Other than IQ, are there any genetically-determined psychological differences between "races"?

Spinoff of this ongoing thread on race-and-intelligence. Your IQ (assuming it measures anything important/meaningful at all – see the controversy between the assumption of a general intelligence factor and Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences) is not the only important thing about your mind, is it? People used to have all kinds of perceptions of “racial” or even “national” characteristics of personality and temperament, all presumed to be “in the blood.” E.g., swap an Irish baby and an English baby in the cradle, and the Irish baby, raised by English parents, nevertheless will grow up to be a temperamentally violent, hard-drinking, hot-headed poet; the English baby raised by Irish parents will grow up to be a cold-blooded, rigorously honest prig; each astonishing peers and parents. Such hereditary characteristics used to be popularly attributed even to social classes or family lines – and still are, perhaps, see the baby-switching plot in Big Business, 1988.

Have any of these assumptions or stereotypes ever been subjected to scientific scrutiny, using psychometric instruments other than IQ tests? I.e., is there any known differential in racial or ethnic groups, however defined, in Myers-Briggs Personality Type or emotional intelligence or anything else (believed by some psychologists to be) measurable? And, if so, has anyone tried to tease out the environmental from the hereditary factors causing such differences?

This discussion would, of course, also apply to any differential genetic predisposition to crime; which would not appear to be a function of intelligence, but often is brought up in related discussions.

Since races do not even exist in any biologically meaningful way, it is impossible for there to be *any *biologically determined differences between them.

The question is about as sensible as asking whether there are any genetically determined difference linked to phrenology. It’s nonsense in the truest sense of the word.

Well, that’s why I put the word in quotes – open-ended definition.

But that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical. I can put “phrenology” in quotes too, and allow an open ended definition, and the question remains nonsensical.

Races do not share any significant genetic commonality, so how can they possibly share any traits that are genetically determined.

The question simply makes no sense. You might as well ask whether there are any genetically determined difference linked to phrenology. Phrenological groups have precisely as much genetic commonality as racial groups. “Open-ended definitions” don’t change that.

Unfortunately, there are taboos against testing this sort of think. Nevertheless, I am confident that the Briggs Myers test would find that Orientals are more likely to be introverted than whites, and that blacks are more likely to be extroverted.

That has become a liberal dogma, defended with anger and shouts of “Racist!” rather than facts and logic.

It is like the notion that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire, and equally false.

The facts an logic an scientifc references for this that I and others have-posted on this board are legion.

Now can you please show us your evidence to the contrary?

First, name your races. Then tell us what genetic commonality >95% of members of that race share.

Come on, you made the claim about lack of evidence. now put up. Name your races and tell us what genetic commonality the members share.

This should be good.

Truly, you are an oppressed minority.

What do you mean “genetic commonality“? Home Home Sapies and a dandelion share 40% of the genes. With chimpanzees it is 98%. And in any case, it appears more and more that biological race is a rather fuzzy concept, and many different races are able to mate and produce viable offspring. What you call races are to a considerable extend merely a matter of terminology. But even if you do not want to use the term it is evident that different groups of humans share some aspects that are not in general shared by other groups.

Euro Asians have many immune system mutations that are not shared by Native Americans and Africans. Blond and fair skinned Nordic people are especially adapted to climate in the north. Blacks are especially adapted to the harsher sun in the south. Intuits are especially adapted to the artic climate. Some East African people have been shown to have mutation that gives an advantage in long distance running. Pygmies are especially adapted to life in the forest. (I was especially amazed that pygmies apparently have a lifespan of less than eighteen years: Pygmies in Cameroon explained by genetics, say researchers, but don’t know if that is due to genetics or lifestyle)

But in general since humanity displays many non-random differences one would need an especial kind of wilful ignorance to avoid seeing that humans livings in different parts of the globe have been subjected to different evolutionary pressures.

I have absolutely no idea what that means or what point you think you are making.

Can you try again, taking more care with your English?

Try harder. I’m sure you can figure it out if you try to think.

No, I can’t. Sentences like “Home Home Sapies and a dandelion share 40% of the genes.” isn’t even English. It doesn’t matter how long look at it, it makes no sense because it is not utilising English syntax, vocabulary or idiom.

I literally have no idea what the post means.

Oh for fuck’s sake" homo sapiens and dandelions have 40% of their genomes in common."

Fine, but what about psychological characteristics, other than intelligence?

OK, that’s one sentence out of dozens. And what point does thiss illustrate? That 40% > 95%? That dandelions and humans are the same race? What?

I literally have no idea what the point is or how this demonstrates that human races are genetically homogeneous.

But if the poster isn’t prepared to translate the gibberish, can’t be bothered wasting time with it. If you want to translate and explain what point you think it makes, that would be great.

That there are genetic commonalities even among things as distinct as dandelions and people, so you need to be more specific when you talk about genetic commonalities among “races”.

If two species as far removed as humans and a common flower share a large part of the genes (& humans and chimpanzees and even larger part), I don’t understand what you mean by saying “races do not share any significant genetic commonality.“ I assumed you were using the term “genetic commonality“ in a technical meaning I am unaware of, for which reason I asked you to explain.

I had not seen you were looking for only psychological differences. A few years ago there was a study that found a genetic aspect to the different way Asians and Europeans considered the community versus the individual. I.e., Asians were more focused on the community. My guess would be that one could also find differences in how religion is perceived and how alcohol is handled. Supposedly people in Silicon Valley are more prone to have children with autism. We can declare Silicon Valley geeks a race, and there’s a psychological difference right there. Or we can define women as an alien species, since there are vast psychological differences between the two sexes.

It’s only in the thread title…


He means there’s overwhelmingly more variety within a single race than there is between different races… Not that we haven’t shown this multiple times in various threads.