I don’t think so. I think he is using population to refer to a grouping of people and race to mean a genetically distinct group, which he feels does not exist.
But no matter.
What’s incredible throughout this thread is that no one has even bothered to give any reason for why it should be impossible for different ethnic groups (or races, or whatever) to have different average levels of intelligence. All this going on about genetics and racism, and not the slightest attempt to address the crux of the issue.
What?!?!? Acknowledging that something is possible is entirely different from expressing a belief that it’s so.
I don’t understand how you can seriously assert this. There are lots of things that I highly doubt are true, but which I acknowledge might be. I personally doubt that there are little green men on any planets in the solar system; I’ve heard of no evidence to suggest it. However, I acknowledge that it is possible; perhaps our investigations have missed it. What’s the problem here? More down-to-earth, I believe that my fiancee is at work right now, but I can’t be absolutely certain because I’m not there to observe it.
It seems as if you’re saying, “If you have an opinion on this issue (or any issue), you must firmly believe it to be correct. Allowing that your opinion could be in error is a logical contradiction.”
I don’t think any reputable scientist will disagree in principle that intellectual capabilties differ among human beings. There is ample evidence for this. Hopefully, we are in agreement.
Numerous studies have been done (for example, the “Bell Curve”) that attempt to explore the differences in intelligence among various groups. Now, you or anyone else can do the same. Use whatever classification schema you want. Aborigones and bushmen, for example. Study their intellectual capabilties in whatever way you define them and using whatever methological approach you wish.
Now, show me the link. Show me the genetic link between a person’s mental abilities and your original classification. For example, let’s say you hypothetically assert that blacks have lower mental capabilties than whites (again, the “Bell Curve”). What distinguishes a black person from a white person? skin color? Hair texture? Eye color? Brain size? Bumps on the head? There genetic makeup? What about people who for all intense purposes look the same (Aborigines and Kalahari Bushmen), but are the most genetically dissimilar? How would you account for the differences (if they exist) in mental abilties between these groups? Possibly genetic, but ask yourself, if this is true, then why for all intense purposes do they look the same? So your original classification scheme has to be redone. And you’ve neglected to consider environmental/cultural influences as well.
Again, you can categorize groups however you want. Personally, I don’t have problems with it. But know the difference between classification schemas that are social/cultural constructs (and race IS A SOCIAL/CULTURAL CONSTUCT!!) used to present arguments for the differences in mental abilties between groups, versus those schemas that are based on a valid, biologically scientific basis. And as it stands now, there isn’t a valid, scientific way to categorize people based on biological/genetic criteria that can account for the differences in mental capabilties. That is, a genetic basis that links mental capabilties with the outward, physical appearance of human beings.
Since there are differences in mental capabilities between blacks and whites in America (again, re the Bell Curve"), might not a more sensible argument be made that the differences are environmental/cultural rather than from some inherent biological basis than can only be explored at the genetic level (i.e. the gene/genes that correspond to mental abilties)? And if you want to explore it at the genetic level, then concept of “race” becomes effectively meaningless.
zwaldd, if you’re lurking, I haven’t forgotten about those links/references - They’ll be coming, hopefully sometime this weekend
Population: User defined. For example: The population of people whose eye-folds fall more than one sixteenth of an inch below the eye. Or, the population of people who live withing 30 miles of a nuclear plant.
Race: A group of people who are biologically and genetically distinct in some way. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me in which way the races are biologically and genetically distinct from each other.
Still waiting for the definition of race. Still waiting. . .
There are geneticists, who postulate as follows: “there is no one gene or DNA strand that exists ONLY in one “race”, and ALWAYS in the ‘race’- thus there are no strict & solid boundaries for the construct called ‘races’- thus they do not exist”. There are no strict & solid boundaries for the construct known as “poetry”- but it still exists. And, there are some genes which exist ONLY in one race- however, not in every member of that race- sickle-cell anemia being an example. Thus- there are those that say- “race does not exist as we cannot put firm boundaries on it”. Well, fine- but most folks disagree. However, if “race” does exist- there MUST be differences in those races- and some of these differences CAN be defined as being “superiour” to others. Thus, by extension- any who think that races exist- are “racists”. Thus- the staff at Oxford Dictionary- all racists. The PhD who wrote my Physical Anthropology textbook- a racist. Some 75% of those who have posted in this thread- all racists. “I do not think that word means what you think it does”. Look at your own definition DDG- a racist is not one who thinks that races exist- or even one who thinks that some races might be, on the average, better than others at some things. A racist is someone who thinks that racial differences are more important than individual differences. You post your own freeaking definition- then ignore it.
One of the reasons there are no firm boundaries between "races’ is that we interbreed freely. Thus- a large % of folks are mixed. If there were firm boundaries based upon a gene- then humans would not be difference “races”- we would be different SPECIES. If geneticists, anthropologists & anatomists could ALWAYS, 100% tell which “race’ an individual belonged to- then they would not be races- they would be 'species”. They can USUALLY tell- and that alone says there is something, no matter how fuzzy- called “race”.
Thse cites were not to prove that “race” exists as a scientific contruct- I can’t do that- for every cite that uses "race’ as a scientific term- there is another that denies it. Those cites were to show that professionals & scientists use the term “Negroid”, as Biggirl asked.
Let us assume- for the sake of arguement- that the folks at the “Bell Curve” were right- and that Blacks are slightly less intelligent, on the average, than whites. (note - it also ‘concludes" that orientals are slightly “smarter” than "whites’- so i suggest we do not get TOO smug). However- what is important- they point out that individual differences are FAR greater than the small average difference. And, being a few % points in IQ does not mean 'superior" in my book. I am very likely have a geater IQ than the average multi-millionaire movie or sports star. (Since i have an IQ of 153, the odds are greatly in my favor). But who is “better”? Me- who holds down a mid-level bureaucrat position, drives a 8 year old Saturn, ad lives in an old/small apartment? Or a ‘star" who is faster, taller, better looking, has women begging to have his love-child, has 17 cars (all nicer than mine), and 4 homes, but whose IQ is a "mere’ 140? I think we would ALL agree(certainly I would)- that he is “better” than I am.
Any good skin cancer site has you compare your “skin type”, by darkness- to determine your risk in the sun. You really do not know that? And the darker your skin- the less risk.
Perhaps I, and many other scientists are wrong- there is no “scientific” definition of race- however, ALL agree that race is still a 'cultural" construct. And, “culture” is where we live & what we do.
DDG- I used to have respect for you- we did not always agree, but I used to read your posts with enjoyment. You seemed reasonable. But to call me a ‘racist"- contrary to your definition of what a racist is- and to do so primarily because I think that the term "race’ has a meaning- seems to be ignorant. I understand you disagree with me- but why does that make ME a ‘racist"? Millions of Americans, and thousands of scientists all accept "race’ as a scientific definition. Are we ALL racists?
i think the argument has narrowed to whether it’s possible for different groups of people with similar visible characteristics to have different physical capacities for intelligence. how that capacity is filled can easily be explained by cultural differences. it has been argued several times in this thread that similar physical characteristics are not genetically linked in any way, therefore there’s no reason to assume intellectual capacity can be measured along the lines of physical similarity.
Black people are genetically different than white people, therefore black people and white people are different races. You are genetically different than your father, does that then make you a different race than your father? No?
There is no “Asian gene”, only variations in the genes that control eye shape. There is no “black gene” only variations in the genes that control melanin. When do these variations constitute a new and different race? When DITWD decides that someone looks different enough to pronounce this person biologically different. zwaldd here are some cites for you. I have quoted some of the pertinent information, but feel free to read it all. Eugene Harris and Jody Hey, Dept of Genetics, Rutgers University
Daniel says he can go cite for cite with an opposing viewpoint, but all he has produced so far is a broken link and a post on a message board from a chiropractor.
One race is not faster or smarter or taller than another. There is no other race.
Let’s forget about race. How about ethnicity? There are clearly physical differences between different ethnic groups. Is it an impossibility that there are differences in intellect (assume an objective method of measurement) between ethnic groups?
[sub]Perhaps a more interesting question is “is it racist to even ask such a question?”[/sub]
Biggirl, I believe the problem is that you are looking for a clear-cut definition of “race” when there isn’t one. But just because things don’t fall into black or white (no pun intended), that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Now, you received several definitions of the word race in this thread…
So what the hell is wrong with those definitions?!? They seem to have the concept of “race” pegged down. Granted, “race” is not a universal constant, but fer cryin’ out loud, you don’t need exactitude 100% of the time for a concept to be correct!
Look, it doesn’t take a genius to know that physical traits are passed on genetically. The main point of this thread seems to be wondering if intellectual abilities are also determined purely by genetics, like hair color or height. A group which shares a significant number of similar genetic qualities is a “race”. The truly anal can classify individual families as a “race”, technically speaking, though for the purposes of ease of term usage this is usually not the case. But just because the dividing lines between races are NOT clear-cut that doesn’t mean that races themselves do not exist.
johnson, I’m not clear on what you are asking. Do you mean is it possible that one culture educates their children better? Or one region’s people can have a higher capacity for learning than another? Or is it possible to predict if someone of one ethnicity will outperform a person of another ethnicity on some sort of standardized test?
The answer to question number one is, yes. The answer to question number 2 is, no. The answer to question number 3 is, depends.
This is exactly my point. Race exists only as a social construct. There is no scientific basis for dividing humans into these catagories. We could just as easily divide the races by hair color if we, as a society, choose to do so.
**
All of mankind posses traits that are transmissible by descent. All of these traits can be passed to all of us. There is no one trait that can or cannot be passed between humans. The distinct human types that are catagorized as a race are arbitrary ones.
This is a social definition of a race. There is no biological reasoning behind this.
**
Repeat of definition number one.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**
**
This cannot be done. See cite.
I am not saying that there is no social definition of race, I am saying that there is no scientific basis for the social definition.
And just because everyone says it must be so does not make it so. Again, there is no scientific basis for the cultural need to divide humans into different races.
But it obviously takes a genius to realize that the distinctions imposed by society have no real meaning.
Anyone here ever take Linguistics and have to parse a sentence there? The amount of work that goes into the creation of even a simple sentence is just staggering. Given this, measuring IQ is so obviously measuring what a person has learned (environment) as opposed to what he inherited, that the question of measuring intelligence across human populations is absurd on its face.
The mere fact that you can put a sentence together in a grammatical way already puts you so far ahead of any other animal on the planet that all the other intellectual differences are, by comparison, infinitesimal.
Daniel: If you could show a little respect for your inheritance and run your posts through a spell checker, and correct them for obvious grammatical mistakes, I, for one, would be most grateful. So, I think, would a lot of other posters.
And by the way, Labradors are smarter than poodles. By a mile.
I’m sorry, but I was wrong here. This can be done. Since the genetic variation amongst humans is about 1% we can predict with accuracy that all humans are of the same race.
All right, all right, agreed. I was confused by your stance since you kept demanding a definition long after zwaldd said that race wasn’t a scientific term.
As for intelligence… well, the Human Genome Project just finished up, so maybe we’ll be able to find a gene that’s directly related to brain capacity or something, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Some people have better aptitudes in some areas of mental function, while some people excel in other areas. And some people are amazing in all areas. And still others are rather deficient altogether.
I’m curious, though… has there been any research done about the rates of (for example) mental retardation in varying regions of the world? (I use “mental retardation” because it seems like that’d be easier to quantify than, say, “artistic talent”).
Since my bracket key does not want to work, I’ll forgo quoting
Okay, given present knowledge I’ll say that I am disagreeing with Daniel. While it is possible that intelligence may trivially vary btw populations, given what we know about population variation it is damn near impossible for any such population to map onto what is popularly known as race.
Let me repeat, given genetic variation as documented to date --and I think it’s fairly substantial-- there’s just no way “blacks” --meaning darker skinned folks recently from Africa and not several other populations which morphologically fit negroid and including dark skinned pops of Africa which only vaguely fit negroid-- are coherent genetically to allow for some racial-biological difference in intelligence. Not even regional populations (such as West African) are coherent enough: Africa is the seat of the highest level of genetic diversity on the planet.
(Thus you find the reason for the objection to intelligence characterization - biological attributes are based on genes, for there to be some generalizable biological quality for a “race” there must be an underlying coherence to the genes, beyond our general human coherence of course.)
Ergo, while I would not exclude mirco-populations (say a clan or even extended family) having a lower; perhaps even detectably lower average intelligence (and leaving aside the serious, I repeat serious problems we PRESENTLY have defining intelligence in an objective manner) I find it doubtful anything larger will.
( Aside: no clear genetic or even functional physical understanding of intelligence or brain function has yet been arrived at. It will be? I am sure, but claims otherwise presently are grandstanding. Another decade I say before we get clearer, solid ideas that will stand the test of time.)
(As for not finding the links, for those who can’t understand how trivial surface morphologies are, I will try to repost once more citations to the original literature. Give me a day or so? I’m on the road a lot now. Otherwise, for those of you stuck on this point, please do try to read through the thread. Try reading just me and edwino if that saves time. You will find your questions and false assertions such as re determing race from bones, which are neither novel nor new, amply dealt with, ad nauseum.)
Daniel’s generalization was indeed racist as I read it. I’ll add that it was probably based simply on old fashioned misinformation rather than racism on his part, but it is completely incorrect. All the more so in the context of his foolish comments about Gould who remains one the best folks in the field. As for Spoofe’s comments to Big girl, I’m afriad he should read the discussions, he might then understand his errors.
Dear Collounsbury, obviously you missed my post right before yours, where I openly admitted to my “error”. Methinks you shouldst take some of your own advice, that is, read the discussion?
thanks for the cites. however, i already conceded that that you can’t genetically categorize differences based solely on outward physical characteristics. i wasn’t asking for cites proving or disproving the existence of genetically distinct races. i was asking for a quote that explained why some physical traits, such as asian eye shape and straight black hair, go hand in hand if it’s not simply a genetic thread. your cites don’t explain it. i also asked for a quote showing a study that proved that intellectual capacity cannot be one of those traits. again, your cites don’t address this.
The way it works is, you make a statement. I ask to see a cite for it. You go and find a cite for it. I thank you for providing a cite.
The way it does not work is, you make a statement. I ask to see a cite for it. You express your astonishment at my ignorance and refuse to provide a cite, and merely repeat the statement.
Umm, no, let’s not, 'kay? The Bell Curve has now been discredited.
It sounds to me as though saying, “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the folks at The Bell Curve are right” here at the Straight Dope Message Board is kinda like saying, “Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the folks at The Family Guide to Homeopathy are right.”
Since their book has been discredited, it doesn’t matter whether we get smug or not.
Again, we’re not here to talk about individual differences–we’re here to talk about the generalization, the categorization, of people by race that’s known as “racism”. We’re not here to talk about the tall Oriental or the non-athletic African. We’re here to talk about the deplorable way that people categorize other people on the basis of their “race”, as in, “he’s Oriental, so he must be smart”, “he’s black, so he must be a natural athlete”. THAT’S “racism”.
Millions of Americans also think Britney Spears has talent. However, we are not debating here what “millions of Americans” may thing. We are talking about what “Science” thinks.
The fact that “thousands of scientists” may accept “race” as a scientific definition, and that they may believe that intelligence, strength, and speed depend on what “race” you are, has no significance. “Thousands of scientists” also think that homeopathy and acupuncture work, too. And when you say “scientists”, are we talking about “scientists” like your New York professor of chiropractic? Reputable scientists, whose work has stood the test of time in the form of repeatable experiments and successful peer reviews of their work in reputable scientific journals, DO NOT believe that “race” is a scientific definition, or that intelligence, strength, and speed have anything to do with what “race” you are.
Am I helping you to rethink your views? Good. And yes, I agree with you 100% on this:
Yes, race is a cultural construct, not a biological one.
Um, no, I didn’t call you a racist contrary to my own definition. I laid out my definition of a racist and you seemed to fit the bill.
Yes, but your analogy breaks down, because people don’t make potentially life-changing decisions about other people solely on what kind of poet they are. “Oh, they’re NEOFORMALISTs, I never rent to those, I only rent to nice
CONTRA-GENTEELists…Did you hear, she married a PLURAESTHETIC !! No! My God, what will their children be like? Well, her father was 100% pure-blooded IOWA-WORKSHOP, so she must be very intelligent, at least.”
Um, no, there aren’t. That’s the whole point of this thread.
Right. Just because a blood sample has a gene for sickle cell anemia doesn’t mean it came from a Negroid person, as Ben already very kindly pointed out.
Yes, in order to split things up into races, you would by definition need to have differences between those races. But NO, some of those differences DO NOT NEED to be defined as being “superior” to others. I mean, come on, why? Why would some differences have to be “superior”? For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jersey cows and Herefords are different “races” of domestic cattle. (The cattle industry refers to them as “breeds” but never mind.) Would we need to say that the Jersey’s capacity for producing large amounts of high butterfat milk is “superior”, meaning “better”, than the Hereford’s capacity for dressing out as a nice beefy carcass? If you’re not familiar with cattle breeds, Jerseys are notorious for dressing out like deer, meaning no meat on their scrawny little carcasses. And Hereford cows don’t give much milk. So there are differences between “races” of cattle, but why would we have to define some of those differences as being “superior” to others?
Um, no, that’s not what we mean by the word “racist”. A “racist” is someone who judges other people by what “race” they are, NOT someone who merely thinks that race exists.
Wild exaggeration is fun sometimes, isn’t it? A “racist” is someone who judges other people by what “race” they are, NOT someone who merely thinks that race exists.
Okay, I think I see what you’re getting at.
Yes, racists do focus on racial differences rather than on individual differences. HOWEVER, the opposite does not hold true–it is NOT true to say, “Someone who focuses on individual differences rather than on racial differences is not a racist”. That’s what you’re getting at, isn’t it, ultimately? That’s why you keep bringing up the issue of individual differences. You think that if you focus on the individual differences and nobly ignore the fact of the black skin or the slant eyes, then you’re not a racist. But that’s not true at all. You can’t make statements like, “Negroids are taller and faster than other races” and then start talking about individual differences and expect us to ignore the fact that your first statement was racist.
And in so doing, Daniel, you verge perilously close on the standard defensive protestation, “Hey, some of my best friends are black/Chinese/gay/female…”
Okay, I don’t understand this at all. Are you changing your viewpoint, or are you just waffling? First you say this:
And I think, Oh, good, he’s getting it. He’s finally realizing that scientists can’t tell from the genes what race a person is. If they could tell from genes, then we’d be different species."
Then you go on to say this:
–and all my hopes are dashed. Alas, he doesn’t get it, after all. No, Daniel, they can’t “usually tell”. They can NEVER tell. That’s the whole point.
The Bell Curve has now been discredited.
And yes, I agree with you 100% on this: