Guess which countries have had the most extensive IQ testing? European and East Asian countries (most other countries have had far less testing- and most African countries have had virtually zero). Guess which countries are the wealthiest? Guess which ones spend the most money on education? Guess which ones have the best child nutrition?
There is no genetic evidence for this tie between intelligence and “race” (or even population).
A study that isolated genetics and didn’t include other factors, such as cultural or economic influences.
Is it your position that it is simply unknowable if one race is smarter than the other.
And while I agree that there is no proof of that, I do think that there is some evidence. The amount of evidence is not zero, would you agree?
Ancestory is a completely different thing than finding correlation between a set of genetic traits and other traits.
That is, analyzing your DNA will give you a good idea on which group of leaves stemming off which twig from which branch along the “trunk” of the common ancestral tree (per HoD’s metephor) you sprouted from. What it cannot tell you is how smart you are.
What you’re merely doing is mistakenly comparing the genomes to some apparent cosmetic phenotypes and correlating these arbitrarily visible traits to how you perceive them to function cognitively and socially with the rest of humanity.
It doesn’t show any such correlation. You nor b84 can seem to clearly define how to identify these “races,” either scientifically or by some other means, other than skin color or epicanthic folds. As noted, these are traits naturally selected for because of environmental factors that became benificial for survival and adaptation to certain populations of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, thousands of years ago. In the modern world, these physical traits are largely vestigal and have not been shown to correlate to intelligence or any other cognitive process other than, “that person looks different than me and everyone I know. Difference scares me and makes me suspicious. Kill him!”
Your logic fails to first recognize or consider these significant factors, let alone any attempts to at least rule them out. And that’s just the shallow end of the pool. But here you are, in the deep end, in way over your head like some ignoramus jumping right in flailing and drowning, while trying to convince others you’ve found the real, “true” way to swim.
No. I’d agree that the possibility is non-zero. Big difference. If there’s non-zero evidence, show it to us.
Genetic evidence? Zero. Absolutely zero. Or even just biological evidence that’s not even necessarily genetic? Nope again. None. We’ve been going over this for several weeks now, and it’s frustrating as hell that people don’t get that.
Is there evidence of correlation between putative races and some measures of intelligence? Sure. Has that correlation entirely eliminated socioeconomic factors or other potential factors? Nope. So, while evidence exists, it’s not genetic or even biological.
That’s just an astoundingly broad statement, but it’s true: we haven’t even established there’s a biological connection between our notions of race and intelligence, much less a genetic one. There’s absolutely no evidence for it. Is it possible? Absolutely. But there’s as much current evidence that the human race is some alien kid’s science experiment.
As I noted earlier (and you should take a note of), if all the people we consider “black” are shown genetically to be less intelligent, it would be nearly the only genetic trait several of them have in common. Even skin color isn’t a single genetic trait. We might call them all “black”, but there really is a wide variety of genes that cover the various populations from the rather light skinned San to the darker skinned Yoruba.
That would further imply that there are likewise “dumb” genes among people who are putatively “white” or “mongoloid”, since some of the “black” populations are actually more closely related to white or asian populations. That’s actually an interesting result, but it would still contradict NDDs rather stupid point (which still has no genetic or even biological evidence).
It depends on what you mean by “races”.
If you’re talking about actual genetic populations—i.e., groups in which the members are genetically closer to other people within the group than to people outside the group—then there certainly might be genetically linked differences between them, on average, in various aspects of neurological or cognitive functioning. And those differences might shake down to an average net performance differential on various quantitative measures of intelligence.
But if you’re talking about “races” as a few groups of people labeled “black” and “yellow” and “white” or some such vague identifier, the whole concept of inter-group genetic differences falls apart. Not just for intelligence, but for things like height and skin color too.
For example, some African ethnic groups such as the Maasai are among the world’s tallest people, while others such as the Twa are among the world’s shortest. Some European populations are on average taller than all Asian populations, while some Asian populations such as the Ainu are on average taller than some European ones. Some ethnic groups classified as “white” are at least as dark-skinned as some who are classified as “Oriental” or even as “black”.
You cannot just lump populations together into big groups IRRESPECTIVE of their actual genetic relationships, and then claim that their AVERAGE inter-group differences count as evidence of GENETIC differences.
Simple analogy: If you and most of your cousins are short and smart, while your siblings are mostly tall and dumb, does that count as evidence that the “short race” is on average smarter than the “tall race”? NO, because your “short race” is not a genetic population; your hypothesis of a genetically determined “racial” trait is contradicted by the fact that there can be closer genetic links between the “races” (i.e., you and your siblings) than within them (i.e., you and your cousins).
Actually I haven’t defined “blacks” at all. But it’s easy enough to define for purposes of discussion. Just use the same definition the census does. For “large groups” just pick a number so that an uptick in achievement is unlikely to be the result of random statistical fluctuation or cherry-picking. Say 10,000.
I have no idea what your point is here.
I’m simply asking you a question in an attempt to ascertain your position. I’ll ask a similar question in a slightly different way:
Is it your position that the achievement gap between blacks and whites is the result of non-genetic causes?
No. Now please answer my question.
Probably not, but first please tell me what your definition of “genetic group” is.
Well do you agree that such a study would be very difficult to do, given that pretty much all human beings are subject to human cultural influences, including cultural ideas about race?
Is there a group of identifiable genes exclusive to the Han Chinese, or a group of identifiable genes Han Chinese lack that everyone else has? That’s the criterion I had in mind. I’m prepared to entertain other definitions of “genetic group” if someone wants to provide one.
Sure. If someone wants a scientific discussion of ethnic groups or families, providing good scientific definitions of the terms should be a priority. Page One material, as it were.
Heck, if someone wants a scientific discussion of baseball, a clear description of baseball rules and equipment should be included early on.
I’m giving you essentially the same answer I’ve already given. If you decide that this is “declining to answer”, then I guess we’re at an impasse.
I kinda think it is, otherwise “genetically informed” is completely meaningless. How would you know that differences between races were genetic in nature? Sure, you can look at physical phenotypes like skin and eye color and put a lot of (but by no means all) humans into vaguely-defined groups, but intelligence and criminality?
I’m not sure what your questions are, at this point. Are they along the lines of “is there a difference between Ethnic Group A and Ethnic Group B?” or something?
Okay, so let’s study what distinguishes a professional team from a high school team:
-Age.
-Experience.
-The selection process through which the professional team can recruit from across a wide geographical area, while a high school’s options are more bound to what talent can be found in its student body, made up of kids who happen to live in that particular school district.
These are criteria that can be quantified and studied. I wouldn’t embrace an argument that said the professionals had more/better rugby genes than the high schoolers if it came with expressed disinterest in discussing said genes. Further, if the arguer kept trying to fuzzy-up the situation by swapping terminology, i.e. “rugby players” gets replaced by “team-sport players”, just as “genetic groups” becomes “ethnic groups”.
The overall gist is that you keep using the word “genetic” in a manner that I cannot support and will no longer entertain. If/when you want to discuss hypotheses that involve actual, y’know, genes, or if you can offer up a working definition of “genetic group” that is useful in some way, then maybe we’ll give it another shot.
I say this not for brazil84’s benefit, because I know [modest cough] I’m on his ignore list, but to highlight what I think is a common and crucial weakness in the “race realists’” position:
Just because a certain experiment or study would be very difficult to do doesn’t mean you don’t need to do it in order to reliably answer the question you’re asking.
Many so-called “race realists” seem to think that just because it’s very hard (perhaps even impossibly hard) to truly isolate genetic factors in intelligence, that somehow justifies them in drawing confident conclusions from much weaker and incomplete evidence.
Sometimes they even act as though the incredible complexity of studying intelligence scientifically is merely some kind of forensic ruse on the part of their opponents. “Oh, you’re just setting up impossible experimental conditions because you’re afraid of the results!” they cry. “No study we could propose would ever be good enough for you! If you were being scientifically honest, you ought to accept the best evidence we do have access to as good enough!”
No, bubbeleh, I’m afraid that’s not how science works. If, say, I’m looking at a microbe that needs 20X magnification in order to see it clearly, and all I have is a 10X magnifier, I don’t get to use my blurry confused 10X images as trustworthy evidence for what the microbe really looks like. The experimental conditions have to be adequate to control the experiment properly. If those adequate conditions are horrendously difficult to achieve, well, that simply means that I can’t do the experiment properly, and thus can’t draw reliable conclusions from it. It doesn’t mean that I get to selectively disregard the principle of experimental control itself and expect my readers to disregard it too.
Like it or not, the experimental law “Garbage in, garbage out” is not sympathetically abrogated for experimenters who, from the nature of their subject or for any other reason, find it very hard to obtain non-garbage data. That’s not because your scientific adversaries are being mean to you, that’s just because you can’t do good science on a basis of garbage.
And is a “scientific discussion” necessary in order to claim that one group has characteristics another does not?
For example, I claim that the Aka people are generally speaking inherently shorter than the Maasai people. I also claim that members of the ethnic group known as “Ashkenazim” are inherently more likely to have blue eyes than members of the ethnic group known as “Han Chinese.”
Can you agree that these claims are true even if I don’t idenitfy the genetic markers (if any) which distinguish Aka, Maasai, Ashkenazim, and Han Chinese?
Can you agree that these claims could have been known to be true even before anyone even knew what DNA was?
No, you’ve been evading my question.
I kinda think it is, otherwise “genetically informed” is completely meaningless. How would you know that differences between races were genetic in nature? Sure, you can look at physical phenotypes like skin and eye color and put a lot of (but by no means all) humans into vaguely-defined groups, but intelligence and criminality?
If they were universal in space and time and intractable it would be a reasonable inference.
Again my question: Do you agree that even before anyone knew what DNA was, reasonable people could infer that the height difference between Aka and Maasai was probably genetic in origin? Same question about the eye color difference between Ashkenazim and Han Chinese.
Well that’s not the point of the analogy. The point is that it’s possible to know some things about a field even if you know very little about the field.
Well do you agree that people made reasonable inferences about genetic causes of stuff even before DNA was discovered?
Probably 1000 years ago people knew that men are inherently taller and stronger than women even they had no idea what genes or DNA were. Would you have rejected such a conclusion at the time, insisting that genetic markers be first identified which distinguish men and women?
If you’re making a claim about the scientific nature of the groups or the differences between them, then yes it is.
Nobody is arguing with the claim that among the major racial groups as commonly and unscientifically defined, we find that, say, Asians on average score higher than whites on IQ tests and whites on average score higher than blacks. That’s a common-sense fact (albeit a fact that hasn’t been historically immutable).
But to say that racial differences in measured IQ are solely or primarily due to genetic differences between racial groups is making a claim that can only be assessed by proper scientific study.
But what you’re trying to claim you know about this particular field requires some barefaced three-card-monte-type cheating. It’s as though you pointed out that a professional rugby team from Wales would beat an average high school rugby team from Australia, and then tried to extrapolate from that to claim that the Welsh are innately better than the Australians at rugby.
(Again, I know that brazil84 isn’t reading this, but somebody else might find it useful.)
Sure, but the leap to intelligence and criminality is too great. If you want to discuss simple physical phenotypes like height or eye color without delving into genetics, fine - we could discuss it at the level of Gregor Mendel, rather than Crick/Watson. Heck, even some of the listed phenotypes might not even be genetic (or mostly genetic) in nature - perhaps if the Aka adopted a diet identical to the Maasai, the Aka children would grow taller, almost as tall as their Maasai counterparts.
Well, let’s see what your question is, then:
Sure. Even before Gregor Mendel, and well before the discovery of DNA, it was reasonable to observe that some physical traits were inheritable.
It is the extending of this rather obvious fact to more ethereal characteristics like intelligence and criminality which will require a more rigorous approach. I was never evading such a basic question - I just didn’t (and don’t) see it making the leap to something along the lines of “blacks are genetically more inclined to criminal behaviour than whites”, thus debating eye color and height is a waste of time.
Speaking of which, I’d forgotten until reminded by one of the links in post #2433 that last August, I extended you a near-Sisyphean level of patience and it was a useless effort then, as this has become a useless effort now. You’re insisting on citing arithmetic in a discussion about an unproven calculus theorem, and I’m tired of being insulted for my trouble.
Why?
It’s not just that some traits are inheritable, it’s also that some group differences are the result of the genetic causes. Please stop trying to confuse the issues.
Please don’t weasel, in your earlier post you talked about claims that one group “has characteristics another does not, on an on-average advantage another does not,”
i.e. you didn’t limit your claim to intelligence (or criminality) or “ethereal” traits. If you want to change your position, fine, but please don’t pretend you haven’t.
No, you are weaseling and being evasive.
I’ll just chuckle at this and call it a day.
:shrug: The fact is that the claim that “some physical traits are inheritable” is not the same as the claim that a difference between groups is genetic in origin.
Surely you know this perfectly well.
Anyway, the basic problem with your new position is that you are engaged in special pleading. You are asserting that psychological traits, particularly intelligence, should be treated differently from physical traits without providing a reasonable basis for doing so.
Can eye and skin color be affected by socioeconomic status? No? Then your “special pleading” argument is nonsense.
Why?
And do you agree that height and body shape can be affected by socioeconomic status?
It is funny 84’s claim since of course the basises has been provided. It is very well documented that the nutrition in childhood and even before birth has big effects when it poor and also poor stimulation from the clear evidences of the savage children found isolated and similar situations have large effects. In fact the evidence is very clear and not ambiguous at al.But because he needs to have his racial ideas validated,he claims genetics of race with no evidences and avoids direct answers to questions posed to this.