Well DDG, you can tell if a person has curly hair and dark skin by their genes. The erroneous assumption that racists make is that you can extrapulate how fast, smart, tall or whatever someone is by looking at the “slanty-eye” genes or the “melanin” producing genes.
There is a variation of about .1% in our genes. This is what makes us individuals and not a race of clones. The racist theory seems to be (I am using the term racist to define some one who believes there is some scientific reason for dividing humans into races), if your genes can make you darker than me than your genes can make you faster than me. The point that keeps getting lost here is that the divisions a racist use are arbitrary.
If an “intelligence” gene is ever found, then we can, if we like, make a new race of intelligent people. We can make a race based on any damned sequence of genes we want. But this is has meaning only to those who choose to seperate themselves based on whatever superfical criteria they choose to use.
You know, you almost had me for a moment. I mean I took my Physical Anthropology (upper division, note) class way back in '76, I think. And back then the vast majority of Anthopologists, etc, were very happily dividing the Human species up into varying numbers of “races”. True, there was a small minority that argued that, since we could fix no hard & fast division between the races- “race” did not exist - at least as far as a scientific term. Now, it appears that this, then a minority- is a much more popular view, in fact, amoung the newer, younger, more liberal group- it predominates. And of course- if “Races” do exist, and there are clear differences, some of these differences (not the races, the differences) could be argued as superiour- ie dark skin is resistant to skin cancer. But if “race” does not exist- then there ARE no clear differences between them, and thus, any races ‘difference" cannot be “better”. Oh, we still know that dark skin is “better” for skin cancer reasons- but “dark skin” is no longer a defining part of being “Negroid”, thus one can no longer say that any race is "better’ at any one thing- than any other race- as there ARE no “races”.
OK- I was buying this… until I read the comment above. You see, one can well argue that “race” as a “scientific” term is mostly meaningless, thus Gould & co- since they used the term in its ‘scientific" meaning were absolutely right. But “racist” is NOT a ‘scientific’ term- it is a culteral term. And, by every dictionary definition of "race’ I can find- ‘racist" means one who thinks one race is better than another (always his own, of course), or who thinks that "race’ defines a person far more importantly than individual differences. And, as i have made clear- i hold neither of these beliefs, nor can you find anything in any of my posts that would indicate that i hold either of these beleifs.
Thus- you can certainly say that one 'race" cannot possibly be slightly more intelligent that another- as there is no such thing as “race”- and be correct within a now current scientific meaning. BUT you cannot say that anyone who accepts the old “scientific” definition- or the common culteral one- is a 'racist"- as the word simply cannot be redefined by you. Thus- i must conclude you are NOT trying for some sort of 'scientific" conclusion to all this- but simply resorting to cheap, illogical “ad hominem” attacks.
The Bell Curve may very well be wrong- however, the authors were not considered racists before they wrote it, nor did the study have a racist agenda. The authors are called “racists”- simply becuase they published a work that many strongly disagree with. And the book has NOT been discredited as a study- altho many do not like the book or its conclusions. It has been discredited- “because the authors are racists”- and why are they racists? “Becuase they published a book we consider racist”. Sounds circular to me, but hey.
And- show me one line, one post where I have characterized any individual on the basis of his “race”. I have not. I have not even said than any races are “better” at anything else than another race- altho I have admitted some have said so- and they COULD be right. Assuming “race” exists- then it is NOT racist to say that “on the average, Blacks are taller than Orientals”. It IS racist to say: “Well, he is Black, thus he MUST be tall” or “He is Oriental- thus short”- and i have not done this. And if some one thinks that being taller is “better”, say for basketball, then one COULD conclude that “on the average, Blacks are better at basketball”- without nessesarily being a “racist”. Now- I think that that kind of generalization would be WRONG, it goes further than we should go- but, by the definitions thus posted- one could not conclude someone saying that was a 'racist". It certainly would be racist to say that “He is black- thus he is better at basketball than that Chinese guy”.
On to cows- you say Jerseys give more & better milk, and Herefords dress out better. Great example- clearly, neither breed is superiour over the other. But- for the purposes of MILKING, you have said the Jerseys are “better”. Right? And for the purpose of MEAT- Herefords are better. Thus- if a smart rancher wanted MILK cows, and not meat cattle- he would pick JERSEYS, not Herefords- right? Or would HE then be a “racist”?
And finally- by your final, but new definition “A racist is someone who judges other people by what “race” they are…” And I do not do that, nor have I ever. I judge every individual by WHO they are, not what RACE they are, as racial differences are (and i have said this over & over) AT BEST- TRIVIAL, & MINOR. You say there are NO differecnes- because “race” does not exist- well, fine.
It appears that both of you are getting hung up on definitions of race and whether they can be considered to have genetic meaning. I think you have to get past that.
Do you guys agree that there are, on average, physical differences between people who live/come from Africa, Asia, Europe etc? Obviously there are. OK, let’s assume that we can get past that point. Now, do these differences map to any genetic differences? From what you guys are saying it would appear that they don’t. But they are there nonetheless. So here’s the question:
Is it possible that just as there are factors which can give rise to physical differences (in aggregate) between large groups of people whether or not they map onto any known genetic classification, so too there may be other factors which might give rise to physical differences in the brains of these groups which will manifest themselves in diffferences in average intelligence of these groups?
(While I’m at it, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that differences in average intelligence can only be between groups of people that look dissimmilar. It also be between different groups that look exactly alike.)
Since I don’t have time to get on this merry go round again, let me once more direct people to the old threads where all points raised so far were discussed ad nauseum.
One item: Daniel this is not a question of “liberal” motherfuckinng anthropology, its genetics. Read the fucking threads, read the cites, you will see your entire message is both wrong and irrelevant. Not that I suspect you will do so, given what I have seen in the past but…
Izzy:
(1) It is not a matter that there are not genetic differences between populations in Africa, Eurasia, the Americas but rather they do not map onto races and they are trivial compared to inter-group variation
(2) There is no reason to suppose that there are generalizable differences in brain structure (in fact many reasons to conclude the contary) between populations in Eurasia, Africa and the Americas.
(3) Factors which might effect inherent biological capacity intelligence are two:
(a) genetic heritage (the template)
(b) environment (i) factors such as lead and other toxic exposure (ii) neonatal nutrition (iii) early childhood nutrition (etc.) Insofar as a group might share common environmental disabilities (or advantages) it might have a general advantage in ‘intelligence’
Of course, to make this messy, we do not have any really reliable and satisfactory way of testing intelligence. Some rough and ready tests of learning capacity etc. but for me the realm remains something to be defined.
And I would venture to say that in the event that any meaningful difference in brain structure were found within a population, then biologists, anthropologists, etc. may have to recognize the possibility that they are dealing with a new species. Hasn’t happened yet, as far as I know. Human beings are all homo sapiens (or to be more precise homo sapiens sapiens).
zwaldd, those sources will be posted sometime tomorrow (I hope, time permitting).
Mods…Sorry about the previous post. My SO and I share the same computer and I didn’t realize I was submitting my response via her username. Feel free to edit the previous post by “Saturn” to “eponymous”.
Since when do YOU get to decide that this entire thread & what I thought was a matter of “genetics”. Physical Anthropolgy is a science too. And, in any case- neither genetics or anthropology contains a definition for 'racist" which includes my opinions thus expressed. You want to turn this thread into a debate about Genetics- as that is what you know better. And you thus insist that the ONLY possible definitions WE can use here are those used in “Genetics”. Who died and made YOU moderator? I was using ANTHROPOLOGICAL definitions of race- not genetic ones. Since you clearly know little about anthropology- you want the arguement to turn on YOUR definitions- well, dude- we ain’t gonna fall for that. Whoever gets to write the definitions has already won the arguement. OK- one more time, slowly- in any standard dictionary can you find a normal definition of the word 'racist" which includes my views- which would allow you to call me a freaken racist? You have not- and I think you can not.
If you would like to debate whether or not “race” exists- and whether or not a 'cultural", “genetic” or “anthroplogical” definition of the word is better- or even valid- fine. Start the thread over in GD and we will all come on over. Might be interesting- or not.
But several of you folks called me a racist- and so far you have not been able to back up your attack. You do not get to make up your own definitions of words- only Humpty Dumpty gets to do that.
Not quite- there can be recognizable differences in a “population”, ie a “breed” or "race’ (they do not all mean the same, by any means- but they all show a lower roder of differnce than “species”). Take dogs for instance- they are all the same species. But, Labradors swim better than Chihuahas; St Bernards are better in the cold than wiener dogs -etc. But- there is no one difference that shows up in just one breed, and always in that breed. And, of course- all dog breeds are able to interbreed. Many dog experts think that some breeds are clearly “smarter” than others- the Labrador being widely considered amoung the smartest. Now, if one insists upon only a genetic definition which applies to dog breeds- none have a certain gene that only that breed has- and no other. Thus, they are not “species”.
In other words, the link between the physical traits that large numbers of people have, and the general location where they live, is more a product of coincidence rather than a definite genetic limitation?
Makes sense… all genetic traits are transferrable between any group of people… they just haven’t been homogenously mixed…
Given that brain development would be a lot more complicated than, say, an genetic favoring towards darker skin, I think it’s safe to assume that any role genetics play in “intelligence” would be neither major nor systematically linked to other genetic sequences.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**
Collounsbury is my hero. Apparently everything I’ve said on this thread did not compute. Collounsbury posts in between whatever he is doing on the road and, low and behold, someone starts to understand.
Spoofe, please tell me what it was about my posts that was not clear and did not get the point that you have just stated across. I am not being sarcastic, I am serious. There must be something in my wording or writing that is unclear. Maybe I am too combative.
I ask this because I know that this question will come up again on this board. I have been here since Feb 2000 and have participated in at least 5 threads of this very nature and I am sure it will come up again (see all the links).
DITWD, do you or do you not believe that humans can be sceintifically divided into races? Do you or do you not believe that we can determine how fast, smart, tall and which diseases a person can or cannot get on the basis of his race? Do you or do you not believe that humans are all one race? Do you or do you not believe that there are genes that only one “race” of people can have?
Again, I don’t see the relevance to this discussion. The question before us is whether there can be differences in average raw intelligence between these and similar groups, in the manner of the obvious physical differences that exist. It makes no difference whether these differences do or do not map onto races.
In this you are stating the obvious, and attacking the good old strawman. DITWD has stressed this very point several times, and I too have taken pains to refer to averages.
Quite possible. But we are discussing here whether it is theoretically possible or impossible, not whether there is reason to suppose that it is actually so. Further, as you said earlier “no clear genetic or even functional physical understanding of intelligence or brain function has yet been arrived”, so one can’t make too much out of what is presently unknown about the subject.
Again, who knows? But these issues concern the specifics of what might have actually caused a difference, rather than the theoretical issue of what is possible. I am hesitant to even discuss possible reasons for differences in intelligence, for fear of sidetracking the discussion.
This has been noted by several posters, and appears to be agreed upon by all sides in this debate.
An excellent point, and one which might be better addressed to Duck Duck Goose. From my perspective, I joined this discussion upon finding a contentless OP, full of nothing but PC jive. And worse, for the purpose of attacking a fellow poster. So, while not sure of the conclusion, I make a common sense point or two, ask a question. And, not receiving a direct answer, ask it again and again. With each non-answer the conviction grows that there is no answer - specifically, that there is no reason to believe that differences in average intelligence are impossible. So I guess something good may come out of the discussion after all.
[I’m going to assume, and it’s a huge assumption, that we can simply put a person’s hair into a machine and whirrrr get a measure of a person’s intelligence like that)
Ok, let’s start with a related question: are Americans smarter on average than, say, the Swiss? Ok, so we test, oh, maybe 10,000 Americans and 10,000 Swiss, do the statistics, and we find out that one group is smarter than the other. Simple.
This problem is relatively simple to solve because we can easily define what makes a person American and what makes a person Swiss. We can say, “If you were born in America, that makes you American. If you were born in Switzerland, you are Swiss.” Even in this simple scenario, we get into problems with immigration–does Juan, born in Mexico, but who has lived in the US for 25 years, get excluded? But at least we can have some meaningful standard: No, Juan gets counted as a Mexican.
Now let’s look at the situation addressed by the OP. Are Caucausians smarter on average than, say, Asians? We go to find our 10,000 Caucausian sample, and we go look for 10,000 Asians, and we have a problem. There is no meaningful standard!! No relationship between blood type, no geographic standard… even skin color, the most obvious phenotypical difference, doesn’t work! There is no way to tell someone’s “race” unequivocably, unlike being able to tell someone’s nationality.
Ok, well, suppose someone makes up their own standard–“I’m going to call anyone with light skin and naturally blonde hair Caucausian, and anyone with the double eyelid, I’m going to call them Asian.” (You can input your own phenotypic standards if you don’t like mine, but you just can’t pick any genotypic standards, because they don’t exist!)
Standards in hand, I go out and I quantify the intelligence of Caucausians and compare it to the intelligence of Asians. Here’s the kicker: my results relate to genetics about as much as the results from my National Intelligence study relate to genetics. With my poor standards, I was assuming that if two people look alike, they constitute one genetic group. As one insightful poster noted, the dark-skinned Bushmen and the dark-skinned Aboriginies of Australia are distantly related, despite their similar phenotypes.
Danielintheweaselsden, I don’t know if I’m going to call you a racist on this one. Certainly, I’ll call you ignorant. What year was your Anthropology textbook from, 1976? I suggest you get more current information before you start spouting “knowledge” that’s been frowned upon for a quarter of a century. Oh, and by the way, you jump down Collunsbury’s throat for giving a definition and accepting it as the “real” definition of the word “race.” Um, what do you think you’ve been doing, Anthropology Boy?
Finally, DITWD, I’d like to see some evidence for your attacks on Gould’s views. Have you even read The Mismeasure of Man? Please, research some cites that say exactly what you say–that Gould has some evil PC agenda, and dismisses anyone who comments on differences between populations as “racist.” Please, prove to me that Gould did not think about this issue in depth, and all he does is spit out a knee-jerk cry of “Racism!” whenever anyone tries to study human characteristics. Although, I probably shouldn’t doubt your interpretation of Gould’s position… after all, you were spot-on with your characterization of Dame Kenyon’s views :rolleyes: .
Determining relatedness of populations is now a question of genetics, the tools are there. If you read the literature on the subject, the modern literature, you would find physical anthropology now depends in great part on the insights of genetic analysis. The cites were provided in prior discussions.
In my view, your statements in the beginning were racist in character, although you may note I said inadvertantly. Frankly, I really think you’re just blowing hot air for the sheer pleasure of it like in any other debate In any event, Genetics and anthropology are rather irrelevant to the quesiton, except insofar as the relevant science refutes your statements in races and Gould per se.
(By the way the big lie Bell Curve authors were indeed considered racists before they wrote it, and the book is shoddy piece of psuedo-scientific shit.)
Genetics is the relevant science for the question as originally posed, i.e., fixed differences between human populations defined by the incoherent standards of race.
Disagreeing with you and pointing out your errors means I am a moderator?
You are using out of date and refuted definitions. Insofar as Anthropology, above all Physical Anthropology, is a science it is subject to the same process of critique and revision as any other science. I’ve noted before you have some trouble with this concept, but there it is. Your definitions have been discarded, at least since the 1990s.
Ah this does bring a smile to me face.
Well dude or whatever, its not my definitions, its a quesito of the currently accepted scientific standards.
DDG has already addressed this. Given the biblical cities discussion I witnessed in GD and in the pit (with Gaudere) I doubt there is any real reason to engage you in a debate or even a discussion.
Re Spoofe:
Yes, I might add that we have clear evidence of the same surface morphologies (e.g. say the stereotypical negroid) arising seperately, presumably from similar if unclear selective pressures: the best example is the populations of South East Asia often referred to in older Anthro lit as ‘Negrito’. It was often posited, before genetic analysis, that because their near physical identity with classically ‘negroid african’ physical traits that they were direct African descendants. However, genetic analysis demonstrates that they in fact are most closely related to other South East Asians with more stereotypical “Asian” features. The list could go on and on regarding how surface morphology is not indicative of common descent per se.
Izzy:
Daniels initial comments presumed inherent commonalities within the old fashioned Victorian races, ergo it is important to note that they are not genetically coherent. Averages and whatnot are simply misunderstanding the issue.
I can add that I do not agree with your benign reading of Daniel’s initial statement which DDG critiqued, nor his subsequent drivel. Nor do I see anything “PC” in the discussion. I do see a lack of clarity on the underlying scientific issues. However, it does not seem particularly helpful to debate this: my reading of Daniel’s statement is as I initially stated and I think DDG has a valid point. You do not. There we have it.
As for the questions posed, I believe they have in fact been answered, although perhaps not clearly enough, but let me try to restate:
As for the issue of intelligence, I think I have already stated clearly that given present knowledge of variation, it is highly unlikely that any large group will share a pattern of traits effecting the genetic underpinnings of intelligence in a group coherent way…
As I noted, differences mapping unto smaller populations (e.g. at the level of thousands or hundreds of individuals for isolated groups) are of course quite possible, indeed I see no theoretical issue at all. However, that is quite different from larger populations, especially non-isolated ones for the reasons stated above.
Finally, I note that unlike the genetic template issue, the ill-effects (and to a lesser extent good effects) of environmental factors seem to be clearly documented. Lead poisoning, alcoholism in the mother, poor nutrition etc. produce clear, documented effects.
So, given the data, the only commonality for average intelligence differences for large populations is environmental.
In this case it is not simply a case of “who knows” but a question of how to approach the evidence.
Unless there is a compelling reason to theorize otherwise…
PS Big girl, I am currently bankrupting my employer through wholly unnecessary research on conditions in my area of responsiblity. But I always said never let me near a travel voucher.
no but you can predict the likelihood of the sickle cell gene from the presence of the ‘negroid’ skin gene. according to http://www.emory.edu/PEDS/SICKLE/ctresrch.htm, sickle cell disease affects 1 in 400 blacks. this site - http://www.emory.edu/PEDS/SICKLE/faq.htm - separates the disease from the trait. the disease requires more than just the trait, so we can assume that the likelihood of the gene is higher than 1 in 400. i couldn’t find stats for non-african at-risk groups, so i’m assuming the percentage is insignificant. if i’m wrong, please provide a link.
not only can you tell the hair type and skin color by looking at the hair type gene and skin color gene, the fact that for black people they often go hand in hand means a scientist could predict the curly hair gene by the presence of the ‘black’ skin gene. maybe not always, but a large percentage of the time. now ditwd didn’t say that one could also predict a theoretical intelligence capacity gene in the same way, he said it was possible. to say it’s impossible (or to say that anything’s impossible for that matter, which is why scientists don’t use that word much) requires a significant number of studies that prove it. i’m still waiting on one.
the info from the sickle cell research center is making me rethink the validity of defining race by genetics. the sickle cell gene clearly affects the black population more than the white population. it’s a scientifically proven example of a gene for a visible trait correlating with one for a non-visible trait in predictable intervals over a broad range. the statement ‘blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell than whites’ is only true if ‘blacks’ means ‘the black population’ and not ‘a specific group of black people’. in any event, i was looking at the new oxford english dictionary in the bookstore today, and while it still had a definition for race, it went so far as to eliminate the ‘inherited trait’ part. it was “a division of humanity based on observable physical characteristics such as skin or hair color.” i liked it. it was arbitrary and non-scientific.
it would be more unlikely if there was a) not already a pattern of traits shared by a large group (see the georgia data above), or b) one or more studies cited to back it up. collounsbury - i would read through your threads, but the example you gave of what i’d find, that you can’t determine race from bones, is not what i’m arguing. i’m offering the possibility of, metaphorically, predicting bones from race. have we abandoned the argument for possibility? the debate over what is required to prove something impossibile may require a thread of its own.
Unless of course the subject comes from a population which is not sickle-cell carrier. As noted, not all African or even “negroid” populations are sickle cell carriers. African Americans, heavily mixed but also largely descended from African populations in the malarial zone quite naturally show a high prevalence, but lower than presumable ancestral populations in place such as lower Nigeria etc.
You are wrong. The assumption is unfounded and not a little parochial, and you might note that further reading will direct you to literature relevant to non-African groups. However, the Emory site is quite naturally concerned with the major source of sickle cell expression in American populations, ergo concentrates on that, while noting the prevalence in non-African descended populations. As for a link, when you show some initiative and first follow up the prior discussions, then I might be inclined to waste some time on medline or the like.
May I invite you to read the fucking threads where this misperception is already dealt with in detail? I have come to detest rehashing the same nonesense over and over and over and over and over. Your misapphrensions regarding the clarity of “black populations” and correlation is unfounded.
Strictly speaking, the statement is false, or rather inaccurate but then one is ignoring the context of the faq. Generally speaking, for the purposes of communicating with the public and quickly making a resume of the disease.
There is not. You are not understanding the issue.
(1) distribution of sickle cell trait is not shared on a racial basis but by malarial incidence.
(2) you are ignoring noted prevalence of sicke cell traits in other populations and making an ad hoc and unsupported assumption that bec. an American site naturally focuses on the most important at risk group in its area that other groups are ‘insignificant’.
The last is the same coin my dear fellow: You will find a full, complete discussion of the genetics of this, including this very topic, in the cited threads. With citations and online linkages where possible. I’m not in the mood to compensate for laziness by doing the very same thing you can do yourself, which is to review the threads.
I have quite clearly, as far as I can tell, responded to the science of the issue and the parameters of possiblity. To be clear, I regard the issue of genetically founded intelligence differences btw the ‘classic’ races as impossible. I have already indicated where I personally see the possibility arising.
Biggirl, thanks for the links - zwaldd, you can check out those.
originally posted by zwaldd
First of all, I’ll state that the difference in genetic makeup between the Kalihari Bushman (San and Kung) and Australian Aborigiones is probably incorrect (I was going from memory). I believe it’s between Sub-Saharan Africans categorized as Bantu speaking people and Australian Aborigiones. The Kalihari bushman are actually closer in genetic makeup to the negritos of southwest Asia (surface features are similar). But the genetic makeup of Bushman and Aborigiones are still at the opposite ends of the genetic spectrum.
I’m relying on Cavalli-Sforza, et al. (1994) “The History and Geography of Human Genes” for my information on the genetic dissimilaity of Australian Aborigiones vis-a-vis Sub-Saharan Africa Bantu speaking peoples.
Here are just some examples:
Page 71 - Figure 2.2.3. Figure depicts similarities in outward physical appearances. Aborigiones and Bantus are very similar.
Pages 73-83 Chapter 2.3 Analysis of Classical Markers in Forty Two Selected Population
Authors compare and contrast alleles of groups. Uses multivariate statistical analysis to determining groupings.
From these analyses, Bantu’s and Aborigiones have the most dissimilar alleles (I’m not a geneticist - but the data and charts clearly show the dissimilarity between the two groups).
Pages 83-93 Chapter 2.4 Analysis Of DNA data.
Authors look at mitochondrial DNA types using restiction analysis. Page 85 - diagram depicting the genetic “drift” in 5 geographic regions. Again, Africans are most dissimilar with Aborigiones.
The genetic makeup of human beings is nearly identical, as has been stated by previous posters. The differences that do exist don’t always manifest themselves in outward physical appearances.
originally posted by zwaldd
Source - “The Bell Curve Wars” (1995), edited by Steven Fraser.
Pages 36-57 “Race, IQ, and Scientism” by Richard Nesbitt.
Article (along with other articles in the book) by Nesbitt is a critique of “The Bell Curve” by Hernnstein and Murray.
Page 37 - Genetics, Race, and IQ
Racial Ancestry
“There are seven studies that have found their way into the general literature on race and IQ that allow us to assess in a direct way the effects of genetics on IQ. These are studies that attempt to reduce or eliminate the real-world confounding of race with environment - that is, the fact that blacks and white live in different environments with different forms of socialization and different opportunities…” (quoted from article).
One of the criticisms that Nesbitt levels against the Bell Curve is that the authors neglected to consider 6 of the seven in any serious way. And what do the seven indicate? That there was no meaningful difference in the IQ scores of of whites and blacks tested.
One example of a study that was dismissed out of hand by the authors of “The Bell Curve” was rebuted by Nesbit in his critique.
Scarr, S., S. Pakstis, H. Katz, and W. B. Barker (1977). “Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population.” Human Genetics, 39, 73-77 and 82-83.
Rationale of study - 1) The “black” population of the United States consists of from 20-30 European genes and 2) Africans and Europeans differ in blood group genes sufficiently to be able to obtain a measure of the degree of “Europeanness” of an individual’s heritage. Under a genetic hypothesis, the more the European genes, the higher the IQ should be.
Findings - correlation between estimated European heritage and IQ for a sample of 288 young blacks in Philadelphia was a trivial and nonsignificant .05.
Quote by Nesbitt - “The authors mention the study only in a note at the end of the book, and mention it only to dismiss it on the grounds of self-selection; one does not know about the intelligence of the white ancestors and the study is not very probative because, if the white ancestors were particularly unintelligent, it might be no advantage for a black to have European genes. But of course, there is no reason to assume that white ancestors who entered into unions were particularly unintelligent, and once again, the nature of the self-selection would have to have been extreme to produce the results.”
Nesbitt goes on to discuss the other studies overlooked by Hernnstein and Murray. My suggestion - check out “The Bell Curve Wars”. The articles are listed at the back of the article by Nesbitt. If you REALLY want me to, I can list those mentioned in the Nesbitt article. Danielinthewolvesden - I don’t think you are a racist. I don’t know you personally, so I can’t make that assertion with any reasonable amount of insurance. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. But your comment that raised the ire of DDG borders on a racist attitude. I think one of your issues is with Gould’s contention that its impossible to find a genetic basis that would correlate with meaningful differences in intellectual ability.
But you have to be very careful how to frame your arguments. That’s why you created a shitstorm with DDG and others. There very well may be differences in brain structure/function among various groups that equate with differences in intelligence. However, according to Gould (and others), if those differences should exist, THEY WOULD NOT BE MEANINGFUL IN A SCIENTIFIC, VALID WAY. As a result, differences in brain structure/function wouln’t confer any biological advantage for the “smart” people over the “dumb” people. If true, then why are there so many stupid people in the world? (sorry, a bad joke, but hopefully you get the picture). So there’s every reason for Gould and others to make such an assertation that it is impossible.
One reason is the difficulty in defining what intelligence is. Check out “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences” by Howard Gardner. The other reason is that human beings are, basically, identical genetically.
As to the reply to the post by Saturn (that was supposed to be from me - see thread following post by Saturn), I was referring to meaningful differences in brain structure/function. If meaningful differences WERE found, THAT would be something that scientists would have to contend with, one of which is the possibility that there is a new species. Sure, a terrier might be “smarter” than a poodle. I don’t know - I’m not a dog breeder. But is the difference in intelligence between the two MEANINGFUL?
I would venture to say the brain size/function are all pretty much the same for all dogs. Sure Great Danes may have larger brains than poddles - but are Great Danes smarter than poodles? I’ve heard that Jack Russell terriers are the smartest bread. There a pretty small dog (compared to Great Danes). But are they REALLY smarter than Great Danes? To what degree of meaningfulness?
Humans are smarter than dogs, right? There’s a meaningful difference between the two, right? Now, please, please, on the life of Collounsbury and others, tell me there can be a meaningful difference in intellectual capabilties between Caucasians versus Negroids versus Mongolids (or whatever “racial” category you come up with)? If you say yes, then don’t be surprised if you are called a racist.
ok, you don’t want to take the time to provide an applicable quote for my questions because i’m too lazy to read through your 5 page threads, but it’s worth your valuable time to tell me that you can’t predict the likelihood of a gene from a population that doesn’t carry it? i know the black poulation is a mix of those that carry it and those that don’t. the mix makes up the group that we’re referring to as the ‘black population’. within that mix, the likelihood is 1 in 400.
how am i wrong? the trait is more prevalent than the disease. if the disease occurs 1 in 400, then the trait occurs more frequently.
which part of the discussion? ask me question, i’ll answer it.
look, i don’t like repeating myself within the same thread, but i would not spend 12 posts refusing to provide one fucking quote from one fucking thread in which i fucking posted a relevant fucking comment. what if i quote the wrong fucking comment? are you going to direct me back to the fucking cite? do you like wasting time or don’t you? fucking.
ok, i plain ol’ disagree. the statement that sickle cell is more prevalent in blacks than whites is true if you dump all whites in one group and all blacks in the other.
which happens to correlate with the group whose skin color is black in a ratio of 1 in 400.
no i’m not. i couldn’t find a stat for occurrence in other populations. if you found one then FUCKING POST IT and i’ll concede.
couldn’t find the relevent info. when you’re in the mood to compensate for my laziness, i’ll be here.
No, you’re wrong. They’re called “racists” because their book was a racist book.
Yes, it has. Here’s an interesting take on the fact that you remember the book, but not the subsequent serious research (which failed to substantiate their propostion) and discrediting. You remember the big publicity blitz when it was published, but the “damaging criticism” didn’t make the news at all. http://slate.msn.com//Features/BellCurve/BellCurve.asp
Now, there’s a lot more at the link. I suggest you go and read it. It’s very interesting.
No, that’s not why it was discredited. It was discredited because other scientists couldn’t repeat their results. That’s part of the Scientific Method–other scientists have to be able to repeat your experiment and come up with the same results. Nobody could. Also, they misinterpreted some of their research. http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.fm-sternberg-interview.html
Not circular at all. “A racist is someone who expresses sentiments of racism.” They expressed racist sentiments, so they were labelled “racists”.
You’re absolutely right. You haven’t looked at a Negroid person and said, “Ah, he must be taller and faster than white boys”. But what you HAVE done is looked at an entire collection of people, those with “Negroid” characteristics, and said, “Ah, they must be taller and faster than white boys.” That characterization, that judging, of an entire group of people according to what “race” they are, is what we call “racism.” And people who practice it are called “racists”.
Yes, you did. You said “Negroids are taller and faster than other races”. Implicit in this statement is the belief that being taller and faster is good. Why would anyone consider it an advantage for a “race” of people to be short and slow?
No, they could not be right. They are not right.
No, let’s not assume “race” exists. In this thread, we are in the process of understanding that there is no real biological definition of “race”. It’s like saying, in a thread expounding upon the Straight Dope concerning UFOs, “Assuming that UFOs exist…” This is not ufoinfo.com with the monthly Flying Saucer update. This is the Straight Dope, a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance.
You’re right. I agree with you on that.
Control-C Copy. Control-V Paste.
You’re absolutely right. You haven’t looked at a Negroid person and said, “Ah, he must be taller and faster than white boys”. But what you HAVE done is looked at an entire collection of people, those with “Negroid” characteristics, and said, “Ah, they must be taller and faster than white boys.” That characterization, that judging, of an entire group of people according to what “race” they are, is what we call “racism.” And people who practice it are called “racists”.
You can say, “Blacks are better at basketball” as long as you aren’t saying, “Blacks are genetically predisposed to be better at basketball”, as long as you aren’t saying, “Blacks are genetically taller, faster, and better natural athletes than whites, so therefore they are better at basketball.”
Yes, I agree with you.
Right. If a farmer wanted to produce milk, he would go with Jerseys. If he wanted to produce beef, he would go with Herefords. But I don’t follow your logical jump to the rancher then being a racist. Is it something like this?
Jerseys are dairy.
Herefords are beef.
Dairy and beef are neither better nor worse than each other.
Rancher wants to produce milk. Rancher chooses Jerseys.
Africans are fast.
Chinese are smart.
Fast and smart are neither better nor worse than each other.
Basketball coach wants to win NCAA Championship. Basketball coach chooses Africans.
The trouble with this analogy is, there’s no scientific evidence to show that Africans are fast, or that Chinese are smart. That’s the point of this whole thread. So the analogy breaks down, and your extrapolation of it to ask me whether the rancher is a racist is silly.
This is not a new definition. It is a restating of what I have already said, several times.
Um, saying, “Negroids are taller and faster than other races” IS doing that.
I’m glad you don’t judge individuals by their skin color. Really.
Oh, good. Does this mean I’ve persuaded you that there’s no biological basis for “race”, and that in the future you’ll stop saying things like, “Negroids are taller and faster than other races”? Because if so, then I’ve done a good day’s work.
eponymous - thanks for the cites. on first reading, this quote “Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population,” seems to reflect a study on acquired intellectual skills, but not the physical capacity for intellect. i’m going to re-read them a few times to make sure i understand them correctly and then, hopefully, concede point by point (maybe tomorrow - i’m on my way out).
and others, tell me there can be a meaningful difference in intellectual capabilties between Caucasians versus Negroids versus Mongolids (or whatever “racial” category you come up with)? If you say yes, then don’t be surprised if you are called a racist.
Because if so, then I’ve done a good day’s work. 