As to the ways that intelligence has been quantified, I am sure you are as aware as I. These intelligence tests have consistently shown significant variations across populations. You are of course, free to offer your criticisms of them, and you would not be alone in doing so. My own assumption is that if the tests are invalid, populations which test poorly would still be just as successful as everyone else. In fact, the opposite is true, and populations which test poorly (sub-saharan Africa, say) struggle without external assistance. I have only seen explanations for why these populations might test poorly; I have not seen any real challenge to the fact that they do test poorly.
As I understand it, what the OP is looking for is evidence (not just possible alternative explanations) that this intelligence difference is not innate.
If I understand your approach, it is to say that there is not an intelligence difference among populations, and that intelligence is neither measurable or inferable from looking at a population’s achievements (or other secondary manifestations). The discussion of that probably belongs elsewhere and would sidetrack the OP, I think. In any case it doesn’t seem likely you and I would come to agreement.
If you have some evidence at hand to help out the OP and his friend, I am sure he would appreciate it. In the interim his friend is going to look out at the landscape of the world and say,
“There is a reason blacks are over-represented in the NBA. There is a greater representation of the genes which produce that skillset in that population pool.”
“There is a reason Asians are over-represented in the Nerd Association. There is a greater representation of the genes which produce that skillset in that population pool.”
The friend may end up being wrong. The OP is asking, “What is the evidence that he is wrong?”
Right, there are tests that have results that coincide generally with individuals’ and populations’ success in the modern world. That’s what we know. Those are the actual facts. High IQ people and populations - big things. Low IQ people - not so big things. I just need help knowing where it’s scientifically prudent that we’re loading these results with the conclusion of fixed, heritable mental capacity as dictated by genes.
That was the point of my intelligent design comment. We live on a planet with a eco-system filled with billions of organisms all living together, interacting to create a whole. Why can’t I just slip in “God must have created something this complex” ? Doesn’t it seem understandable for me to do so? Why not?
Any family who raises more than one child in an identical environment is aware that differences in the skillsets of those children are the result of their nature and not their nurture. These abilities are not absolutely fixed–they are a combination of genetic endowment and nurture. But while the total expression of that genetic endowment is dependent on nurture, the potential ceiling–the maximum expression–is dependent on heredity. I would be a much better basketball player if I had been coached and pushed from birth. My genes would prevent me from being NBA material. Nor would a better education have made me a competent engineer or a concert pianist. I don’t have the genetic capacity to develop those skillsets past the level of ordinary.
The OP’s friend wants to know what the evidence is that the difference among races is cultural (nurture) and not genetic. He raises the NBA as an example. An argument that the over-representation by blacks in the NBA is a cultural phenomenon would rest on evidence that other populations preferentially choose career alternatives even though the NBA is an available option for them. Based on what I have seen in High School and College basketball, the dream of playing professionally is the highest goal for most players of any background, and secondary careers are considered only when it becomes obvious that a player does not have the skillset to be a successful NBA candidate.
One strategy is to argue that races or populations or genetic pools are non-existent and undefinable. While I do not agree with this, it’s an approach I would support as long as there is a concomitant commitment on the part of those advocating that position that such ‘artificial’ distinctions would be completely eliminated from all discussions and policies. This becomes problematic for folks who want to argue on the one hand that negative consequences have accrued to a given group simply because they belong to that group, and on the other hand that such groupings are non-existent.
Surely the highest good is to accept each human being as an individual and let the categorization of groups be a point of scientific research that has no bearing on how we treat or evaluate an individual person. I don’t care if 90% of the NBA is black as long as my kid gets a fair and objective shot at the job.
I am struggling with how this relates to the question raised in the OP.
Oh. Wow. Okay, so you’re coming from an extremely ignorant POV - that explains everything. I mean who anywhere can dispute that black kids aren’t overrepresented in aspiring towards the NBA? So you’ve seen personally some multi-ethnic basketball teams in some High Schools? From that you assume an equal, representative aspiration towards professional basketball from all races?
They’re both examples of jumping to a simplistic, seemingly obvious conclusion despite lack of evidence directly pointing to that just because the person can’t fathom other possible, more likely explanations.
This topic is always a matter of “word games”, for specific reasons (see below). After all, the second-to-last thing you posted to brazil was a request for a definition! Then when allowed, for the sake of argument, to use your own, you just turned around and walked away.
Consider where brazil is coming from. You post that, “(t)o be sure, there is no biological basis for the concept of race.” Then John Mace quotes a citeable post of Colibri’s in which it’s proposed that biologists very much recognize a concept of “race” – only that it doesn’t really jibe with the sociological concept of race familiar to one and all.
Is “there is no biological basis for the sociological concept of race” a fair restatement of your opinion?
Going back to Colibri’s post – and very much recognizing that this ship has sailed in the scientific community – IMHO, the community of biologists should have agreed on a definition of biological “race” that is much more in line with “sociological race”. “Race = subspecies” seems to me to be trying to hard to avoid potential controversy. Why doesn’t biological “race” just mean “genetic population”? Or perhaps “race = extreme expression of a set of clines”? All of this stuff was decided upon and agreed upon in the very late stages of the scientific game … within the last five or six decades. It’s not like there’s some centuries-old tradition of defining “race” this way in biology.
One of the clear benefits of the definition of “biological race” matching more closely to that of “sociological race” is that confusions such as the following are less likely to be expressed:
I make the general observation that there is a feedback loop between a predisiposition for excellence at a skillset and participation in activities which allow the expression of that excellence. A young child who is good at sports but poor at math is more likely to spontaneously choose sports over math homework.
Children who excel at basketball within their peer group because of superior natural ability tend to develop that skillset to its maximum potential because of the positive feedback that their success provides. It has been my personal observation that young children within all-white peer groups who excel at basketball have as their highest possible aspiration playing in the NBA. Alternative pathways are chosen only after it becomes evident this goal is not realistic.
I do not believe there is a significant cohort of non-black athletes who are perfectly capable of successful NBA careers but who have simply decided to pursue other interests, thus accounting for the maldistribution of non-black athletes in the NBA. The NBA is about 80% black. This represents a six-fold increase over what would be statistically predicted based on representation in the total population. At the highest level of excellence, the disparity is substantially higher, with only a small handful of top NBA players being non-black. Even if you do ascribe entrance into the NBA as a reflection simply of culture, you must find yet another explanation (other than natural ability) for the disparity of excellence within the NBA itself.
Keep in mind that this may be suggestive of a strong genetic role, but it is not conclusive, in a scientific sense. We’d need to do a more controlled* experiment to approach the level of “conclusive”. Also, keep in mind that many of the “Black” players are actually of mixed African and European ancestry. It’s also possible that the genetic basis (if there is one) for the over-representation of that particular group is a function of the mixed-race background of the people involved.
*It’s often impossible to such a controlled experiment with humans, but what we have here is just too far from ideal to be satisfactory.
I’m sorry but it seems absolutely idiotic to get even close to that conclusion based on what was stated - as if the NBA is some naturally occurring phenomenon and certain populations are coincidentally predisposed to membership in it genetically.
Is that how you actually see the world working? Children exposed equally to all choices and choosing what their best at on their own? Look, many black kids grow up in communities where all the other black kids take basketball seriously at a rate that no other group matches. They inherit that interest socially. This conditioning is started at extremely young ages. That quite simply explains black adult over-representation in the NBA.
Same thing that happens to back kids. What does that have to do with anything?
Who are? By the time they’re athletes, many more black kids have trained throughout their lives at intense levels to being basketball players than anyone else. It’s that simple.
Why? The same cultural phenomena that would mold the demographics of the NBA would dictate the makeup of the top players. I don’t get what type of further conundrum you’re implying.
Well, race = subspecies is not something new. If you want to define a taxon just below the level of species, it doesn’t really matter what you call it, as long as you can apply it objectively and consistently. The fact is, there isn’t a natural or logical way to do that for humans.
You are, of course, free to offer you own definition and see how well it works. For example, you have offered one where “race = extreme expression of a set of clines”. Why don’t you tell us how that works: how you define “extreme” and where you see such “extreme” set of clines.
Further, if you’re asking for a “centuries-old tradition” in biology you’re just not going to get one. Darwin revolutionized biology in the mid-late 19th century, especially wrt this particular subject, so anything more than 150 years old is likely to be bad or incomplete science. Furthermore, it is only in the last 50 or so years that we’ve known about DNA and only in last 30 or so years that we’ve been able to perform meaningful genetic tests. It’s not at all unreasonable to expect that our scientific view of human variation would have undergone a significant change in that time period.
Eh. There is no reason to restrict ourselves to “naturally occurring phenomenon”, especially since that is a pretty meaningless term when it comes to humans anyway. When I say that something is “suggestive”, what I mean is that it can form the basis of a hypothesis. But then you have to test that hypothesis, which we have not done. Just like there are no stupid questions, one should be careful about labeling any hypothesis “idiotic”. It’s only by exploring the “idiotic” hypothesis that science really advances. But you have to stick to science, and not just assume that a hypothesis has any validity at all until it is thoroughly and rigorously tested.
The mechanisms for the groupings of race, populations, and so on are likely to be debated endlessly. When we finally sort out the entire genome and sort out every function of every active gene, the splitters and groupers can both have a field day defending whichever position they have held all along in defining a particular population. There will be enough variation for splitters and enough similarities for groupers. What will also be true, in my opinion, is that we are fundamentally a consequence of our genetic potential with a lesser contribution from our culture and environment. The measurements of that potential can be applied to any individual and averaged across any group, regardless of how one decides to define that group–from the color of their skin to their preference for Calvin Klein to the length of their second toe to their religious preference to their ethnic heritage.
What I find convincing is that top athletes in the NBA, to take a specific example of a particular pursuit, are there because of a fundamental genetically-based superiority and not because of cultural differences in aspirations or opportunity to pursue basketball. I am not lobbying for lumping ‘blacks’ together as a population. As I have said elsewhere I consider it counter-productive to do so because measurable differences among groups create societal tension and even discussing it becomes rapidly inflammatory. And, as others have pointed out, the scientific basis of the lumping may have minimal validity. However if (self-defined) blacks are lumped together, it is reasonable to infer that they have an over-representation of genes which produce a high skillset for basketball. This is the observation made by the OP’s Chinese friend, and for which the OP is asking for contrary evidence.
IIRC you are a medical doctor, right? If so you should surely know that this simply isn’t how science is done. I don’t know what else I can say.
What the OP’s friend has done is offer anecdotal observations and asked for contrary evidence. The fallacy there is to assume that the lack of such contrary evidence in some way proves the original observations to be correct. They remain anecdotal in nature, and we simply don’t know the answer. I should note, however, that your observation about the NBA is much more “testable” than some of the OP’s observations. As a scientist, I’m not sure how I would even begin to test the hypothesis that: “West Europeans (English and French) are born with strong values in rules and laws”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, race = subspecies is not something new. If you want to define a taxon just below the level of species, it doesn’t really matter what you call it, as long as you can apply it objectively and consistently. The fact is, there isn’t a natural or logical way to do that for humans.
[QUOTE]
Acknowledging that “genetic population” would not serve as a proper taxon … my personal perference would be for “race” to be defined biologically as what’s already recognized as “a genetic population,” as opposed to “a subspecies”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
You are, of course, free to offer you own definition and see how well it works. For example, you have offered one where “race = extreme expression of a set of clines”. Why don’t you tell us how that works: how you define “extreme” and where you see such “extreme” set of clines.
[QUOTE]
I prefer to crib the existing definition of “genetic population” and just call that a “race”. Working out all the clines necessary to define “race” on clinal bases may well prove problematic – point granted.
Indeed, indeed. I only think that the biological community should have used the term “race” in a different way. My point was there was no historical reason within biological study to apply the word “race” to “subspecies”.
Acknowledging that “genetic population” would not serve as a proper taxon … my personal perference would be for “race” to be defined biologically as what’s already recognized as “a genetic population,” as opposed to “a subspecies”.
I prefer to crib the existing definition of “genetic population” and just call that a “race”. Working out all the clines necessary to define “race” on clinal bases may well prove problematic – point granted.
Indeed, indeed. I only think that the biological community should have used the term “race” in a different way. My point was there was no historical reason within biological study to apply the word “race” to “subspecies”.
My guess, and it is only speculation, is that the discomfort with expressing the notion that a particular group is “naturally better” at basketball is that it opens the much more sensitive door for a different group being “naturally better” at creating a particularly successful culture. There seems to be what I have termed a “Religion of Equality” which has as its core postulate that humans are equally endowed everywhere. Anything which is contrary to that postulate must be in error.
I recognize the difficulty of testing the hypothesis you refer to, although I consider it may be a shorthand way of suggesting that culture follows and reflects the net genetically-based potential of a given population. An example might be trying to see whether there is a relationship between IQ and belief in the everyday occurrence of supernatural events. It would be difficult, in my opinion, to establish a culture based on the everyday supernatural among a population with a high average IQ.
In any case, the “anecdotal observations” are not just anecdotal, are they? There really is an overrepresentation of blacks in the NBA and East Asians in higher education, is there not?
Given that the black population is one seventh of the total population, this seems unlikely. I have not seen any data, or had any personal observation, that suggests non-black kids have a lesser aspiration for pro basketball or a more lackadaisical approach to their training. My observation is that white kids, for example, are actively pushed toward professional sports by very supportive parents, with early formalized training, professional lessons, specialized facilitites and any other competetive advantage which can be brought to bear. Despite this enormous advantage in numbers and opportunity, blacks outnumber them 6 to 1 in the NBA, and even more disproportionately at the highest levels.
The ratio of top black NBA players to top non-black players is considerably greater than the 6 to 1 ratio of the overall league. If the cultural phenomena molding the demographics of the NBA were the only factor at play, within the NBA this distribution should remain 6:1 across all levels. Instead, most non-black players are mid to low tier, with the top tier dominated by black players well in excess of the overall ratio.
I personally don’t have a discomfort in probing into that question, although I do think you can find examples of it in the scientific community. My sense is that the tide is turning on that, and you would be more likely to find such sentiments 20 years ago than you would today.
But that’s not the issue I am objecting to. The issue is whether that information is enough to conclude that there is a genetic basis for that outcome, which you seem to be saying. There might well be, but we’re not currently at the point of knowing.
bordelond: I’m not sure how to respond to your last post. It might be better if biologists had used a different definition of race all along, but I don’t know how we would evaluate that. However, I do think it would be a mistake to assume that the current understanding of “race” and how it can or cannot be applied to human population is the result of lack of trying. Rather, as scientists tried to be more objective and to apply new knowledge to the old concepts of race, that the lines began to blur rather than to become more distinct.
And history is strongly against any effort to delineate distinct races. The most distinctive and ancient groups like the Khoisan peoples or the so-called Negritos are being absorbed more and more into other groups-- a process that virtually compels us to drop the notion of races or subspecies when it comes to humans. We have, throughout much of our history, blended groups together as opposed to isolating them.