It is true that I personally consider that genetic differences ultimately account for many if not most of the observed differences among populations.
I freely admit this is an opinion and not recognized as fact, so I appreciate you making me clarify that.
What I find disturbing is an unwillingness to even consider a genetic explanation for differences between two populations. We are ultimately best served in putting all explanations on the table and discarding weak ones because there is no evidence. What I have noticed instead is a dismissive attitude toward those who look at what evidence is available and come to the conclusion that genes play a signficant role. In academic circles it is tantamount to academic suicide, or a least an automatic nomination to the Pariah club.
Particularly since we are close to being able to identify genetic cause and effect, I consider it a mistake to reject outright explanations which are considered politically incorrect or labeled as “racist” for no reason other than being incompatible with a sense of fairness. Mother Nature never promised not to favor one individual over another, nor one population group over another. A better approach, in my opinion, is to say, “It’s lovely you are from that above-average skillset group. However I am interested only in your individual skills and not those of your family.”
So how do you tell the difference between people disagreeing with you because there’s no evidence to support your position and people disagreeing with you because they’re being “PC”?
The latter will claim that there can’t be any evidence, or that we shouldn’t look for it because it perpetuates racism.
Here’s an example: In his book “What does it mean to be 98% Chimpanzee”, Jonathan Marks puts forth the proposal that we stop referring to Neanderthals as a separate species (the more common position of anthropologists these days), and refer to them as a subspecies of H. sapiens. His reasoning? Nothing about whether or not the data supports his position, but he thinks that if we take up that subspecies “space” with Neanderthals, it leaves no room for anyone to claim that the extant populations can be considered subspecies.
I totally agree. It’s not unreasonable to hypothesize that genetics account for a significant part of the differences among the groups commonly known as races. Call this the “gene hypothesis.”
I have found that in discussions, when somebody advances the gene hypothesis, frequently somebody will reply that “there is no biological basis for race” or something similar.
On its face, the statement appears to be scientific, meaningful, and to contradict the gene hypothesis. But if you question it the way I questioned Monty earlier, it turns out to be non-scientific, meaningless, or to not contradict the gene hypothesis. Or just plain wrong.
Hi there, this was my original reply to this OP, and despite it being criticised elsewhere I am
standing by it.
argument against racism
Lets not get all technical about this, if your friend does not have the common sense to recognize that we are all members of one race, and that all differences are imposed as we grow, then perhaps you dont really need him as a friend anyway. Let him just carry on in his own mixed up little world. Eventually all these bigoted, prejudiced, wastes of a brain will die off.
Reply With Quote
Now, whilst respecting the merits of a “scientific” reply, and your forums pride in it`s
overall accuracy and thoroughness, I prefer my answers to come in a format that the
“average literate layman” could understand. If a reply is steeped in technical terms and
statistics, I believe this can put the reader off his/her attention to the valid details.
In this post, as an argument for racial differences I noticed a reference to a Saharan
village where apparently they are “crap” at IQ tests. This does not prove a racial inferiority.
If that same group of villagers had grown up on the outskirts of Chicago, I would wager
anything that they would then be significantly smarter. The point made elsewhere about
black boxers, Chinese ping-pong players… etc…is simply prejudicial hog-wash.
Here is a simple experiment that could be devised… take 20 Israelis and 20 Palestinians, put them in a room completely naked, and then ask complete strangers to them to point
out which one is which. I do n`t know the answer…I basically have trouble getting one
chick to undress…but I am willing to bet again that not many would have high correct
scores. Feel free to rip me apart if I am wrong!