Again, I absolutely DO see that Watson is a racist. I make no effort to defend the man.
But when he says “black”, (my guess based on the fact that he has had some dealings with DNA) he means “genetically black” just like when a group of scientists say “black” in a discussion of genome wide screening, they aren’t talking about a Sicilian who spent a lot of time in the sun and baked his skin darker. They mean that as a genetic classification.
Yes you are, when you see fit to put words in his mouth like you’re doing. Just because he “works with DNA” doesn’t mean he’s immune to the same tendencies that the rest of us are subject to when discussing race. I think you’re reading nuance into his remarks that is simply not there. And if you absolutely see that Watson is a racist, then why do that? Even Watson himself, in his followup recantation, didn’t claim to have been talking about “genetic groups”.
Specifically, “Who cares if you call a certain group of 1 billion humans a race, a population, or a really big cricket team.” Given that there are so many differences within any group of a billion people as to render nearly all generalizations about them false, it has a direct bearing on setting policies that will deal with specific issues if we lump too many people under a false claim.
You selected “sub-Saharan Africans” as one group. What traits would you expect to find in common among all those people? We have seen the “best sprinters” argument and the “best long distance runners” argument advanced for “Negroes” or blacks or whomever, but when we look at the data, we do not find that people who are great in the marathon or the sprint are distributed throughout sub-Saharan Africa. The marathon runners come almost exclusively from a smaller population of around 4.5 million people out of the 800,000,000 people in Africa. (And the few outliers are from neighboring regions.) The sprinters have all come from an area a bit larger on the West coast of Africa over 1,000 miles away. No one has ever recruited a pygmy to play in the NBA. Lactose intolerance is prevalent among some of those peoples and not among others. Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent among many groups within that region–and is totally absent from other groups. Tightly curled hair is common in some places and absent in others. The darkness of their skin varies widely among different groups. The only thing they have in common is residing behind an arbitrary line drawn across a map.
If we wish to study populations for biological information, it would appear to make infinitely more sense to study people who are related, genetically, not geographically. When Noah Rosenberg and associates ran their preliminary survey of populations (published in “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” Science, December 20, 2002,), they were able to sequence genes to discover the likelihood of the continent from which any person’s genes originated, but they found, in Africa as well as elsewhere, that those genes did not show relatedness among groups in Africa or Asia or Europe or the Americas.
So, even if we actually discovered a trait that did occur across all the peoples in a geographic region, we would still need to discover the cause. Why are all these unrelated peoples demonstrating the same characteristic? The problem with setting policy based on overgeneralizations is that such policies will harm those people who are not in the range of the generalization.
Actually, they are not. The racial categories were established before there was any knowledge of genetics and no genetic information was included in the categorization. What Rosenberg et al. demonstrated, was that there are various genetic markers that can be used to identify geographic origin, but that there is no overall similarity in genetic make-up within the smaller populations that come from adjacent geographic regions. This supports Cavalli-Sforza’s examinations of genetics that led to his conclusion that “race” is a false category in biology: Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; & Piazza, Alberto (1994). “Scientific Failure of the Concept of Human Races,” in The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
I can’t pull up a full Science article from home, but from Rosenberg’s abstract:
“Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.”
To me, that sounds different from what you are saying. Not saying you’re wrong, as I’m out of my field here!
But, it sounds like they ARE identifying genetic markers, within geographic regions, that are predictive of epidemiological risks. Is it such a stretch to predict that there would be genetic markers predictive of height, speed or even ability to hit a baseball? Are you saying that these geographically close “subclusters” do not group together genetically?
They even seem to be saying that self reporting one’s race is in the absence of genetic data, while not perfect, indicative of genetic groups as evidenced by epidemiological risks.
Leaving completely aside the concept of “race” as in, I think that dude looks black and taking “race” to mean these genetic markers. I mean, you’re absolutely right when you say that these racial categories were determine long before we knew there was a thing called DNA. From that standpoint, of course those characterizations were silly.
But, now we do know, and we have technology that is remarkable (and, actually a heck of a lot better since 2002 when Rosenberg published!). So, are we simply disagreeing on what a “biological basis of race” means? I mean “race” to mean nothing to do with what someone appears to be.
My guess is that there would be some differences in “intelligence”, to the extent that this is (like race!) a meaningful term. But, I make no claims, as Watson did, that I have any idea which direction those differences would be and in whose favor because the confounding variables of other, non genetic factors, are too great to make any blanket claims.
And that, you with the face is why I feel like I’m not defending the guy. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to research something, but Watson seems to have preconceived notions based on his life experiences which influence how he wants the data to turn out. So, he isn’t racist because he believes there is a genetic component of intelligence that might link to genetic race, but because he has already decided what direction that would go without the evidence to back it up.
When discussing the epidemiological ramifications of the study, they are talking about the ability to get to local populations, not broad “races,” so that they found that self-reporting as Yoruba or Mandenka was pretty accurate when compared to the genetic tests. This did not indicate a genetic closeness between Yoruba, Mandenka, and San, who displayed only a geographic proximity.
The Kalenjin of Kenya have produced far more marathon winners than any other group, but that does not indicate that Africans are better marathon runners than anyone else, only that some subset of Africans appears to carry a trait for long-distance running. There are no Yoruba or Mandenka marathon winners (outside marathons held in Ghana or Nigeria where Kenyans have not participated).
The other thing to note about the study was that they did not look for expicit genes or alleles which, they point out, occur across the entirety of humanity with a few local exceptions.
The way the study worked was to take a series of alleles and run statistical examinations of how often they clustered. Any allele might show up in any individual of any population, but clusters of alleles tended to clump geographically, correlating to an ethnic group. Even within the groups tested, individuals were likely to have individual alleles that were more typically found elsewhere.
So if we broke up the behemoth term “race” into smaller races, I guess what you’re calling “local populations”, would it be fair to say there is a biological basis for it? I don’t think anyone here thinks that there are just four “races”, but are using the term “race” more like you are using the term “local populations”.
At least I am.
Regardless, thanks for the links, and I think I understand the issue better than I have in previous threads.
Throughout all the discussions on the SDMB over the last century or so, (well, it seems like that long), the proponents of dropping the word “race” have always acknowledged that there are discrete populations that are biologically related. I have even noted that there would not be a problem with using the word “race” in place of “population,” except that race already has a meaning in English that distracts from the discussion. If someone attempted to discuss the Kalenjin “race,” it would only be a matter of time, (probably measured in nanoseconds), before someone else extrapolated from any statement about the Kalenjin to all the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa (while a few people would attempt to include indigenous Australians and Fiji Islanders). The word race is not evil or stupid. It was a word employed in the early days of scientific investigation of humanity to discuss perceived distinctions. Unfortunately, that earliest science was not equipped to handle the reality of the situation and the word was adopted by many people outside science, and misapplied by more than a few people within science, to the point where it is now misleading to use it in a scientific context.
As to who is using the word in what context, the only way to know that for sure is to query each individual on whom they would include in their identification of each race. It is simply more efficient and less confusing to follow the lead of the geneticists and drop the word from the conversation.
Okay tomndebb, I definitely see where the concept of race not being a biological concept is coming from now without thinking that such a belief is loony.
So, is there a word that means the way I’ve been using “race”, from a genetic standpoint? Ethnicity? I guess breed is probably out, huh?
if you have a population of genetically interrealted people, I would simply call it a population.
If one is attempting to address the fact that “black” people are (not quite accurately) associated with Africa, “white” people with Europe and the Middle East (or one could be a splitter, not a lumper and say that “brown” people live in the middle East), “yellow” people in Asia, “red” people in the Americas, and whatever color one wishes to assign to people in the Pacific, one could refer to their geographic place of origin.
What? Not cited in the SDMB sense, but in the “pointed to” sense. He was giving a talk. In the article, his primary claim was that A (blacks are less intelligent) is true because of B (test scores). As I said, anyone so interested in discrediting him simply had to ask him for the data and review it. Right? Either he supplies it and is proven right or wrong. Or he doesn’t and announces to the world that he is not to be taken seriously on the matter.
Watson:
(He was not giving a public talk where some scientist could challenge him. He was in a private interview, drumming up publicity prior to his speaking tour, to hype his latest book.)
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. The statement you quote was offered after the flak. After the OP. My question went to the reaction to his statements about the intelligence tests. Please respond to my last post with that in mind. The way they tried to paint him as a racist (possibly correctly), they could have simpy demended these tests he cited (pointed to).
The people who accused Watson of racism work in the field of politics, not science. The people in science simply said it was inappropriate of Watson to spout pseudoscientific blather while presenting himself as a spokesperson of science.
The London Museum of Science, in cancelling his appearance, there, stated:
No mention of racism.
The organizers of his promotional tour announced:
while the statement from the university at Bristol where Watson had been scheduled to speak at the Festival of Ideas was
Again, no accusations of racism.
There do not appear to be any scientists or educators in the story to which you originally linked that actually accuse him of racism or call for his suppression.
While I quibble with the Museum cite, a point which you seemed content to grant on Page 1, you are correct. I do think that others should be held to that higher standard, as well, and not sling ad hominems of racism, but I also would like to date Halle Berry. I concede the point. And I do beleive that based on all evidence now available that Watson is most likely racist. At least, racist-light.
It shows that “the more general physical classification” (i.e., the naive classification of people into a few “races” depending on whether they have dark or light skin, narrow or broad noses, etc.) is not a reliable indicator of genetic kinship. Which is why biologists say that it’s not biologically meaningful.
“Physical appearance”, in the sense of a naive classification of people into a few “races” based on superficial phenotypic traits, is not a reliable indicator of closeness of genetic kinship. Therefore, no, it is not a good way to determine scientifically how genetically related different individuals are.
What you seem to be desperately seeking acknowledgement for is the undisputed fact that sometimes similarity of physical appearance coincides with closeness of genetic kinship. That’s because members of a particular population are often both phenotypically similar to one another and genetically close to one another (by definition, because “population” is defined by closeness of genetic relationship).
But that doesn’t mean that mere “racial”-type physical similarity is a reliable indicator of genetic kinship. Since it isn’t, population biologists don’t regard it as biologically meaningful.
I can’t figure out why you are having such a hard time grasping this simple fact. For Pete’s sake, if you want to make biologically meaningful associations between physical appearance and genetic kinship, then why don’t you just stop talking about “races” and start talking about populations? “Population” is the very concept you seem to be groping for: a scientifically valid, well-defined term that allows biologically meaningful statements about genetic kinship.
My understanding is that we are used to thinking of people as being more genetically alike if they are of the same “race” or what we have traditionally called “race.” But that isn’t true. That’s where we made a false assummption. Othere genes may play more important roles.
Are these other genes the population and geographic genetics that Tom describes? Do they relate to such things as diseases, special abilities, metabolism, mental health?
OK, I’m just going to dive into this discussion with my own take on the issue, because, well it’s not like this thread’s making progress.
Well, a rascist statement is one that makes a generalisation about a people group (where the group is selected based on physical characteristics rather than cultural background), that is not true by definition, without sufficient evidence.
“Sufficient evidence” is obviously ambiguous but the kind of thing I mean is the balance of peer-reviewed, statistically significant research.
Thus I wouldn’t consider it rascist, in itself, to say “On average, black people perform less well on established American IQ tests”, if indeed this is the case. However, as has previously been pointed out, people who make such statements often follow with rascist conclusions.
On the other hand, a statement such as “Asians are really smart” is rascist even though it is unlikely to offend anyone.
Note that all the above doesn’t hinge on whether there really is such a thing as “race”, as most people would understand the term (though it seems to me that there isn’t).
OK, this is very important, because it seems to me that rascists can sometimes fail to understand why their comments are offensive.
Human beings have a natural tendancy to generalise. It’s absolutely essential to our everyday survival. But it’s also crucial to large-scale conflict: the ability to generalise people as “the enemy”, and treat them as though they’re of one mind.
If, say, it was the recognised truth that caucasions perform 10% better at IQ tests as blacks then a white, then an employer wouldn’t look at a black candidate and think “He’s statistically less likely to have a high IQ”. At some instinctive level he may treat him as though he’s known to be 10% less smart than a white guy.
Imagine how you’d feel if people were constantly saying that “<gender opposite yours> are generally smarter than <your gender>!”. It would start to annoy you, no? What if people started to omit the “generally”? What if people of your gender started to struggle to find work?
3: Watson’s apology
ok, so I don’t have the page open right now, but I don’t think he’s said enough to convince me he even understands the problem with the statements he’s made. His comments basically boil down to “no offence intended”.
But you have to be very careful when making racial statements: that what you’re saying is well-founded and that you choose your wording carefully (not that you can’t say certain things, just that you need to be aware of the sensitivity of the topic).