Race is non-existent

Great Debates
321

I believe you and Mr Sweet are missing this point.

“Self-identification” is a correlation with biological differences in genetic makeup. For example, “black” correlates with “much more limited access to genes evolved in the post L-3 mtDNA populations.” This is true even in the US, where admixture might be 20%; much more true in sub-saharan africa where the source group ancestral populations grouped under “black” live.

Do you have a cite that says differently? Remember that his argument around genes is that we can’t define race. OK; by definition we can’t define it. Nice. But we can–and have–absolutely correlated self-identification with genetic heritage. I’ve given you two papers just above.

It’s very sneaky of egalitarians to pretend that explaining away “race” (and the historic misuse of “race”) definitionally is tantamount to explaining away the simple fact that self-identification correlates with long-separated biological gene pools. Science may be explaining why “races” are lousy categories, but it’s confirming that various populations–and even SIRE group–have different gene prevalences.

Do you have any science to the contrary? As it turns out, this science is not all that hard. What’s hard is chasing down the clever phrasing meant to obfuscate a simple scientific fact:

Our SIRE groups reflect a marked average difference in our gene pools, and the migration patterns of human beings has tended to keep those evolving gene pools separated for tens of thousands of years. Moreover, evolution has driven many, many differences over the course of that period of time, and nothing in the science of evolution suggests that any particular genesets are exempted from becoming the lucky marble for a given descendant population.

322

There is some correlation between self-ID and genetics, but it’s nowhere near a perfect correlation. Sweet reports that the test-score gap correlates to self-ID much more closely then it does to the genetic markers- which seems to indicate that the gap is much more about how one sees oneself (and how society sees a person) then genetics.

There is no evidence for your hypothesis, and it doesn’t even fit the facts.

323

I am aware of plenty of studies correlating self-ID and test scores.
I am aware of plenty of studies correlating self-ID and genetics–i.e., a self-identification of “black” correlates with a genetic pool of sub-saharan ancestry.

I haven’t seen a single study correlating test scores with genetic markers for SIRE groups, so the idea that a gap correlates more closely to self-ID than genetic markers seems a bit fast and loose to me. I have seen some assertions that admixed groups fall somewhere in between source populations and admixed groups. While this makes sense to me genetically, I don’t think it helps the argument Mr Sweet is advancing.

Are you able to clarify this point?

My “hypothesis” is that all genes are more likely than not to evolve, and separated groups are more likely than not to have gene prevalence differences. Nature is unlikely to select out for evolution only genes involving phenotypic appearance, and the evidence is overwhelming that many other genes have also evolved disparately between groups, attaining various prevalences through genetic drift and positive selection pressure. Only descendant groups from beneficial mutations will get those beneficial genes. A consistent pattern of average outcome differences would suggest a gene prevalence difference for the outcome being measured.

I assume it is only the last statement with which you disagree?

And I assume, with respect to the (group average) intellectual ability to count backward, it is your position that the most likely explanation is incompetent parenting for children of equal SES, coupled with oppositional culture for teenagers?

I also assume that despite separated evolution and a gap that was ameliorated only up to a certain point by improved fairness and opportunity (and then became constant), you feel my hypothesis doesn’t even fit the facts?

With which fact is it at odds?

324

Apparently Sweet has seen such a study.

So every single thing with “average outcome differences” suggests a genetic explanation? Seriously? Rhyming (or rapping) ability? Stand-up comedy ability? Hockey ability? Tennis ability? Dancing ability? Preference for sweet potato pie over pumpkin pie? Preference for women with large rear ends? Pants-waist level?

Obviously this is all ridiculous. It seems to me you’re treating humans just like any other animal- and ignoring the immense influence of human’s primary adaptational strategy- culture. From your way of thinking, it would seem that if we compared Celtic peoples in 500 BC to British peoples in 1800 AD, the vastly different outcomes would suggest to you “gene prevalence differences” for the various abilities!

You forgot lowered teacher expectations. But those hypotheses are about the test-score gap, not about backwards-counting (which you appear obsessed with). There’s no evidence that genetics has anything to do with test-score gaps (or backwards-counting gaps).

“Constant” for a matter of years (or tens of years at the most), after centuries of brutal oppression and discrimination. Yes, I feel your hypothesis doesn’t fit the facts.

Chiefly those facts Sweet reports- the immigration statistics as well as the stronger correlation with self-ID over genetic markers.

No, you have no evidence for your position. After centuries of brutal discrimination (and brutal in a unique, long-term, utterly de-humanizing way that’s quite different [though not necessarily any “worse” morally- just different, with different consequences] from other episodes of brutal oppression in history), there’s a few decades of something approaching equality before the law, and you think that now everything’s the same for everyone, and everyone has the same shot for success? If you really believe this, you and I don’t appear to live on the same planet. Things are way better, but as many, many studies have shown, we have a long way to go for true equal opportunity for success.

325

Why not? You seem to be assuming that it is not possible, but can you prove it?

326

Hold on, let me reword this better.

OP, you seem to be assuming that it is not possible to group certain individuals based on their genes, or in this case, race.

Please explain why.

327

If you could find Mr Sweet’s source for his assertion, I’d appreciate it.
If you are just repeating hearsay or someone else’s unsupported assertion, I’m not sure you know what “science” is, even though you are constantly suggesting I am confused about what it is. It’s more persuasive to present an opinion and back it up with cites that support it, particularly for items such as the one above.

The “backward counting” is Mr Sweet’s example, not mine, of the kind of intelligence tests for which there is a score gap. (See his youtube video about 50 seconds in). In other words, we are talking about score gaps for really fundamental tests of brain facility. I offer it as a particularly good example from your own cite against the idea that crappy parenting, poor teaching expectation and oppositional culture creates the gap. Say what?

Not every difference among isolated groups argues for a genetic underpinning, no. To decide a pattern exists we must try and normalize for other variables. I think we are agreed on that, and what we disagree with right now is that the three variables you are currently championing–poor parenting, teacher expectation, and oppositional culture are more likely explanations than genetic differences to explain the black-white test gap.

I have shown you how those gene prevalence differences might have come to exist in the first place. I have given you good data showing a persistent pattern of gaps, and in fact we both agree this gap exists. You championed the above three reasons, and now you are back to centuries of brutal discrimination, or putting up strawmen about “every single difference” and the like..

If these sorts of approaches reassure you we are one big, equal, genetic family, I doubt you will be dissuaded.

328

I’m not “back” to centuries of brutal discrimination- those other reasons didn’t arise in a vacuum. My point was just that it’s foolish to think that centuries of such brutal discrimination could not continue to have major ramifications- including, perhaps, things like lower teacher expectations, reduced parenting skills, and “oppositional culture” peer pressure. I guess you believe that there are no ramifications from that history today.

There’s no evidence for your explanation. I’m not married to Sweet’s three reasons- but they fit the facts, and make sense in the context of history.

329

This will be my last comment on this thread unless any new themes pop up, so you may have the final word, if you choose.

You are correct that I do not think an ancestral history of anything has a profound effect on a current child raised in a home of equivalent SES status with educated parents. As an educator who has sat on admission committees that seek diligently to matriculate students from underrepresented minorities (typically, black), I’ve looked at hundreds of applications and life stories. I’ve never seen anything that remotely supports ancestral brutality as a current excuse. Even in the immediate family, I’ve never seen it. Opportunity; yes. “My parents and ancestors had it bad, and that’s why I am underperforming”; no. On the other hand, I’ve seen dozens of remarkable stories from all SIRE groups of students who, given a little opportunity, let their talents shine.

I personally think it’s ridiculous and insulting to suggest that educated and well-off black parents cannot raise their children competently. It’s an insult to select out only blacks from all other groups as a category that are mentally unable to cope with the history of their ancestors. We don’t find excuses for Jewish or asian applicants whose peoples have long negative histories. It doesn’t even come up. To dismiss thousands and thousands of US SIRE group test score gaps involving millions and millions of testees across every political spectrum, every educational system, every age group, every SES range…–every everything–requires some sort of deeper explanation than ancestral history.

I believe racist attitudes and discrimination at a daily level and institional level are real. I believe unfairness abounds. I believe petty injustices happen every day. I believe a black kid living in a ghetto has an unfairly higher mountain to climb than does a poor white kid.

None of that means there is no fundamental genetic difference driving the stubbornly persistent pattern of outcomes. The most dangerous social game we have played is to track SIRE group performances so doggedly here in the US. We do that with the honorable intention of “proving” (or avoiding) discrimination. But the fallout has been to prove that circumstance and discrimination are not adequate explanations for the differences among us.

We should either ignore those differences and get on with it, recognizing that each of us is an individual with our unique genetic makeup, or else come to grips with the fact that categorizing by SIRE group correlates with gene prevalence differences that mean some outcome differences will never be erased no matter how hard we try. It’s fine to keep trying, and I support that.

But we will have to be very careful that we do not make social policy based on scientifically unsound predicates, such as genetic equality by SIRE group. Such unsound policies are already threatening race-based Affirmative Action. The argument is that, since all SIRE groups are equal genetically, race-based AA needs only to correct for discrimination and opportunity. Fisher v UTexas is about to damage race-based AA again. We did not demand that women have the same genetic makeup as men to find ways to equalize their opportunity. Nor should we apply a similar standard to SIRE groups for which science has clearly shown different gene pool prevalences. If we wait to identify the exact genes creating any differences, while in the interim we proceed along insisting there cannot be any differences, we will find our society as permanently stratified by SIRE groups as it has ever been.

330

This alone shows your complete lack of comprehension of both my own argument and of history.

Says the guy who believes that blacks are mentally inferior to all other “races”. And I don’t believe they’re “mentally unable to cope…”.

I dismiss nothing (though you happily dismiss any chunk of data that conflicts with your supremacist explanation). I just ask for evidence to support your explanation, and you have none.

And none of it means there is a difference. There’s no evidence for such a difference.

It just boggles my mind that you think a few decades of half-hearted effort means that the differences “will never be erased”. You couldn’t possibly know that, especially considering that your explanation has no evidence.

And I will never understand your completely bizarre arguments about affirmative action, which appear to be a straw-man (especially considering the fact that I generally support affirmative action).

I’ll conclude by saying that you are irrationally attached to an evidence-free hypothesis. Even without any test-score data at all, you really believe that genetic tendencies toward high or low intelligence must vary between separated populations. You just use the test-score data to sort the populations. Considering the many human characteristics that don’t vary between populations, why is intelligence, perhaps the most uniquely human characteristic of all, so special? And what makes now so special- so outcome differences now perfectly match genetic differences?

You’ve made a hypothesis, but gone no further. You demonstrate a very poor understanding of science.

331

So different geographic and cultural environments are likely to favor the same distribution of physical and behavioural traits? Remember that all behavioural traits are heritable. That is a portion of the variation between individuals in a population is due to differences in their genes. There are likely to be thousands of genes of small effect involved. There’s certainly evidence that the prevalence of genes linked to certain traits varies across groups.

Another recent example is the study by Beaver et al, looking at three dopamine genes which have a small but statistically significant effects on education levels. Those with a higher “dopamine index” tended to attain less education and there are group differences.

Again, there are likely thousands of genes of small effect involved in complex traits. As the cost of genome sequencing falls more of the particular genes involved in these traits can be identified and you can make population comparisons if you like. But there are already many examples of genes linked to behavioural traits and they seem to vary in prevalence across groups.

332

Unless you’re arguing that every single human characteristic must differ, genetically speaking, between every single human population, I don’t see why intelligence is singled out.

333

It’s not. I think that you’re likely to see various traits proving more adaptive in different environments and cultures. There are even specific examples, over a 1000 year period, or a longer period leading to exceptional visual memory.

334

Another “speculative” example, with no genetic evidence. There’s no genetic evidence for intelligence (or visual memory) differences between populations.

335

I provided some specific genes above, they vary in prevalence across populations. Molecular genetic studies identifying specific genes though are at an early stage and the cost of sequencing is coming down. However, from quantitative genetics and molecular studies to date it seems that heritability estimates work pretty well. Intelligence is similar to height in terms of heritability. In terms of the example above showing a significant population difference in the visual cortex, again this is significantly heritable as are other aspects of brain size & structure (which also vary across populations).

So the exact genes aren’t known, but it seems more probable than not to me that heritable factors are partly at work (controlling for environmental factors hasn’t explained differences). Also, Rindermman’s recent paper on Haplotypes suggests that evolutionary factors are one of the causes.

336

You did not provide the genes for intelligence (most of which we don’t know) or visual memory. There is zero genetic evidence that some populations are genetically dumber. The “genetic explanation” for the test-score gap does not fit all the facts (most notably the lack of a gap between black and white first-gen immigrants, and the fact that while the gap correlates with self-ID, it does not correlate with sub-Saharan African genetic markers within the same self-ID groups). Frank Sweet suggests that the best explanation is a combination of lesser parenting skills, lower teacher expectations, and “oppositional culture” peer pressure. His hypotheses, at least, fit all the facts.

337

Do you discount the facts in the article:

So, we have Aboriginal children scoring 50% better os visual memory tests. And we have findings that say that the visual cortex in these aboriginal children is 25% larger. How is that not evidence that genes are playing a role in mental performance?

Unless you’re once again conflating evidence with proof, or you’re using the word differently then the rest of the world. We do not have the latter, but we do have the former.

338

It’s evidence that Aboriginal children have larger visual cortexes- but the follow up question is why. The fact of a larger visual cortex says nothing about why it’s larger- it could be environmental (for example, more frequent use might lead to larger and better function, just like a muscle) or it could be genetic.

And of course genes play a role in mental performance. But there’s no evidence that different populations have different tendencies towards genes for high or low intelligence.

339

You have yet to present the cite for your oft-repeated “first-gen immigrants” study. I believe that Mr Sweet is quoting newspaper accounts in Britain, although I could be wrong.

I am curious why you find this such a powerful example, on two counts:

  1. You have apparently never actually looked at the source study, and you are quoting a fellow who obviously has a bias similar to yours.
  2. Immigrants would not be a cross section of a source population. On the other hand, the general black-white score gaps (as an example of pututively genetically-driven differences) persist as a pattern across millions of testees, and Mr Sweet himself admits those differences are not related to schooling or opportunity or wealth or any number of typically-advanced reasons.

Performance on intelligence tests has a strong hereditary component. Gene prevalences differ by population. All genes evolve, and only descendant populations have access to those evolved genes.

Why is it again, that you find “no evidence for genes”? The neurobiological review I cited above gives dozens of cites for papers identifying some of the genes that drive brain development (see the diagram on p 475). HMGA2 is an example of an identified “intelligence gene” where a simple C-T substitution gives 2.6% IQ difference for homozygotes. If the difference being discussed were male testosterone or creatine kinase levels, would you find “no genetic evidence” simply because the exact genes weren’t identified? Or would you concede that, absent an identified environmental influence, it’s more likely than not that genes are at play?

340

Again, I’ve provided you with some identified to date and they vary across groups. The visual cortex area is highly heritable as is brain size (which is correlated with IQ and varies across groups - note that increased brain size has a number of costs in terms of calories and birth complications).

I note you didn’t comment on Rindermann’s paper, but he notes:

Can you link to Sweet’s article? From your summary it’s worth noting that immigrant groups themselves are going to have to meet a selection criteria in the first place. The other points don’t fit the evidence any better than an environmental and genetic explanation that applies for individual differences. Behavioural geneticist David C Rowe conducted studies on whether there was a particular X factor depressing achievement for some groups and couldn’t find one. Things like an oppositional culture aren’t a factor in differences in 3 year olds, reaction time measures, or differences in forward & reverse digit span (the second more g-loaded and the group differences increase). If you control for other known environmental correlates, such as SES or parental education, you still get gaps.