lucwarm, I personally would not defend the position that it must be a hard and fast line … there are lots of fuzzy concepts in which arbitrary distinctions are imposed upon a continuum of human variations … but it must be one of some pragmatic value.
As a biologic concept, “race” is so fuzzy as to be nearly meaningless. And is well replaced by more precise population distinctions that the data evinces.
OTOH …
Our population geneticist friends tell us that African populations have the widest haplotype diversity. Consistent with the hypothesis that other human population groups were originated by migrations of small groups (with more limited gentic diversity) into other areas from Africa. It seems then to follow, to me, that the greatest variation about the mean for some variety of traits should be found in populations that have African origins. It further then follows that the variation which is high end of ability, the staistical far tail (ie the individual in the world who is the best at some particular ability, given equal environmental factors) would be more likely of African origin than of some group with less variation about the mean. This in no way has any positive predictive value. It does not imply that “given an African origin, indivual X is more likely more intelligent”, or what have you. But it does imply that for many traits the sigma outliers of the world (the Einsteins, the gold medalists, etc) are likely to found in those of African origin … given equal environments, cultures, and population sizes.
lucwarm, I thought I too had answered the “hard and fast” thing. Your repeated asking of this quesion seems like almost a baiting: do you have some term which has both a fuzzy definition and enormous utility?
The less precise a term is, the less meaningful it is scientifically IMHO. Take all of the terms we like to avoid in these debates: race, intelligence, athletic prowess, etc. – these all have little scientific utility because they all have fuzzy definitions.
For a term to be scientifically useful for descriptions of variation, it is best to have a very precise definition (i.e. hard and fast line). It needs to be repeatable, quantifiable, and applicable to other data sets. I can’t see how you can have a term which is fuzzy and meets these criteria.
DSeid:
Your last bit certainly could be true. We have never claimed otherwise AFAIK. (see tomndebb’s post about it in this thread, or IIRC the threads with peace or grienspace in the Pit of about a year ago). It is just that this advantage has never been adequately described. Environmental issues confound the whole picture, i.e. the whole East Africans/marathon running thing. Do East Africans marathon better because there is a prevalence of an allele which is advantageous for long distance running? Or is it that they are brought up at altitude running long distances, and that marathon running is an issue of near religious devotion in many societies there? We should be able to map genetic advantage if the statistical difference is large enough, but to my knowledge the questions have never been asked in a truly repeatable, scientific way.
This is the crux of the issue on which I have posted repeatedly, in numerous previous threads - I am reluctant to argue it again here, unless something new turns up. (I failed to understand your subsequent post).
My point here was only that whether you agree or not with the specific arguments (not you specifically - the anti-race camp in general) there should be a greater willingness to confront the various angles of the issue, as opposed to forcing the issue onto favorable ground and defending from there. JMHO, FWIW.
This is a shocking assertion.
No need to rely on recollections - I’ve linked to the actual issue. (third post on this page)
To put it a bit more sharply into focus:
[
Just one example. Not going to search for them all, but there are many, by you and/or others.
Well, as the poster lucwarm said in another thread
Dance much?
And herein lies the problem with all these discussions. There are enough issues surrounding the subject that any “simple” question does need to be answered with clarifying and qualifying remarks. In your most recent posts you have indicated that you see the choice of language “affected” by political considerations and you demand that we acknowledge as much. Yet we have never denied the political/sociological/cultural/semantic aspects of the choice of words.
We have been consistent in pointing out that there are populations of humans who can be identified biologically.
We have been consistent in pointing out that the groups that can be so identified are not large enough to carry the word “race” as it has been used in common speech in English for over 150 years.
We have noted that using the word “race” for those identifiable populations would cause confusion.
We recognize that, because race has been used in political ways in the past, that confusion with identifiable populations would have political ramifications.
This is a different statement than “Saying there is no race is just being PC” as some drive-by posters have claimed.
This is a different statement than “there is no race” which we have never said.
It is your habit to portray different answers at different times to different questions as “bait and switch” or as dishonest. I would submit that you are choosing to characterize different discussions as separate answers when they are actually different perspectives of the same answer. The dishonesty in this discussion is not ours.
Those question have always been couched in terms of the old Three Races or Five Races. Those races do not exist in any way that you can make biological sense of them. The logic is not flawed because we are answering the question as it was asked, in terms of the non-existent Five Races. If someone asks the question “Why do Ashkenazim suffer a higher rate of Tays-Sachs than anyone else?” and one of us responded, “There is no ‘race’ and Tays-Sachs is prevalent in all people” you would have a point.
The only occasion where something similar has occurred was in the discussion between grienspace and Collounsbury. Col’s initial points were that the initial claim from the sportswriter were not scientific and that one needed to establish specific guidelines to do a scientific examination. The discussion soon wandered into a lot of other areas, most of them acrimonious. Col will have to provide his own perspective on the issue, but I clearly recall edwino, Gadarene, and myself remarking at various times that if a trait could be found, we would accept the evidence. The problem being that while the numbers for sprinters in the last 15 years has been suggestive of some sort of relationship, there is countervailing evidence, as well: the fact that the North American sprinters come from a population with a great deal of genetic mixtures including European and North American; the fact that it is not clear exactly which African genetic populations were the ancestors of the North American sprinters; the fact that the African sprinters come from at least two separate genetic populations.
As the questions and answers are delivered, here, however, you are the one doing the switching.
Here’s one link i found http://ology.amnh.org/ologist/desalle/more_quest10.html
Its numbers are comparable with what i’ve seen (thought Chimps have varied from 98% to 99% the same, with 98.7% as the more common figure i’ve seen lately, and some older articles listed mice at only 85%, but i couldn’t find anything newer. That doesn’t mean much, as i can’t find a paper bag on google
As for the specific “races” being genetically superior in certain areas issue, it is possible that certain populations might be slightly better for selecting for certain traits due to enviromental and cultural differences, but the supposed supermen of whatever skill would not be so far from the rest of the general population as to warrent separating them. If Micheal Jordan had a son that was good at basketball, we wouldn’t classify the Jordan’s as their own race (Homo sapiens basketballus), but just say the family has skills. Now you can expand family to tribes in some areas, and see how various places might have some skills. Culture will also play roles and give percieved attributes to certain people, that’s why the Chinese and Japanese are thought to be all good students studying to be doctors and kung fu masters by alot of people who don’t deal with them personally. that example probably sucks, but it is the best i can think of right now.
Izzy,
I don’t see any conflict between edwino’s agreeing with my statement and the past statement of his that you’ve quoted.
Let me illustrate. My next door neighbor is a corporate attorny who would self-identify as a “Black American.” His parents were born in South America. Is he of African origin? Well, I’m sure that some of his heritage traces back to various regions of Africa, and some is probably of Spanish or Portugese heritage and some perhaps of indiginous American people. (I really don’t know because we aren’t that close. He’s the type who resods his grass because of grubs and goes to the country club. I think that he looks down on the fact that half my lawn is prairie plants and wild flowers.) His appearence says little of the populations that have contributed to his make-up and less about his abilities or temperment.
I have said nothing about any genetic advantage. I am talking about variation about the mean. As likely to a disadvantage as it is to be an advantage.
There is, to the best of my understanding, no evidence that there any particular alleles associated with superior athleticism. My logical construct is sheer speculation.
I have artificially assumed that culture, opportunity, motivation, and population size are the same between population groups. Obviously this is not the case. The logic that I have used should also explain why the world’s very best concert violinists are of African origin … and perhaps, somewhere eking out a survival in Africa, is an individual who would be the very best violinist (or physicist, or whatever) if they had exposure, pushy parents, lessons, and weren’t too busy trying not to starve to death. But the environment is a powerful factor. And it more likely explains the predominance of the sociologic grouping called Blacks in American sports.
First of all, Izzy I’m impressed that you are deep enough indebted in this debate to go back and read my posts. I am honored and humbled, even if I seem to disagree with myself. Certainly I am just a student, here and IRL, and my opinions have changed based on debates here and what I have learned IRL. There is bound to be some differences from what I stated 20 months ago and what I state today.
But. as DSeid pointed out, I don’t think my two statements fully contradict.
East Africans have won a bunch of marathons. There is a big jump in saying that there may be something prevalent amongst tribes who have historically lived in the high altitudes of the East Africa and saying that American blacks excel in sports. I believe there is no significant genetic difference between African Americans and other Americans besides obvious shared morphologic alleles determining skin color, nose shape, hair type, and a few other traits. These being the traits that define the description of “race,” the definition becomes circular. All the African Americans share is the some of the genes that describe them as African Americans.
I will say that is a wider variance in haplotypes, leading to perhaps more alleles around. No study has been able to find this. And, as DSeid adeptly pointed out, if we saw a wider variance in alleles, we would see all types of prodigies out of Africa – not just athletic ones. The fact that we don’t argues for a large societal input into athletic prowess. As it does for concert violin, as it does for calculus. So, I conclude that in all probability, genetics does not play a very large factor.
If someone were to propose to me with the fact that nearly all the top-class East Africans marathoners have a hypermorphic allele of glycogen synthase (or a haplotype profile, or whatever) which gives them supreme endurance, and that top-class marathon running is basically a nice selection for individuals who have this trait, then I would answer that these are answerable questions and propose some experiments. To the best of my knowledge the experiments have never been done, or have never been published as positive results. I would find it highly surprising and unique if it were the case, and I think it would cause a large splash in the medical, genetic, and sports world: how could you seriously devote your life to marathon running if you were genetically less fit to run marathons and maybe you should focus on the 10K. It is not outside a realm of probability, but it would be surprising and unique.
We could perhaps test the genetic component of East African marathon running by looking at biometric measurements of families of top-class marathon runners. If we could find statistically significant trends in the biometric data, we could use this with haplotype analysis to find a linkage disequilibrium, which we could use to identify candidate alleles giving genetic advantage. OTOH, I still see no way to apply this to the question of genetic prowess in the black population in general, and I don’t see how it would be possible.
Not often. And if I change my mind on an issue, I’m happy to admit it.
Now, my recent posts make pretty clear that I feel the “race doesn’t exist” position is ambiguous. So my answers to your questions are pretty reasonable.
On the other hand, my questions to you (which you still haven’t answered) were very careful and fair paraphrases of your earlier statements.
Earlier, you said this:
Earlier still, you said this:
And I asked this:
Is it your position that for each and every grouping that exists as a “biological reality,” there is a characteristic that is universal and exclusive to each group?
That’s my question. Why won’t you answer it? (Of course you are free to ask for clarification if you find it ambiguous. But come on, it’s a simple paraphrase of your earlier statements.)
**
I think my question fairly paraphrases your most recent position; if you weren’t dancing, it should be fairly easy to say “yes” without qualification:
Is it your position that for each and every grouping that exists as a “biological reality,” there is a characteristic that is universal and exclusive to each group?
**
I don’t believe I said anything about “choice of language.” I said that your position on race was affected by political considerations. I think you’re setting up a strawman here, but feel free to point out where I said something about “choice of language.”
Where did I make an argument about “choice of words”?
**
Then why won’t you answer my question?
Is it your position that for each and every grouping that exists as a “biological reality,” there is a characteristic that is universal and exclusive to each group?
Do you think I’ve misrepresented your position somehow? Where and how?
I think that all the questions I asked in this post are very reasonable.
I’ll repeat them, in case you missed them:
Is it your position that for each and every grouping that exists as a “biological reality,” there is a characteristic that is universal and exclusive to each group?
Where did I make an argument about “choice of words”?
Not really. Your last post on that point left some questions unanswered, IMHO.
I’ll repeat a couple here. You previously said the following:
Then, you said this:
And I asked these questions:
**Ok, so you are saying that if you take two random individuals who share given traits in set “A,” their genetic distance, on average, will be little different from two individuals who do not share such traits?
And are you saying that any biological grouping for which this holds is invalid?
**
Would you mind taking a crack at them right now?
**
Of course I have a few “counterexamples” in mind. But the main reason I keep asking these questions is to demonstrate my points about unwillingness to be pinned down and the lack of a principled reason for the “no race” position.
So you disgree with Dseid’s comment above regarding the “hard and fast” issue?
You did not.
You asked this:
Now that you have reformulated the question in the terms that I had suggested, I will respond to your second version: “Yes.” (Which is what I had already indicated.)
(That is my personal view and may not agree with edwino, Dseid, Collounsbury, Gaspode, or others.) (You do not have to repeat the question multiple times; simply changing the wording to eliminate the “BOO” effect from Quantum Mechanics or elsewhere is sufficient. Implying that I had not answered a question that I explicity said I would answer “yes” to is, however, a bit closer to dishonest debating tactics than honest discussion.)
You claim that you have not talked about “choice of language.” That is correct; you have not used those words. However, your entire “bait and switch” claim and your claims of vagueness or shifting meanings are actually complaints about using specific words in specific contexts–that is “choice of language.”
If you actually believe that there has been a “bait and switch,” it might be useful if you provided an example where someone declared “there is no such thing as race” and then changed the meaning of that statement. So far, the only “bait and switch” demonstrated was your subsititution of my words for yours when you implied I had not answered “your” question.
Yes I did.
I’ll quote myself in context, if you like:
(emphasis supplied)
**
I asked the question; You didn’t answer it; I asked it again; You denied having been asked it. Who’s being dishonest?
**
Oh quit weasling. Here’s what you said before:
Did I say anything like this or not? If I did, where did I say it?
Agree. To support the argument I made previously, it would be helpful if I offered an example. I will try to wade through some of the old threads and come up with one.
**
Again, you are simply wrong on this point.
lucwarm, 08-01-2002 05:58 PM:
tomndebb,08-01-2002 07:08 PM
lucwarm, 08-02-2002 05:37 AM, restating the question to which I had already said I would provide a “yes” answer:
lucwarm, 08-03-2002 06:21 AM, repeatedly while ignoring that I had already answered “yes” when I rephrased the question:
OK. I believe that “set A,” the set of characteristics by which we describe races, has little bearing on genetic background. I believe that if you were to take two arbitrary people who share a set of these “racial alleles,” it would impart very little information about their genetic background.
People sharing black skin and curly hair are the most genetically diverse on the planet.
IMHO, genetically, “set A” has very little meaning to anything outside of “set A.”
I cannot think of any biological situation where the entire group of people sharing alleles of “set A” (i.e. an entire race) would have any predictive value for the traits which are not in “set A.” I cannot think of a biologic situation where you would want to do this even.
If I were to strain really hard, one could make an argument about partially penetrant phenotypes, syndromes, and other disorders which are kind of a nebulous array of symptoms. Together they may have predictive value. Take lupus – diagnosis of lupus is based on having 7 out of 11 features IIRC. Things like malar or discoid rash, arthritis, kidney findings. But while the symptoms are totally different, they share a common pathology – a specific set of autoantibodies. Other syndromes have other autoantibodies. Variant forms of the disease are based on the variable nature of the autoantibodies and a wide range of host factors complicating or mitigating the disease process. So you can have lupus without having the specific set of autoantibodies that they test for. Similar are contiguous gene deletion syndromes (CGDS): different deletions in overlapping regions cause different sets of findings. But both of these examples (lupus/autoimmune disease and CGDS) are based on a very definite pathology. That’s how science works – the clinician describes a syndrome, we look for the basic pathology so we can draw a hard and fast line.
**
So, I call. Show yer cards. Let’s see if you can produce a scientifically valid term without a hard, non-fuzzy definition.
DSeid said that some of these terms have utility (his words were “pragmatic value”). I totally agree – as I have said many times, race has utility for a clinician. I just don’t think that these terms are scientifically valid. IMHO.
And because I know it will be asked of me:
IMHO. Yes. You just have to wrangle with semantics. All cancer patients have unfettered cell growth but not all patients with unfettered cell growth have cancer. All cancer patients have unfettered cell growth which is prone to metastasis (except for basal cell carcinoma and a few others). All patients with unfettered cell growth prone to metastasis have cancer. At least as presently discovered. You get my drift. It is wrangling with semantics, a subject at which I am notoriously poor.
Genome Biology, the journal which Neil Risch published his opinion column cited by the New York Times, allows its articles free but not its opinion columns. I ain’t going across the street to dig it up, either.
But I am not throwing hundreds of previous papers out based on hypotheses presented in an opinion column in a third-tier journal. So, you propose that rare traits may be >15% variant amongst broad populations on a particular continent? Let’s see the data.
I could not find Collounsbury’s PNAS cite – they do offer it free after the article is a couple of months old if you wish to read it yourself. If it is newer, or you want my particular comments, then if you could provide an author name I’d be glad to read it.
Rereading the NYT thing, I really can’t see how arguing that 7.5% of Swedes carry a hemochromatosis mutation or that 10% of Ashkenazim carry a Tay Sachs mutation or that 20% of Europeans carry a cystic fibrosis mutation makes a white race. Sure, we can test for 50 traits which are found in 20 populations, and string them together to form a “race.” But I fail to see how this is relevant to anything besides the 50 traits we are talking about. It goes back to my hypothesis – there has been evolutionary selection on widely prevalent alleles. This includes not only dark/light skin but disease alleles – sickle cell trait gives malarial protection, some say CF carriage gives TB protection, European retention of lactose tolerance is an advantage to early dairy farmers (from the NYT). Apart from genes highly selected by disease (which does not include intelligence and athletic prowess), I can see no other differences across humanity.
(emphasis supplied.)
From your most recent post, it seems you now agree that in fact, I HAD asked the question – your only quibble now is that, according to you, you had already answered it.
Thus, your statement - “You did not” - was and is totally false.
I take it you’re retreating from this statement?
**
This seems consistent with what you said before, (and thanks for responding to me), but I notice that you didn’t mention “genetic distance.” Fine by me, but just so I know we are on the same page, can you confirm you agree with what I said before?
“Ok, so you are saying that if you take two random individuals who share given traits in set “A,” their genetic distance, on average, will be little different from two individuals who do not share such traits?”
Ok, I’ll give it a shot in a few days. In the meantime, can you confirm you agree with what I said before?
Thanks for indulging me. I’ll try to get you those “counterexamples” soon.
A full discussion of “hard and fast” in science would be a major hijack, but is interesting in its own right. I’ve started a new thread on it.
In short, I don’t think that scientific concepts are always so sharply demarcated. Fuzzy is often the best that we got and the fun is in trying to get the picture into sharper focus. And if a fuzzier categorization has more predictive utility then it is more scientifically valuable than an extremely fine categorization.
“Race” is not valuable scientifically because it has little predictive (utilitarian, pragmatic) value (of either genotype or of most of the phenotype) and impedes the development of a more refined understanding of issues of scientific interest, not because of the lack or hard and fast.
But please join me there, for the more general discussion.