# Racism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744 "2013-07-17T12:06:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/61 "2013-07-25T17:24:21Z")
I LOVE your posts, GB. Please keep them coming. I only wish I knew what points they were making. Like this one (by GIGOBuster): "Thank you, and I do accept that praise even in jest because when one looks at the methods of the study they concentrated on Norwegians, indeed the authors concentrated on a medical factor that has virtually no use when the subject is race and you only attempted to use misleading points as usual. " What on God’s green earth does that mean, and how is it possibly relevant to…anything? And the climate change dealy in a racism thread? You are a one-trick pony, if there ever was one. Do you work in something about climate change into all your conversations, even at home? Spouse: “What’s for dinner?” GB: “What does that have to do with climate change?” Anyway, thanks for making me laugh out loud once again. I’m off for my nap. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/62 "2013-07-25T17:37:59Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I LOVE your posts, GB. > > Please keep them coming. > > I only wish I knew what points they were making. > > Like this one (by GIGOBuster): > "Thank you, and I do accept that praise even in jest because when one looks at the methods of the study they concentrated on Norwegians, indeed the authors concentrated on a medical factor that has virtually no use when the subject is race and you only attempted to use misleading points as usual. " > > What on God’s green earth does that mean, and how is it possibly relevant to…anything? Did you \*\*forget \*\*already about the OP? 🙂 As the research you quoted removed race factors, one has to wonder out-loud **why you did bring it up in the first place**. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And the climate change dealy in a racism thread? You are a one-trick pony, if there ever was one. Do you work in something about climate change into all your conversations, even at home? > > Spouse: “What’s for dinner?” > GB: “What does that have to do with climate change?” > > Anyway, thanks for making me laugh out loud once again. I’m off for my nap. You are welcome again, And you only show your ignorance to others when now you claim that I only worry about that issue, so indeed I do thank you for your candor as it demonstrates the very opposite of what you think you are showing others. 🙂 Back to subject, (that I have been involved too in the past, so indeed your say so of me being a one trick pony is very misleading, but it is not my problem that you want to gain that fame in the SDMB). I have to remind you that I also post to learn, and in the case of your cite I learned that the consensus among the experts is to only use SIRE groups as a proxy for better tools, eventually better genetic technology will make their use unnecessary as they are a weak variable to use. (“To unravel the real causes of genetically based disease or conditions, research into health disparities must move beyond weakly correlated variables, such as self-identified race or ethnicity, towards an understanding of the more proximate environmental and genetic factors.”) [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/fig\_tab/ng1436\_F1.html](http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/fig_tab/ng1436_F1.html) [http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/14/2164.abstract](http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/14/2164.abstract) > [@](#): > > However, the concepts of race, ethnicity, or ancestry are often poorly considered or crudely applied, particularly in genetic studies of disease etiology or outcome. Consequently, results suggesting genetic differences with respect to disease etiology or outcome across SIRE groups may not be meaningful; in fact, these differences may prove harmful if they propagate stereotypes or spurious differences. Therefore, it is critical to properly consider the meaning, definitions, and use of race, ethnicity, or ancestry in molecular epidemiologic studies. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/63 "2013-07-26T10:59:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have to remind you that I also post to learn, and in the case of your cite I learned that the consensus among the experts is to only use SIRE groups as a proxy for better tools, eventually better genetic technology will make their use unnecessary as they are a weak variable to use. (“To unravel the real causes of genetically based disease or conditions, research into health disparities must move beyond weakly correlated variables, such as self-identified race or ethnicity, towards an understanding of the more proximate environmental and genetic factors.”) How to use SIRE groups–indeed; whether or not to use them at all–is mostly a social question. But whether a given disease condition is a “weakly correlated variable” with SIRE groups depends on the condition, and how you want to define “weakly.” In the US, for example, a SIRE group of black [gives a newborn a 1 in 500 chance of having a geneset coding for sickle cell disease. A Hispanic newborn would have odds of about 1 in 36,000.](http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sca/atrisk.html) A pretty obvious example of how genes cluster by self-assigned “race” or “ethnicity,” but not as good as actually testing for one of the sickling genes. You are making good progress, overall, in understanding gene clustering by race better. I agree better genetic technology will make “race” self-assignments unnecessary when we are treating disease, because we can get so much more specific than a self assignment. However that doesn’t mean that genes don’t cluster by SIRE groups. They do. Evolution and patterns of human migration have conspired to make that an undeniable fact. Evolution ensures gene variants crop up. Migration patterns which keep populations relatively isolated from one another ensure disparate rates of penetration for disparate gene variants. The gene variants themselves and the functional consequences that result from them are observable, and the resulting patterns are what underpin our predisposition to group into “races” even in a modern world where migratory limitations no longer isolate populations. ---
**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:** [July 26, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/64 "2013-07-26T17:00:57Z")
That is fine, but misses the point, as the subject is race I have to go for what the experts report, SIRE groups are not really the best way to go forward. And that is in the medical field that this has some value. So in the social area it means an even weaker reason to use these results for racist solutions that some propose they should be used in society at large. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/65 "2013-07-27T03:07:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is fine, but misses the point, as the subject is race I have to go for what the experts report, SIRE groups are not really the best way to go forward. And that is in the medical field that this has some value. So in the social area it means an even weaker reason to use these results for racist solutions that some propose they should be used in society at large. Lord, I wish I knew what you are saying, because I think you try hard to be coherent. If you are suggesting the elimination of SIRE groups, you have a lot of support. However, for social constructs such as race-based Affirmative Action, you also have a lot of dissenters (including me) for getting rid of SIRE categories. Right now, the problem is that equalization of things like wealth and parental education still leaves black kids from those sorts of families substantially underscoring white and asian SIRE groups. So you can’t just blow away SIRE groups and use wealth or opportunity or the like. You wouldn’t get nearly enough black kids into good schools. The most academically competitive black kids come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds, but those black kids still hugely underperform whites and asians from poor and underprivileged backgrounds. What happens if you get rid of SIRE categories is that the best black candidates cannot get into good schools since they then have to compete based on opportunity alone. That’s what Fisher v UT Austin was (and is) all about. We need to preserve SIRE groups so we can make race a special case for AA. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/66 "2013-07-27T03:22:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Lord, I wish I knew what you are saying, because I think you try hard to be coherent. > > If you are suggesting the elimination of SIRE groups, you have a lot of support. However, for social constructs such as race-based Affirmative Action, you also have a lot of dissenters (including me) for getting rid of SIRE categories. Right now, the problem is that equalization of things like wealth and parental education still leaves black kids from those sorts of families substantially underscoring white and asian SIRE groups. So you can’t just blow away SIRE groups and use wealth or opportunity or the like. You wouldn’t get nearly enough black kids into good schools. The most academically competitive black kids come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds, but those black kids still hugely underperform whites and asians from poor and underprivileged backgrounds. What happens if you get rid of SIRE categories is that the best black candidates cannot get into good schools since they then have to compete based on opportunity alone. > > That’s what Fisher v UT Austin was (and is) all about. We need to preserve SIRE groups so we can make race a special case for AA. Yeah, but we already knew you are the odd one that thinks AA is valid, but for the wrong reasons. Unlike you, we do remember. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/67 "2013-07-27T03:43:45Z")
In essence, coming with a medical tool like the SIRE groups, has been shown to be poorly considered or crudely applied, particularly in genetic studies of disease etiology or outcome. Indeed, the information I found shows that virtually all your previous points regarding SIRE groups on discussions about race has no value, as on previous discussions you attempt to make that previously weak evidence into something of value to be applied to genetic differences in intelligence between races (that in the end even you acknowledge the genetic evidence is not there, so one has to wonder why you continue with a discredited angle), you always show a failure to understand the basic view many experts have nowadays. The old definitions of race are being faced out in medicine and genetics. Far from being fertile territory for justifications for scientific racists, Medicine and genetics are telling those people to take a hike. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/68 "2013-07-28T10:34:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In essence, coming with a medical tool like the SIRE groups, has been shown to be poorly considered or crudely applied, particularly in genetic studies of disease etiology or outcome. > > Indeed, the information I found shows that virtually all your previous points regarding SIRE groups on discussions about race has no value, as on previous discussions you attempt to make that previously weak evidence into something of value to be applied to genetic differences in intelligence between races (that in the end even you acknowledge the genetic evidence is not there, so one has to wonder why you continue with a discredited angle), you always show a failure to understand the basic view many experts have nowadays. The old definitions of race are being faced out in medicine and genetics. > > Far from being fertile territory for justifications for scientific racists, Medicine and genetics are telling those people to take a hike. I don’t think we have any disagreement about whether or not a SIRE grouping is as accurate as measuring the actual gene. Of course it isn’t. I hope your education on the topic has convinced you that SIRE groups do have genetic clusterings. That is to say, gene pools differ for SIRE groups. The notion that those disparate pools have no significance is incorrect, as evidenced by markedly different predictive values for disease states. I gave you the example for sickle cell disease between the SIRE group of “black” and the Sire group of “Hispanic.” It’s completely irrelevant that I cannot biologically define a “Hispanic.” What I can do is show that, on average, a self-identified Hispanic has about 1/18th the chance of having sickle cell disease, because that self-identification correlates with a different gene pool, on average. I await the explanation from either you or “the experts” you keep vaguely citing as to why gene pool differences apply only to phenotypic appearance or disease states. Does mother nature exempt genes that would create skillset differences from evolving? ---
**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:** [July 28, 2013, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/69 "2013-07-28T10:39:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I don’t think we have any disagreement about whether or not a SIRE grouping is as accurate as measuring the actual gene. Of course it isn’t. > > I hope your education on the topic has convinced you that SIRE groups do have genetic clusterings. That is to say, gene pools differ for SIRE groups. > > The notion that those disparate pools have no significance is incorrect, as evidenced by markedly different predictive values for disease states. I gave you the example for sickle cell disease between the SIRE group of “black” and the Sire group of “Hispanic.” > > I await the explanation from either you or “the experts” you keep vaguely citing as to why gene pool differences apply only to phenotypic appearance or disease states. Does mother nature exempt genes that would create skillset differences from evolving? Way to miss the point, I said that it is weak in the medical and genetic field, and then of not much importance at all when applying it to society at large and so are the solutions proposed by scientific racists and their ilk. Remember, as you keep forgetting that the discussion does involve race in society, it is important to point out that the experts are not playing your game. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/70 "2013-07-28T15:51:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Remember, as you keep forgetting that the discussion does involve race in society, it is important to point out that the experts are not playing your game. The game the “experts” you cite are playing is the game of answering the wrong questions in order to avoid answering the difficult question. Here are some examples of the wrong questions: Can “race” be a biologically tight definition? Does the amount of variation within a typical “race” category mean we should throw away the concept of race? Is there enough variability within a given “race” to make comparisons between any two individuals unpredictable? Have human migration/mating patterns been so constant that race groups don’t have genes from all other races? And so on… But here’s the difficult question that your “experts” avoid. It’s the one relating to “race” that the ordinary guy asks every day as he looks at the world around him: Is the reason I see so many blacks in the NBA or asians at Stanford in part because of a difference in their genes? If he knew how to ask that “race” and genetics question properly, it would be this question: Do SIRE groups have different average gene frequencies in the pool from which they draw their genes that drive different average outcomes among those SIRE groups when nurturing variables are normalized? Put another way, does every SIRE group draw from gene pools in which the genes are all functionally exactly equivalent? Perhaps you can find a cite from one of your experts to answer that question…there is usually a fair amount of hedging so that the masses can be reassured that all SIRE groups are alike, but some shred of scientific credibility can be preserved. And you certainly won’t see any cites for evidence that SIRE groups can be shown to be functionally equivalent for either skillsets or diseases or anything else. All of the evidence is that they are not equivalent, and so the debate is left to hinge on whether or not the differences can be attributed exclusively to nurturing variables. There is no debate that the current US SIRE groups show substantial average differences. ---
**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:** [July 28, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/71 "2013-07-28T17:19:08Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Do SIRE groups have different average gene frequencies in the pool from which they draw their genes that drive different average outcomes among those SIRE groups when nurturing variables are normalized? Put another way, does every SIRE group draw from gene pools in which the genes are all functionally exactly equivalent? As I remember , and you continue to forget conveniently, the genetic reasons for racial differences that would go against the capability for becoming a valued citizen in society are not really there, the genetic evidence is missing once we attempt to look for them, [and as the fiasco on the medicine for blacks only showed](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/from-bang-to-whimper-a-heart-drugs-story.html?_r=0) it is indeed harmful for all other races when race based solutions avoid checking if other groups of people would benefit. So are the implied solutions guys like you propose in society at large, they are based on weak connections and when differences among races are looked to have a genetic basis, then the connection is even weaker and the evidence lacking. Many environmental and societal interactions are still there influencing the differences in intelligence. As for credibility, yours was shot already a long time ago, the experts (and in many cases now psychiatrists that used to support your tripe) continue to report that there is indeed something wrong with the people that keeps looking for science to support their prejudices as it was in the past. > **[Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3394457/)** > > This paper introduces the notion of genetic essentialist biases: cognitive biases associated with essentialist thinking that are elicited when people encounter arguments that genes are relevant for a behavior, condition, or social group. Learning ... > [@](#): > > We submit that genetic essentialism reflects a biased, and frequently undesirable, response to encounters with genetic information, which we will describe in more detail in following sections. However, one might question whether such responses to genetic information may instead be considered rational. Perhaps, knowing about an underlying genetic foundation for a condition should reasonably make one conclude that the condition is determined, of a specific etiology, homogenous, and natural. For example, if someone has a series of a sufficient number of repeating sequences of three bases – CAG—in the right position at the end of their chromosome 4, they will develop Huntington’s disease if they do not die prematurely of another cause. Further, the onset of their symptoms can even be predicted based on the number of repeating sequences that exist (Zoghbi & Orr, 2000). By all accounts, Huntington’s disease is determined, has a specific etiology, is homogenous, and is natural. Thinking about Huntington’s in these fatalistic ways is arguably the correct way to understand it. > > However, genes influence phenotypes in different ways. On the one hand, genes can influence phenotypes through major biochemical pathways that can be measured and understood, which Turkheimer (1998) refers to as “strong genetic explanations.” This is the case with monogenic diseases and conditions that involve a small number of genes. In these cases, coming to think about them as more determined, solely caused, homogenous, and natural, as a result of learning about their underlying genetic foundation would indeed appear to be a rational response. > > On the other hand, strong genetic explanation appears to be more of the exception than the rule. Monogenic diseases represent only about 2% of genetic-based diseases (Jablonka & Lamb, 2006); the norm is that multiple genes are involved, which is further complicated in that the same allele can be expressed differently depending on environmental contingencies (e.g., Caspi et al., 2002; Guo, Tong, & Cai, 2008). In summarizing the evidence for predicting disease risk on the basis of genes, Kraft and Hunter (2009) stated that “many, rather than few, variant risk alleles are responsible for the majority of the inherited risk of each common disease” (p. 1702). Genotype-phenotype relationships can be highly complex, where phenotypes emerge as the result of the interaction of many genes, when particular environmental conditions are met, and where genes may influence which environments an individual is more likely to seek out and subsequently be influenced by. Such complex relations defy a genetic essentialist response. > > Turkheimer (1998) uses the expression “weak genetic explanation” to refer to those cases where a condition is known to have a genetic basis (i.e., heritability \> 0), yet the mechanisms that transmit it are largely unknown or are unknowable. Much of the ways that genes relate to human conditions can be described as weak genetic explanations. Almost all human behaviors are heritable (Turkheimer, 2000), including voting behavior (Fowler, Baker, & Dawes, 2008), cigarette smoking (Kendler, Thornton, & Pedersen, 2000), and divorce (Jockin, McGue, & Lykken, 1996), although the genetic pathways underlying these are not tractable. Essentialist responses to genetic explanations for these cases are not rational – the more tenuous the link between genes and conditions, the more irrational is an essentialist response. > > That genes most commonly influence phenotypes by way of weak explanations (i.e., by elevating risk assessments, increasing susceptibilities, heightening probabilities) underscores that essentialist responses to genetic associations may often be inappropriate. However, as Hinshaw and Stier (2008) argued in their account of stigma and mental illnesses, when people consider genetic attributions for a condition they frequently fail to take into account other perspectives, such as how the person fits with the environment, or how the person’s development has influenced the genesis of their condition. That is, the genetic attributions frequently get prioritized above other kinds of attributions for the phenomena. These complexities exist for most human phenomena in which nature and nurture interact. Because these complexities are more difficult to communicate and understand, it is often the case that for many people, all genetic explanations tend to be interpreted as strong genetic explanations. > > In sum, we submit that when people’s genetic essentialist biases have been activated, they tend to view the associated phenomena as more immutable, homogenous, natural, and caused by relevant genetic factors than an objective analysis would suggest is appropriate. These biases lead people to attend more to the genetic causes of the phenomena at the expense of environmental, experiential, or gene-environment interactional causes. To be clear, we are not suggesting that phenomena with weak genetic explanations mean that genes are irrelevant, that the environment is the sole cause of the phenomena, or that people would fare best by viewing these phenomena as solely the product of people’s choices. Rather, we are arguing that genetic essentialist biases lead people to weigh the genetic contributions to relevant phenomena more than is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/72 "2013-07-28T19:28:09Z")
> [@Tequila\_Party](#): > > Assuming all Indians eat curry and are _smelly_ because of it, is what makes it racist. Okay this one particular item. When I lived in the part of Queens, NYC in the mid-1980’s where I would take the #7 train into Manhattan, I would routinely be surrounded every morning by dozens of Chinese and Korean folks. At that time, the #7 had no air conditioning. Come high summertime, the train cars would be filled with the intense scent of garlic mixed with human sweat. Am I racist for commenting upon the simple fact that all human beings can have a body scent that is indicative of the foods they ingest? Their diet- especially the Korean population- is heavily skewed towards garlic and chili peppers. Now, it would be mighty racist for me to throw out, " Oh god you Koreans, you reek of garlic no matter what ". Racism is founded in profound ignorance and is encourged with hatred. Since both of my children are South Korean-born adoptees and I have been close enough to nuzzle their necks and blow raspberries into their tummies when they were babies, I know for a fact of course that being of South Korean descent has NOTHING to do with how one smells. I would readily agree that it’s tacky in the EXTREME to make the kinds of unkind and broad-stroke remarks that **Aanamika** recounted. I suspect they were made by someone with a racist viewpoint of Indians- but like the borscht remark, taken out of context I’m not sure that it rises to the level of racism. Then again, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to loudly complain to a South Korean about the garlicky scent of the #7 train. Perhaps it’s as much about common decency and a bit of awareness as it is about racism? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/73 "2013-07-29T04:12:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I remember… \ Are you able to summarize your point? Neither I nor any educated person I know argues for some kind of idiotic strawman that environmental influences don’t exist or that genes are an explanation for everything. Are there, or are there not, gene prevalence differences that account for average outcome differences (including predilection for disease) that vary by SIRE group? You apparently assert that for the skillset of academic performance, there’s only a “weak connection” since you take umbrage at my assertion that the evidence to date shows a genetic explanation is more likely. OK…what is the reason you and your experts want to advance for why children from wealthy and educated black families underperform substantially children from poor and uneducated white families on the SAT? I submit whatever reason you and your experts come up with is as weak a connection, reflecting an arbitrary egalitarian bias, as is any connection reflecting a “genetic essentialism” bias. But have at it, GIGOBuster. Gimme your best explanation of that particular piece of evidence that the environment is not a cause for the SAT gap disparity in those two SIRE groups. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/74 "2013-07-29T04:25:48Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Are you able to summarize your point? > > Neither I nor any educated person I know argues for some kind of idiotic strawman that environmental influences don’t exist or that genes are an explanation for everything. > > Are there, or are there not, gene prevalence differences that account for average outcome differences (including predilection for disease) that vary by SIRE group? > > You apparently assert that for the skillset of academic performance, there’s only a “weak connection” since you take umbrage at my assertion that the evidence to date shows a genetic explanation is more likely. > > OK…what is the reason you and your experts want to advance for why children from wealthy and educated black families underperform substantially children from poor and uneducated white families on the SAT? > > I submit whatever reason you and your experts come up with is as weak a connection, reflecting an arbitrary egalitarian bias, as is any connection reflecting a “genetic essentialism” bias. > > But have at it, GIGOBuster. Gimme your best explanation of that particular piece of evidence that the environment is not a cause for the SAT gap disparity in those two SIRE groups. Nope, it does not work that way, after geneticists showed that we do not diverge a lot under our skin, it is the job of the scientific racists to come with the evidence. As it was reported even by you, the evidence is very weak when genetics are attempted to be used as a reason for the differences of intelligence between races. And you only show others that you are not paying attentions, the psychology paper I last quoted does refer to the point that: “To be clear, we are not suggesting that phenomena with weak genetic explanations mean that genes are irrelevant, that the environment is the sole cause of the phenomena, or that people would fare best by viewing these phenomena as solely the product of people’s choices. Rather, we are arguing that genetic essentialist biases lead people to weigh the genetic contributions to relevant phenomena more than is justified.” So, once again, they are not playing your game, and they are even shooting down your dumb accusation of an idiotic straw man. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2013, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/75 "2013-07-29T04:35:51Z")
The point stands, since there are weak correlations in several traits already reported, it is not really a good idea to use those groupings for other subjects. Specially when a key one, the differences of intelligence among races, is the one that appears with the weakest genetic justification or evidence. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/76 "2013-07-29T13:43:04Z")
Where I get confused is when there’s what seems to be an oversensitivity among white people where ANYTHING is said that has to do with another race or culture that’s not extremely positive or flattering about another race is automatically interpreted as racist, and you’re considered a racist. We see this all the time on the SDMB actually. Using a stereotype about another race isn’t automatically racist, and neither is saying something that’s more or less factually based, even if it’s unflattering. For example, someone saying that black men are typically more criminal than white men isn’t automatically racist. And before you start spluttering and mentally fitting me for my pointy hood, let me explain. Statistically, it’s true- a larger proportion of black men are incarcerated vs. white men. Is it an unfortunate choice of words? Sure. Is it necessarily racist? No, it could just be a poor choice of words; it’s the context that counts. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/77 "2013-07-29T18:02:22Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Where I get confused is when there’s what seems to be an oversensitivity among white people where ANYTHING is said that has to do with another race or culture that’s not extremely positive or flattering about another race is automatically interpreted as racist, and you’re considered a racist. We see this all the time on the SDMB actually. > > Using a stereotype about another race isn’t automatically racist, and neither is saying something that’s more or less factually based, even if it’s unflattering. > > For example, someone saying that black men are typically more criminal than white men isn’t automatically racist. And before you start spluttering and mentally fitting me for my pointy hood, let me explain. Statistically, it’s true- a larger proportion of black men are incarcerated vs. white men. > > Is it an unfortunate choice of words? Sure. Is it necessarily racist? No, it could just be a poor choice of words; it’s the context that counts. Ok, take a look at this data: [QUOTE=[http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf](http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf)] We also looked at admitted child molesters in terms of their ethnicity. The Question: Which ethnic group might produce proportionately more child molesters. Our study sample of 3,952 admitted male child molesters paralleled the U.S male population in terms of representing five ethnic groups. 1. **Caucasian** : U.S males, 72% vs. child molesters, 79%. 2. **Hispanic/Latin American** : U.S males, 11% vs. child molesters, 9%. 3. **African-American** : U.S males, 12% vs. child molesters, 6% 4. **American Indian** : U.S males, 1% vs. child molesters, 3% [snip]the Caucasian group seems to produce slightly more child molesters and the Hispanic/Latin-American and African-American groups seem to produce fewer[snip]. " [/QUOTE] Now, the conclusion of the data, the authors deliberately or unknowingly overshot the U.S male population. Currently, whites make up roughly 77% of population, half of those are men, so their total is approximately 38.5% not in the high 70’s. Sooo, would it be racist for me to assume that white males are more likely to be child molesters? Statistically, it’s true. Is it an unfortunate choice of words? Sure. Is it necessarily racist? No, it could just be a poor choice of words; it’s the context that counts. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/78 "2013-07-29T18:09:14Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Now, the conclusion of the data, the authors deliberately or unknowingly overshot the U.S male population. Currently, whites make up roughly 77% of population, half of those are men, so their total is approximately 38.5% not in the high 70’s. I don’t think that cite is saying that 72% of people in the US are white males, I think it’s saying that 72% of males in the US are white. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/79 "2013-07-29T18:36:34Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Ok, take a look at this data: > > Now, the conclusion of the data, the authors deliberately or unknowingly overshot the U.S male population. Currently, whites make up roughly 77% of population, half of those are men, so their total is approximately 38.5% not in the high 70’s. Sooo, would it be racist for me to assume that white males are more likely to be child molesters? Statistically, it’s true. Is it an unfortunate choice of words? Sure. Is it necessarily racist? No, it could just be a poor choice of words; it’s the context that counts. > > - Honesty I don’t know what you’re getting at- it’s the same example I used, only with white men and child molestation substituted for black men and criminality. Doesn’t change what I said- white men are more likely to be child molesters than their proportion of the population would indicate. Same goes for American Indians. Saying what you’re saying in light of the data is more a matter of stating a fact or inference than anything racist. It’s about as racist as saying that black men are predisposed to hypertension. Using that fact to imply anything non-medical about black men probably would be racist though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744/80 "2013-07-29T18:40:38Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We are evolving like mad . . . Are we? Have we? Apart from appearances, are we really all that different from humans of Mitochondrial Eve’s generation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/racism/663744.md?page=5)