mean that the trait cannot be highly influenced and changed by the environment! The genotype may limit the range, but the range may still be very, very broad.
Let’s take height for example. Height is a trait which has a very high heritability 0.8. However, anyone who has looked at immigrant families can see how quickly the children of immigrants can grow and quickly overtake their parents’ heights. Similarly, bad nutrition can severely restrict a population (North Korea versus South Korea). Because of epigenetics, a history of poor nutrition can have lasting effects that survive in the population long after the selection first takes place; especially if that trait is highly heritable.
IQ within populations has changed considerably over the years. Look at Holland for an example of a population in which IQ changed dramatically in a short amount of time. Look at the Flynn Effect. There’s also the matter that blacks IQ scores can change depending on what race gives the IQ test and the perceived racial bias of the test administrator. The fact that populations which consistently score low in IQ tests in Japan (where they are discriminated against) score much higher after moving to the states (the same people involved).
I wonder how one would decide whether “painted nails” is genetically determined, in whole or in part. If one looked all over the world, and found that women paint their nails more frequently than men in virtually every nation and culture; if one found that women paint their nails more than men despite years of concerted efforts to promote nail equality, one might start to reasonably believe that there is indeed a genetic component.
Actually, I bet if you looked into it, you would find that “preference to adorn oneself” is pervasive and intractable in just this way.
I agree with this, but it’s worth pointing out that there is an assymetry in the egalitarian debate. Adherents to the egalitarian hypothesis insist that any differences among the observed mental abilities of different racial/ethnic groups are 100% due to “nurture factors.” On the other hand, most people who oppose the egalitarian hypothesis are willing to concede that some part of the observed differences are due to “nurture factors.” At least that’s been my experience.
I’m afraid that train has left the station. You have clearly revealed to everyone present that you are not interested in backing up any of your claims with actual evidence.
I don’t think anyone here was ever seriously disagreeing about the reasonableness of that claim. What we’ve been fighting about is the issue of whether the racial group “black” can reasonably be called a genetically meaningful category.
I think you’re still mixed up about this. Yes, phenotypic traits such as dark skin and curly hair are mostly caused by genetic factors. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they indicate anything meaningful about shared genetic kinship.
As the saying goes, common sense is what tells us the earth is flat.
Yes, I understand that it seems intuitively natural to assume that similarity of appearance probably correlates with closeness of genetic kinship. After all, that’s what we’re used to seeing in our own close genetic kin: we tend to look more like our siblings than like our cousins, and more like our first cousins than our fourth cousins, and so on. So if we have light skin, and we see two other people with dark skin, we naturally assume that they probably have a closer genetic kinship with each other than either of them has with us.
But that common-sense assumption has been TESTED by DNA analysis and found to be scientifically UNRELIABLE with regard to “racial” categories. That’s the point I keep trying to get through to you.
It’s not that I don’t agree with you that it’s natural and logical to assume that racial phenotypic similarity reflects a shared genetic heritage. It’s just that according to scientific testing, this reasonable, logical, common-sense assumption turns out to be largely UNFOUNDED, just like the reasonable, logical, common-sense assumption that the earth is flat.
Have you ever bothered to wonder why you can’t prove that assertion, and why nobody else has been able to prove it, and what it means that most of modern genetics has discarded it as unscientific crap?
Why are you clinging so steadfastly to your comfy little “reasonable, practical common-sense” assumptions about race and genetics when they are not supported by actual science on the subject?
The trouble is that what you think is based on ignorance of the science involved. Repeating it over and over will not make it scientifically valid.
No contortions are required. The massive, catastrophic flaw in your argument, which you doggedly refuse to see, is the simple fact that what you insist on describing as “cohorts” do not actually constitute meaningful genetic categories according to modern biology.
Those same “modern biologists” you are reading have apparently neglected modern medicine, where the struggle is still very much alive. In medicine we don’t have the luxury of taking a politically correct position; we have to deal with real groupings. We notice little things, like umbilical hernias occurring 8 times as frequently in black babies than white Abdominal Hernias: Practice Essentials, Background, Anatomy ; we have to deal with big things, like the controversy over BiDil. http://www.bidil.com/
Race-based medicine–more appropriately, the controversy over race-based medicine–is an example of reality bumping up against simple spouted platitudes such as your comment which I quote above.
Medicine is chock full of observations about the differences among blacks and whites in their physiology. As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, those aren’t the only two groups one could create, but the notion that there is no “meaningful genetic categories according to modern biology” is very premature. It’s the subject of a great deal of legitimate biologic debate.
Perhaps I could start off your education regarding this controversy by referrring you to this series of conferences http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/comment/bidil_and_race_profiling_in_targeted_medicine175.html in the hope that you might develop a more open mind.
It might not help you on those anthropology tests you referenced earlier, but then you could always forward the data on the opposing side to those teachers as well and help them also learn to listen to both sides. It could be your best friend needing genomically-based medicine even if going down that pathway ends up disproving what anthropologists have fought so hard to teach in recent years.
A sample quote, but I urge you to at least read the essay linked in its entirety:
“It was the first time, and still the only time, that the FDA had granted a race-specific approval. The FDA’s decision, in June 2005, produced fierce controversy. Medical researchers and epidemiologists debated whether the new trial and the re-analysis of the old trial really proved a race-specific effect of BiDil. Social scientists fumed that the FDA’s action gave the government’s blessing to unsubstantiated claims that races are biologically distinct. But advocates of black health, from the Congressional Black Caucus to the NAACP and the Association of Black Cardiologists supported BiDil, arguing that BiDil might contribute to the elimination of the shocking health disparities that exist between African Americans and other Americans.”…
“Although we would be happy to avoid the tense dramas of past conferences, we understand that the tension is inevitable, perhaps even necessary. The emotional anguish that accompanies debates about race is a marker of the profound relevance of the issues at hand. Though some might consider it more polite to pretend that all is well with race in America, recent events—from Katrina to the presidential campaign—suggest a more complicated reality. Only by welcoming dialogue and controversy can we hope to make progress through the tensions and towards a future of possible resolutions. Without this honest and difficult work, we risk a future of irrelevant scholarship, ineffective policy and continuing inequalities that cause such harm to the bodies and psyches of all Americans.”
Kimstu, you clearly changed your position without acknowledging the same. You also pretended that you had asked me about my position and I had evaded your question when you had not even asked what my position was.
I pointed these things out to you, and rather than acknowledge that your position had changed and acknowledge that you had not yet asked for my position, you ignored me and added to your dishonest debate tactics by falsely claiming that that I’m not prepared to back up my position.
For your weaseling and strawmanning, I am banning you. I will no longer engage with you except to explain why I am not doing so.
Bye.
And I repeat my offer to other participants in the thread: If you are interested, I am happy to spell out where I stand and offer evidence/arguments to support it.
Dealing with real groupings is exactly what I’m advocating. We should study real differences between racial categories and their various causal factors, without jumping to unsupported conclusions. Yes, on average there are some medical differences across racial groupings. But that by itself doesn’t show that the differences spring from a common genetic heritage.
There would be nothing wrong with it if they did, of course. You keep blathering about “political correctness” and “platitudes” when in fact, you’re the one clinging to platitudes and unsupported ideologically-based assertions. I have no objection at all to the possibility that there might be a significant genetic component to racial categories. What I object to is your continued insistence on pulling alleged “common-sense arguments” out of your ass to insist that there MUST be a significant genetic component to racial categories, when in fact this is not justified by the current state of the science.
Sure, but unless and until someone conclusively links those differences with scientifically identified differences between blacks and whites in their genetic makeup, you’re still basing your claims on arguments pulled out of your ass.
You appear to be confusing me with some other poster. I didn’t say anything about any anthropology tests.
I read it. Basically, it argues that more study is needed, a position which I have no objection to at all. What I object to, as I said, is the closed-mindedness of ideologues like yourself, who continue to insist that race MUST be a genetically meaningful category.
You’re not saying “Hey, race might be a useful indicator of genetic kinship, we should study this issue carefully and see what we learn.” That would be perfectly reasonable. Instead, you’re trying to claim that race MUST be a useful indicator of genetic kinship, based on apparently very little besides your own need to believe this, and condescendingly dismissing anybody who ventures to point out to you that this claim simply is not established with any scientific certainty.
For all your smug rhetoric about views of race in medicine, you don’t seem to know much about the details of what medical researchers actually think about race. For example:
Human Genome Project researchers concur:
In other words, according to professional researchers in medicine and genetics, race is an extremely unreliable indicator of genetic heritage, with some members of a certain racial category being genetically quite similar and other members of the same category being very different. Real researchers, as opposed to “race-realist” ideologues like yourself, are therefore extremely cautious about drawing conclusions about genetic kinship from the existence of race-linked differences.
My, my, what a pity. Not even one parting link to any actual evidence on which you base your views about the influence of genetic factors on race-linked differences in ability? Just to prove that you’re not just running scared from the prospect of debating on the basis of facts rather than unsupported assertions?
Chief Pedant, do you really want to bring the tarnished history of medical practice into this debate? The way that doctors over decades have persisted in methods and practices that were either unproductive or actively detrimental because that was just how the profession did things then?
You blew it when you persisted with a definition of nurture based on the time adults spent in undergraduate education. Dude, that’s not nurture, that’s training. And you either cannot or will not recognize the distinction.
Instead of dealing with the major flaws in your argument, you talk tough. “In medicine ( a discipline for men, not boys!) we deal with real (though not definable by any recognized scientific process) racial differences! Aargh! I may not be up on the latest peer reviewed studies, but I can kick your ass, boy! How do ya like them apples?!”
BiDil would not seem to be the best example to use for claiming that medical science does not deal with politically correct behavior. It is actually a pretty good example of political correctness dictating a medical policy.
The initial study in the 1990s that called attention to the mixture of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride happened to show much better survival rates for black subjects while apparently having no statistically significant effect on white subjects. Following this report, there was a huge amount of pressure to see whther it was actually an efficacious treatment for blacks in the U.S. The tests were set up (including only black subjects) and the results came back with such a good performance record that the FDA actually stopped the trial before its scheduled conclusion and ordered all the subjects to begin receiving the combined drug, now known as BiDil.
So far, so good.
However, a separate re-analysis of the original study has shown that the white men involved in the study tended to be in better overall health (aside from the heart problems) than the black men in the study who tended to be both older and subject to a greater number of simultaneous health problems (hypertension, obesity, diabetes, etc.). Charting the study based on age and relative health rather than by perceived race actually spun the results away from a “black / white” distinction. However, by that point, the news was out that we had a new “black” drug and off we went.
Now, it is clear that BiDil does represent a good form of treatment for self-identified African Americans (to use the language of the study). However, we really do not know whether it would be equally beneficial to whites or Asians or Indians or Oceanians because (driven by the desire to find a good “black” drug, we have not bothered to test it. We also have no idea whether it would be equally benefical to some or all people of sub-Saharan Africa, because we have not tested that, either. We have only made specific tests for one segment of one population in the world.
So the idea that medicine boldly faces facts, regardless of political pressures, appears to suffer from the medical community’s own propaganda.
It is great that BiDil works well on its targeted patients. I do hope that we do not let it be treated as a panacea, being wasted on realtively healthy young black men who will derive no benefit from it while (effectively) denying it to older, more infirm white men (who might be able to use it just as effectively as their black counterparts), simply because we have pigeon-holed it as a “black” drug.