Name one poster who you say I have lied about the poster lying. One.
Despite all the accusations the contrary, I don’t think we have any long-term members of this board who are race realists or even true racists (we have some that drop in from time to time but they don’t usually last long). The vast majority of us understand perfectly well that the simplistic classical racial model is wrong so assumptions about skin color are equally invalid. We also understand individual differences among population groups so there is no need to fight against that here.
We do have people like me that believe that population differences can exist although some of the science to back up some of the claims is still incomplete. Most of the current population difference hypotheses were developed after long-term real-world and experimental results showed that there is a difference among populations for some traits and other explanations, especially environmental, failed to substantially explain the gap. The fact that the genetic evidence isn’t complete doesn’t much especially in this case. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all. The science involved is too new to have all those answers but it might, or might not, in the future.
John Mace makes a good point that is simply a hypothesis rather than a true scientific theory at this point but that doesn’t mean it is pseudo-science either as suggested in the thread title. We know that there are population differences for certain outcomes and we also know that their are some population differences in genetics among populations both large and small. Alternative explanations for the differences have been shown to be incomplete at best so there is still room for some X factor including genetic and/or biological ones to provide the rest of the explanation.
To move to a true scientific theory, you would need to pinpoint the genetics involved for the traits in question and that doesn’t exist for many behavioral traits at all in humans let alone complex ones. It might in a few years however. To be truly scientific about this topic, you can’t make a defensive call of racism whenever someone brings it up. Many of the points are valid and genetic or biological differences are at least as solid candidates for a real theory as the competing social and environmental hypotheses.
You never did check the links in the OP huh?
This is not really a discussion of how little evidence there is for the “theory”, the problem is that you are defending people that resort to conspiracy theories and repetition of studies that have nothing to do with genetics to push for stupid solutions to use in society.
Well it depends on how you define “race realist” and “racist.”
I’m not sure what “true scientific theory” means, but I will note that it’s possible to be reasonably confident that some difference is the result of genetics even without identifying the specific genes involved.
Demanding that the exact gene be identified is like a hypothetical tobacco company executive demanding to know the exact process by which cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.
You see what I mean Shagnasty?
(Once again) You are really clueless for ignoring who you are defending here.
Maybe. I am not sure if the OP is really attacking people specifically for their general behavior or just putting up a defensive shield around the general ideas. I can’t defend some of the behavior but I can defend some of the general ideas.
When I was in behavioral neuroscience grad school, all first year students had to take an intensive seminar on Psychometrics. The second half of the course was reading the very controversial book, The Bell Curve. We picked that book apart piece by piece and went over secondary material that wasn’t included. At the end of the class, we had to go around the table one by one and verbally summarize what we thought the most glaring problems with authors’ biases were and how they could be avoided in our own research. After that, the professor asked us if the conclusion of the class was that all populations groups were in fact equal after all.
Everyone said yes but me. I talked with the professor after the class and and he told I was the only that got that question right. We had just spent a whole trimester showing that there are very large population differences in all psychometric tests designed so far and yet everyone else let one poorly written book make then decide that all the results, even those not included in the book, are invalid.
That isn’t an unbiased or scientific view. I think we are dealing with a version of that here.
Bingo!
Just not the one you expect as in approval, but the one from Rational Wiki. I just needed the square for “The Bell Curve” 
The point here is that differences have been reported before in groups of people, but the research does not apply much to classical race differences, what experts are telling us is that using race is not really a good way to do science, nor medicine when old definitions of race are attempted to be used.
Many discussions in genetics and intelligence in the end end with the acknowledgment (of serious debaters) that the evidence on genetics regarding intelligence remains inconclusive.
**Chief Pedant, brazil84 and others just give lip service to the current state of affairs in science. **
They gave away that fig leaf of plausible deniability of not being racists or scientific racists when they continue to post studies on black performance and tell you with a straight face and subsequent posts how we should see those studies as convincing evidence that we should do something in society.
The problem remains for the ones that clearly are actively ignoring what the experts in the field are telling us, the evidence that biologists and geneticists found decades ago and continue to find is that genetics is not much relevant or reliable to use in an attempt at justifying a retreat of social justice programs.
In the end, and after so many decades, even “mavericks” that do follow politically incorrect investigations all the way into applying solutions based on race, in this case medical, are still getting burned when they attempted to apply solutions based on something so ill defined as race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/from-bang-to-whimper-a-heart-drugs-story.html
Elsewhere I learned that indeed BiDil showed to be just as effective for whites as for blacks, the paradox here is what I observed, most people investigating intelligence and genetics do not limit themselves to preposterous race divisions, however our resident race-unrealists ignore what the scientists report, their studies do not limit themselves to arbitrary race constrictions but the race-unrealists continue to report that those papers can be applied to race with no support from the referred science whatsoever.
“race-realists” turn into racist lame-os when they propose that many of the reforms done for social justice should be torn down based on inconclusive or misleading evidence, and what is worse with many fake skeptics on this issue is that they also continue to use that misreported evidence as if it could be applied magically into society or to find magical solutions for the problems at hand.
I do not engage this poster in debate, because a) he continually violates his own rules of debate (available on his website), and b) he’s a fucking moron, as is evident by every post he makes.
Consequently, I’m going to respond to his post the same way he responds to everyone else. I’m now sticking my fingers in my ears and saying ‘Nah nah… I can’t hear you!’
Yet still be hopelessly confounded. It’s actually a pretty useless study for the question it is believed by many to address.
They couldn’t possibly make a determination one way or another.
The replicable results we have for understanding the nature of ethnic differences in test scores are those that show the influence of environmental variables. There is no data relating genetic variation in some gene(s) influencing intelligence and population differences in intelligence. I’m not even sure there are genes associated with intelligence in a replicable fashion.
Yet no environmental variables have ever been found to explain much of the difference either. There are genes associated with intelligence if you want to take it the the extremes. Humans and chimps are one example but we are different species. I am certain we already showed that there are some genetic differences between populations and it is plausible that those could result in behavioral differences. If I could get everyone to admit that fact by itself, I would be happy because it is oddly controversial in many academic disciplines even though the science has proven that not all populations are not exactly equal genetically today. It is a controversial idea but I feel safe to say that the one world, one people, all exactly the same except for skin color idea has been discredited except for the revelation that skin color isn’t a key marker for those differences.
I think what we are talking about is a little more nuanced than you are alluding to however. The reason there is little data mapping specific genetic differences to major behavioral traits is because the science is too new and doesn’t really exist. We don’t even have great genetic evidence to map obvious behavioral anomalies for disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder even though we are fairly certain there is a strong genetic component to them . It is just too much too ask the state of the art at this point but it will probably be possible in few years. At that time, I would hope that reasonable people would look at the results critically rather than just what they want to believe.
Except that the disparate outcomes line up better with the social racial groupings than they do with actual genetic populations. Native Americans have horrible outcomes, but are most closely related to East Asians with very good outcomes. African-Americans with significant European ancestry have just as bad outcomes as those with little European ancestry. Sub-Saharan African outcomes are bad across the board, in spite of there being way more genetic variability within that group than there is between them and non-African populations. Etc. When differences line up with social groupings rather than genetic groupings, it isn’t unreasonable to expect a social cause for the differences.
Good point. It is a complex problem that almost certainly has both environmental and genetic/biological components just like everything in nature/nurture debate. I think it is pretty easy to understand why Native Americans haven’t fared well overall and that is almost all environmental and historical. It is fallacy to go 100% on either measure however when comparing one population group to another.
I am certainly not saying that all disparate outcomes can be explained genetically/biologically. You need to work through both explanations to get a full picture but a 100% social/environmental explanation of disparity in outcomes is still greatly lacking for some populations so the only scientifically honest view is to look at other possible causes and there is plausible evidence for some of it even if it still isn’t completely proven.
We both know I was talking about humans. So were you. So is everybody. I, as a person who actually did work in the field of behavior genetics, also know that the question of interest is “individual differences”, not “population differences”. Actual practicing behavior geneticists do not seek to address whether specific sub-populations, particularly as defined by inaccurate social constructs such as race, exhibit behavioral differences due to genes. They’re interested in whether genetic variation has some role to play in the individual differences we see. The question is addressed in simple forms such as parsing the variation in a trait into genetic and environmental components to more complex genome-wide association studies. All of these tools are harnessed to examine the role genes play in individual differences in behavioral tendencies. The abuse of this information to “hypothesize” group differences in behavior due to disparate gene frequencies is just pure speculation by people who are so fucking ill-informed about genetics that they’d talk to somebody named Inbred Mm domesticus like they are ignorant of fucking genetics.
No, screw you, provide the data. “Hey guys, why don’t you join me on my speculative journey”. Bite me. I’d rather spend time trying to figure out why humans developed the intelligence we have. I’d rather spend time trying to figure out whether variation at any gene locus in humans reliably predicts intelligence differences among humans. Then, once that’s found, on the 4th of never which is the day after pigs universally start flying, I’d like to know why the variant works the way it does, what environmental factors mitigate its effects, where the gene is expressed, how does its expression change during development, is the mRNA actually translated into protein in the cells where it is expressed, and then throw in all kinds of biochemical studies of transcription for good measure. In other words, the kind of work real, practicing behavior geneticists want to do. Not this horseshit people of your ilk are trying to get others to buy.
Are you talking about population genetics? Are you talking about the genetic marker studies that find clusterings of different marker alleles among different populations? Those studies only tell us one single thing about behavior: WHO IS FUCKING WHOM. They seem to say people tend to fuck the people nearest themselves. Besides the obvious physical impediments to fucking somebody further away, it means we tend to assortatively mate with people that form part of a long standing interbreeding (and inevitably a bit of inbreeding community). The big thrill of those studies was that they seem to suggest we don’t put a hell of a lot of effort into fucking people in the village next door. I’ve always found this to generally be the case with me. How about yourself? Think about it for a minute. Think of all your sexual conquests. Weren’t they typically people who lived or worked or played right fucking near you. I am sure these sorts of studies will change with our more mobile and modern populations.
Yet does any of this provide an adequate basis to speculate that two groups differ in their behavioral proclivities due to genes? Fuck no. The question is not even remotely addressed. You know that those genetic markers typically have no relevance to gene function right? Have you ever lined up a gene sequence for multiple species in clustal or some such program? You ever notice how the exons and regulatory regions tend to not differ for closely related species (nevermind that they are extremely similar for species separated by millions of years of evolution) while the noncoding/nonregulating regions can show no similarity at all? Markers generally come from those latter areas and generally tell us nothing about gene function.
Are you kidding me? Little data mapping specific genetic differences to major behavioral traits? Are you kidding me? The only hesitation I feel in trying to tell you how completely wrong you are is whether I should say there are 1000s of studies linking specific genetic differences to behavioral traits (Who gives a shit about “major”?), or 10,000s. I bet its hit at least the 10,000 mark.
It amazes me that you are aware of the lack of replicable results in disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, yet are so willing to speculate with data beyond its intended use, beyond its intended application, beyond the hypotheses explicitly tested, to come up with the speculative wanderings you are so vigorously defending. It’s a shame I lack the gene that would enable me to fully describe how stupid you sound.
Also, there’s not a nature/nurture debate for average differences in populations. It sounds so stupid I don’t even know how to conceptualize it.
Anyways, I hope, if you get anything at all from this post, that real behavior geneticists do not waste time on the racialist pseudoscience because that’s the only realm it belongs to. You sound like you have an interest in the field, why don’t you go learn how it is actually done. I hope you will find that it is an extremely complex topic and that it’s obviously insane to pursue this racist bullshit.
That is a great post. It’s a very sensible argument and doesn’t appeal to emotion or try and play semantic arguments about what we call differences between populations.
One of them is writing for the guardian and doing a particularly good job at pointing out how discrimination is still extant in academia. As for intelligence: it’s still being referred to as if it were a single unitary concept. I was just reading a regression analysis which alighted at three components to intelligence. Others (Gardner, Baron-Cohen) would argue for others.
Nonsense. I would ask you back up your claim with 3 examples, but of course you will not do so.
Apparently “moron” = someone who scrutinizes your position, causing you to feel the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance.
But of course if you prefer not to engage, it’s your prerogative.
I’m skeptical of this claim. Do you happen to have a cite for it?
Well is there a Sub-Saharan African population which is closer genetically to Europeans than it is to any other Sub-Saharan African population?
For the record, I have maintained a pro race-based AA position precisely because I believe SIRE based differences are genetically-based and cannot be eliminated by ameliorating opportunity disadvantages. I have given examples of that.
The persistent determination of you and others on the board to misrepresent my position is remarkable.
This isn’t a debate about how to define race. Making statements that attack a definition of race are a waste of time.
The question is much simpler:
Are SIRE group differences driven in part by biological differences?
This is a completely different question, and the persistent confusion here that this is a question of how to define race suggests an ignorance for, or an inability to grasp, human migrations, population bottlenecks, and the proven case that genes do vary in prevalence by SIRE groups.
I have no particular issue with a position that demands an actual gene for an actual phenotypic outcome be shown to vary by SIRE group. I do note that the average separation of ancestral populations with which SIRE groups correlate make it more likely than not that genes vary. I note that many average genetically-driven average differences do occur, and that average outcome differences resistant to all efforts to normalize nurturing suggest a genetic explanation. That mother nature would drive ordinary physiological differences but exempt neurobiological differences among separated populations is not a likely scenario for me.
Nope. Just no - if the San were so isolated, why do their genetic markers (as well as linguistic markers) turn up quite frequently in Nguni tribes?
This is false (or specious), as “nurturing” is a highly subjective and nebulous concept. Consider Frank Sweet’s best explanation- a combination of lesser parenting skill for young children, lowered teacher expectations for older children, and “oppositional culture” peer pressure for adolescents; these have obviously not been “normalized” for any study (this would be a very difficult task, and I can’t think of a way to do it other than something like my “biosphere” idea).
Basically, it seems to me that you’re saying “different populations have some different proportion of certain genes, so it must necessarily follow that some populations will have different proportions of the genes for high intelligence”. You’re not even relying on the disparate outcome data to conclude this- you just use the disparate outcomes to “assign” the different “races” to your heirarchy of intelligence, which you’ve concluded (without any direct evidence) must exist.
But why does this follow? Even much “simpler” human characteristics like height, physical strength, or athleticism have an unknown number of genetic components (along with many environmental components)- can you think of a human characteristic that is more complex than intelligence? Do you believe that races/populations have different genetic potentials for ALL human characteristics (which would include things like musical ability, visual artistic creativity, charisma, physical attractiveness, sense of humor, happiness, temper, etc), or do they have different potentials for just some of these characteristics? Which ones, and why must intelligence be included?
There’s not even close to enough data to conclude that there’s any difference at all in genetic potential for intelligence between populations. You’ve concluded it anyway. For a doctor, you seem to me to be a remarkably poor scientist.