# Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 5, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184 "2013-01-05T19:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/421 "2013-01-14T01:57:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, someone that tells a biologists that “the evidence is striking. Sorry if you don’t like it.” did not tell us what you are telling us now in this post, you were not generous at all there but an ass, because you still wanted to have your cake and eat it by also mentioning that they “enjoy a genetic advantage”. That _is_ the point, isn’t it? Yeesh. Your, and his, lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. The evidence indicates that those of W.A. descent may (“probably”, to be subjective) be enjoying a genetic advantage when it comes to speed. That’s simply a fact (the presence of the evidence, not that it rises to the level of “proof”). You and he can like it or not, the fact remains. And just because there is evidence that genetics may be playing a role does not mean that other factors are also at play. They clearly are. I have been 100% consistent in my position, in spite of the mischaracterizations and straw-manning by you, he, and others. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/422 "2013-01-14T02:02:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That _is_ the point, isn’t it? Yeesh. > > Your, and his, lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. The evidence indicates that those of W.A. descent may (“probably”, to be subjective) be enjoying a genetic advantage when it comes to speed. That’s simply a fact (the presence of the evidence, not that it rises to the level of “proof”). You and he can like it or not, the fact remains. And just because there is evidence that genetics may be playing a role does not mean that other factors are also at play. They clearly are. I have been 100% consistent in my position, in spite of the mischaracterizations and straw-manning by you, he, and others. Piffle, I know also the past history of your sources, I do not need to be generous in noticing that you are back pedaling even here, collective investment is still a better explanation than the “probable” you mention, and BTW just like the historian mentions is what I did mention awhile ago, remember that the context is still a roast of crackpots, coming here to indirectly defend them is still a stupid thing to do, in reality it is you who has a reading problem. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/423 "2013-01-14T02:17:39Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > By the same token, how do you know that fifty years from now all of the best sprinters won’t be Bengalis or Quechuas? If that happens it means white people will be comically slow. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/424 "2013-01-14T02:44:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, I know also the past history of your sources, I do not need to be generous in noticing that you are back pedaling even here, collective investment is still a better explanation than the “probable” you mention, and BTW just like the historian mentions is what I did mention awhile ago, remember that the context is still a roast of crackpots, coming here to indirectly defend them is still a stupid thing to do, in reality it is you who has a reading problem. You really that interested in what I believe in this thread, genius? Here’s what you do: go back through the last few pages, which should account for all my posts, and friggin read them. Know what you’ll find? (Assuming you can digest the friggin words.) That my position has been 100% consistent. Now back-pedaling. No weaseling. Nope. Much as you might try to contort things and ascribe positions to me that I do not hold. You’re a mighty straw man burner, aren’t you, Mr.GIGOToughie! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/425 "2013-01-14T02:44:20Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > If that happens it means white people will be comically slow. Well, we can’t jump, so that should be no surprise. But we do make a killer jello desert! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/426 "2013-01-14T02:51:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You really that interested in what I believe in this thread, genius? Here’s what you do: go back through the last few pages, which should account for all my posts, and friggin read them. Know what you’ll find? (Assuming you can digest the friggin words.) That my position has been 100% consistent. Now back-pedaling. No weaseling. Nope. Much as you might try to contort things and ascribe positions to me that I do not hold. You’re a mighty straw man burner, aren’t you, Mr.GIGOToughie! :rolleyes: Fine, so you agree even with assholes like brasil84, no surprise. 😛 Remember, I’m referring to the title and the OP in this thread as what you are having trouble comprehending, you still need to understand that this a roast of some pseudo asshole racists, that you came into this specific thread attempting to pump up those maybes, perhaps, possibles, ‘cross my hearts’ and ‘it looks funny’ into “striking evidence” was really dumb. It just ends up as an indirect defense of the crackpot assholes, and a very silly defense still. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/427 "2013-01-14T03:19:30Z")
The use of elite athletes (by definition not a representative group) to imply something about a general population makes me sad. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/428 "2013-01-14T04:01:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The use of elite athletes (by definition not a representative group) to imply something about a general population makes me sad. Actually, there is a certain logic to it. African have the highest degree of genetic diversity, so it shouldn’t be any surprise if they contribute to the extremes of human abilities, be that physical or intellectual. If, in fact, genetics peculiar to specific populations are the main contributing factor in those abilities. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/429 "2013-01-14T04:02:48Z")
Statistical analysis doesn’t like extremes. Outliers introduce bias. I’m still sad. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/430 "2013-01-14T06:19:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The test score gap is the problem for which an explanation is sought. The gap in itself is not evidence of anything except for the existence of a gap. There is no evidence that different genetics of different populations is the best explanation. Not for all of it but its hard to explain away the gap with the sort of environmental factors that we have not been able to control for. > [@](#): > > Then you’re trying to solve a different problem. If you have statistical analyses that show that the green ones have more eggs in their nests, then comes the question/problem “Why do the green parrot nests have more eggs?”- but without genetic analysis, any genetic hypothesis has no evidence (because it could be any number of non-genetic reasons). No I have a statistical analysis that the green ones lay more eggs, not that they end up with more eggs. > [@](#): > > You keep referring to “statistical data”, but I don’t know of any statistical data that points to a genetic explanation. I have a feeling you’re just referring to lots of statistical data that shows that the gap exists (and that it can’t be wholly explained by things like parental income, parental education, etc)- and while that’s useful if it eliminates other hypotheses, it’s not actually evidence in support of the genetic explanation. So then nothing short of showing you the actual genes and how they cause lower IQ would be convincing? If you simply can’t be convinced by statistics then global warming is probably a myth as far as you are concerned too. > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > This test has been done. > > The graph was flat. So? I’m not a genticist but I don’t think your rationale makes any sense at all. Maybe lower IQ is associated with a dominant gene. > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > The point being that the observed difference, in this case, is inferred to be due to selective pressure. There are many examples of traits that vary from group to group, where the genetic basis of the trait is known, and a selective pressure driving differences in gene frequencies can be inferred. What would be the selective pressure to be extra-smart in some places but not others? It could be dumb luck, it could be the self selection exercised by the folks who leave Africa, it could be the extra hardship associated with leaving Africa, it could be any number of things. Why do Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ? Why do Asians have higher IQ? > [@](#): > > I am not emphasizing statistical uncertainty at all. Not in the slightest bit. This is a problem in the design of the study for the question it is shoe-horned into addressing. They simply could not control for all environmental differences between growing up and being black in the USA and growing up and being white in the USA. They at best showed that parenting may not be important. They could not control for culture, school environment, friends, gestational environment, etc. All of the factors I just listed are known to affect or correlate with IQ. They simply do not, and cannot point to non-environmental factors being a likely factor in the IQ gap. Yeah they do. They don’t point to it as a certainty but you would have to make a lot of unlikely assumption to believe that genetics had nothing to do with it? > [@](#): > > So they’re statistical analyses were great. They’re attempts to control for what variables they could needs replication, and they did not control and could never control for how our culture reacts toward people with black skin and white skin. Quit trying to imbue something into this study that is not there. And you would have to believe that racism and the hostile environment caused by racism hasn’t really changed very much in the last 75 years or so to think that you can explain it away with things like stereotype threat and background racism. > [@](#): > > Anyways, to all you scientific racists, keep your bullshit pseudogenetics coming. I know you can’t understand the responses but I enjoy reminding myself of the things I used to be adept at. Its not genetics, its statistics. Its the basis on which a lot of people are claiming the existence of global warming. You are effectively employing the same sort of rationale that global warming deniers use. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because it has been so often disproven, and proven both laughable and evil besides, that at this point it is like making a claim for [Lamarckism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lamarckism) or [Lysenkoism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism): No, it’s not logically impossible, but extraordinary proof is reasonably required. No it hasn’t. Noone has proven that there is no genetic component to any of the IQ gap. I don’t think the genetic gap is anywhere near as large as the racists and Republicans would like you to believe but there is about as much evidence for a genetic cause of some of the IQ gap as there is for anthropomorphic global warming. Its an uncomfortable truth and it probably serves very little purpose other than to pursue racist agendas but if you keep denying that it is not only possible but likely, it makes your judgment seem less reliable. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/431 "2013-01-14T06:40:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think the genetic gap is anywhere near as large as the racists and Republicans would like you to believe but there is about as much evidence for a genetic cause of some of the IQ gap as there is for anthropomorphic global warming. Its an uncomfortable truth and it probably serves very little purpose other than to pursue racist agendas but if you keep denying that it is not only possible but likely, it makes your judgment seem less reliable. Wrong, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and experts do come even with reports on the probabilities: [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html) > [@](#): > > Human influences have: {2.4} > > ``` > very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century > likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns > likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days > more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of heavy precipitation events. > > ``` What is “very likely” or “likely” here? The experts are using those terms with careful thought: [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html) > [@](#): > > Likelihood Terminology … Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome > Virtually certain … \> 99% probability > Extremely likely… \> 95% probability > Very likely… \> 90% probability > Likely… \> 66% probability > More likely than not … \> 50% probability That BTW was the last IPCC report from a few years back, the latest is reported to come with even higher probabilities for problems to come. Now, if you are on solid ground you need to point at the recent mess of work and consensus from geneticists or biologists pointing at what they consider “likely” (66%) because most of the items I have seen from many contributors of the coming IPCC report point out that a few of those "likely"s are now “very likely” (90% provability) So, where are the 90% probable tables from the majority of geneticists and biologists of the world and what do they point to? Or just to be easy, the likely 66%? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/432 "2013-01-14T08:58:03Z")
**Damuri Ajashi** , I think I’ll just have to end it with disagreeing with you. I cannot see how you could possibly come to the conclusions you are making. There’s a lot of steps between seeing a difference in behavior for some fairly arbitrarily defined groups and demonstrating that its genetic in nature. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, where are the 90% probable tables from the majority of geneticists and biologists of the world and what do they point to? Or just to be easy, the likely 66%? You couldn’t get 66% of the psychologists to agree to what intelligence is. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/433 "2013-01-14T12:17:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not genetics, its statistics. And the statistics say nothing about the genetics. The statistics show the test-score gap (or the “sprinting gap”)- but the statistics say nothing about _why that gap exists_. Answering that question requires a lot more investigation. All the statistics show is a real correlation, but nothing about causation. And comparing it to global warming shows a concept error. There’s data that shows temperatures going up, there’s data that shows greenhouse gases like CO2 going up, and there’s data that shows that human activity causes an increase in greenhouse gases. It’s more than just correlation. > [@magellan01](#): > > The evidence indicates that those of W.A. descent may (“probably”, to be subjective) be enjoying a genetic advantage when it comes to speed. That’s simply a fact (the presence of the evidence, not that it rises to the level of “proof”). This is not a fact, and there is zero evidence that the statistical “advantage” is explained by genetics. As someone more learned than me explained to me recently, _a statistical difference by itself provides zero evidence for causation_. And all there is is a statistical correlation, large enough that random chance can be eliminated. So yes, top sprinters are more likely to be black then random chance would suggest. But on the question of _why_ top sprinters are more likely to be black (or top basketball players, football WRs, etc), there is zero evidence for the genetic explanation. It’s a plausible hypothesis, but that’s all it is right now. Science is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/434 "2013-01-14T15:45:54Z")
It’s an interesting aspect of these arguments, when they turn to athletic ability, that anti-racialists (if that’s the accepted turn) consistently compare situations in which which only subsets of the population have the interest or opportunity to compete (e.g. volleyball, basketball in the 1940s and so on) with other situations which are open to all and have almost universal appeal, most notably basketball today. Other examples are also valid, but basketball in particular is extremely widely played, and everyone knows that people who successful at it at the highest levels can achieve more fame and fortune than they can realistically accomplish through virtually any other endeavor. The notion that there are enormous numbers of white kids who have the latent capabilities of being NBA stars but prefer to become accountants or lacrosse players is a serious stretch, and at any rate, when this argument is made, the counter-argument that curling is dominated by whites is not a valid one. It’s also worth noting that even within the same sports, whites and blacks tend to be relatively more successful at different aspects of the games, e.g. whites and throwing, and blacks and speed. As above, I’m skeptical of the evidence (if not the theoretical possibility) in favor of a genetic basis for group differences in IQ, but I think the evidence is somewhat stronger in the case of athletic ability. [BTW, just to toss something else out there, it’s pretty well documented that black kids are more likely to have early puberty than white kids. It’s been [suggested](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/2/347) that there might be some genetic basis for this.] > [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I know, I should be more open-minded, yet I feel perfectly comfortable placing this idea in the same category as the vaccine-autism connection, Israeli intelligence behind 9/11, Obama’s birth certificate, and the chupacabra. Actually maybe not the chupacabra because at least that is generally harmless. > > I feel perfectly comfortable thinking this way since what direct evidence there is does not support the notion of a genetic component (neverminding the massive amount of suggestive evidence), since the black-white test score difference is essentially a description without any definitive support for a genetic argument, and since the test score difference is shrinking over time. > > I think I can feel comfortable saying it’s unlikely to be the case that there is some genetic component to this IQ difference unless its an environmental effect on some aspect of gene expression, which is certainly not what the racialists are thinking about. It’s not like I’d deny the existence of any such evidence or reject it if presented to me. It’s just that the evidence ‘for’ isn’t really for and completely unimpressive, while the evidence against the notion is really ‘against’ and impressive. > > If that’s an argument from ignorance then I question whether such a thing really is a logical error. If you offer Argument A and I describe that as an “argument from ignorance” don’t turn around and pretend that I’ve said Argument B is an argument from ignorance. What I’ve described as an argument from ignorance is your argument that since you can’t think of a reason for genetic components of IQ to vary by population then there must be no genetic variation. If, as you now claim, you have “evidence against the notion” which “is really ‘against’ and impressive”, then that’s not what I’ve described as an argument from ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/435 "2013-01-14T16:08:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If we find such alleles in non-Afrian populations and find that they are largely absent from sub-S African populations, then we have a scientific finding. Right now, we don’t have such a thing. This is just regular ol’ science. Nothing remarkable about it. Few people will dispute such a finding once it survives the peer review process. ISTM that this is taking an overly simplistic view of these matters. As a general rule, important scientific theories or principles are not established overnight by means of a single study published in a peer reviewed journal. Generally, one team publishes a study that supports or purports to support a proposed theory, others push back and quibble with that study, others try to replicate that study and/or do other studies testing the theory in different ways and so on. Eventually the proposed theory gradually wins - or fails to win - adherents based on the cumulative weight of the evidence. It’s been said that new theories gain acceptance not by winning over their critics, but by winning over the new generation of scientists looking at the evidence from scratch, after the old generation of established opponents dies out. In this context, it’s naive to assume that there is no price to be paid for a scientist pushing a theory of genetic racial differences in IQ because “few people will dispute such a finding once it survives the peer review process”. I would think a lot of people will dispute such a finding even if it survives the peer review process (& any such finding would undoubtedly be held - justifiably, IMO - to a much higher peer review standard than the norm). And not just dispute the finding, but brand the authors as racists pseudo-scientists, and any number of other pleasant adjectives such as litter this thread. And these authors will subsequently find it much harder to get jobs or tenure or honors or grants or anything else it is that they’re working for in their careers. As a practical matter, this means that few if any scientists will be looking to find evidence of genetic racial differences, and if no one looks for it, it’s a lot less likely to be found. If it is found (assuming of course that it actually exists) it would likely be a byproduct of research into something else (e.g. non-racial research into genetic bases for IQ and non-IQ related research into genetic variation by race). ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/436 "2013-01-14T16:51:17Z")
Study of genetic differences between different populations, and the way this affects health outcomes is ongoing, and not the least bit controversial. That’s how we know that the same mutation that causes sickle cell among West Africans also causes it among southern Italians and Sicilians. To give another example, research has done on the prevalence of Tay Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews and French Canadians, and the possible genetic causes. So, clearly and obviously, no taboo exists about exploring genetic differences between populations. > [@](#): > > It’s been said that new theories gain acceptance not by winning over their critics, but by winning over the new generation of scientists looking at the evidence from scratch, after the old generation of established opponents dies out. These aren’t new theories at all. They’re a revival of racialist theories which existed hundreds of years ago, first developed to justify colonialist expansion and slavery. These are list ditch defenses of dead ideas, not new proposals. > [@](#): > > In this context, it’s naive to assume that there is no price to be paid for a scientist pushing a theory of genetic racial differences in IQ because “few people will dispute such a finding once it survives the peer review process”. I would think a lot of people will dispute such a finding even if it survives the peer review process (& any such finding would undoubtedly be held - justifiably, IMO - to a much higher peer review standard than the norm). And not just dispute the finding, but brand the authors as racists pseudo-scientists, and any number of other pleasant adjectives such as litter this thread. And these authors will subsequently find it much harder to get jobs or tenure or honors or grants or anything else it is that they’re working for in their careers. This is all speculation on your part. As it happens, many of the advocates of this racialist pseudoscience are tenured academics. If this kind of research damaged their careers, they wouldn’t have careers. [Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald) > [@](#): > > As a practical matter, this means that few if any scientists will be looking to find evidence of genetic racial differences, and if no one looks for it, it’s a lot less likely to be found. If it is found (assuming of course that it actually exists) it would likely be a byproduct of research into something else (e.g. non-racial research into genetic bases for IQ and non-IQ related research into genetic variation by race). No, they’ve looked. They just haven’t found any evidence to support the genetic hypothesis wrt to black Americans. This isn’t surprising. Through out the New World, the negative social outcomes associated with “blackness” follow social identity, not genetics. Geneticist Bruce Lahn thought he had found a variant which explained some of the difference in measured IQ between populations. The variant was entirely lacking in most African populations, but common outside of Africa. But the variant was also absent in China, but highly prevalent among the peoples of New Guinea. Stone age cannibals had it. The world’s oldest continuing civilization didn’t. Lahn became the object of a fair amount of derision. It was face saving to describe the reaction as pressure due to political correctness. The truth was more mundane. Nobody wants to fund failure and look foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/437 "2013-01-14T17:02:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Originally Posted by Evil Economist](#): > > > > This test has been done. > > > > The graph was flat. > > So? I’m not a genticist but I don’t think your rationale makes any sense at all. Maybe lower IQ is associated with a dominant gene. What is this, the Ice-9 theory of genetic mutations? Is it your claim that if a gene is dominant then all (no exceptions!) offspring will have that trait? Because if not, the test I just described will show a testable result (and if you argue the opposite, then I have bad news for you; the low-IQ gene will eventually be present in all individuals everywhere). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/438 "2013-01-14T17:18:09Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Study of genetic differences between different populations, and the way this affects health outcomes is ongoing, and not the least bit controversial. That’s how we know that the same mutation that causes sickle cell among West Africans also causes it among southern Italians and Sicilians. To give another example, research has done on the prevalence of Tay Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews and French Canadians, and the possible genetic causes. So, clearly and obviously, no taboo exists about exploring genetic differences between populations. Of course. But some aspects are a lot more controversial than others. [In addition, as I’ve noted earlier, the classic or current “races” are more about ethnicity than race, and even if they tend to have genetic variation, it’s something of a historical accident, and not meaningful in a purely scientific sense. To the extent that the study of broad ethnic groups like African-Americans has an accepted purpose it would be more on the medical side, where the random black guy in the doctor’s office might not know what percentage of his ancestry is from which sub-population, and where there’s therefore some use in knowing based on skin color that he may be more/less at risk for some ailment, or more/less likely to respond to some treatment.] > [@](#): > > These aren’t new theories at all. They’re a revival of racialist theories which existed hundreds of years ago, first developed to justify colonialist expansion and slavery. These are list ditch defenses of dead ideas, not new proposals. To be clear, I was not saying that these are new theories. I was just describing the scientific process in general. > [@](#): > > This is all speculation on your part. As it happens, many of the advocates of this racialist pseudoscience are tenured academics. If this kind of research damaged their careers, they wouldn’t have careers. [Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald) ISTM that most of that Wiki page is devoted to a discussion of attacks on MacDonald from various sources. Yes, this guy has tenure and his academic freedom is supported by his university, but it’s hard to imagine you seriously believe that most researchers are not going to be intimidated by the prospect of being branded one of the “Thirteen Scariest People in America” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. I understand that you will no doubt claim that all those denunciations are justified, but even if so, you can’t be holding this guy up as an example of someone whose career wasn’t damaged by this type of research. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/439 "2013-01-14T19:34:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Yes, this guy has tenure and his academic freedom is supported by his university, but it’s hard to imagine you seriously believe that most researchers are not going to be intimidated by the prospect of being branded one of the “Thirteen Scariest People in America” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. Agree. Anyway, if there are people with quality X who succeed in field Y, it does not necessarily follow that X is not a handicap or disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/440 "2013-01-14T20:36:20Z")
Irina Privalova, tied 10th place woman’s 100 metres in 1994. Can anyone point to her West African heritage? Record for woman’s sprint was set in 1988. Was her win the result of environmental factors such as malnutrition preventing African candidates reaching their genetic potential? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184.md?page=23)