# So, it's June... WHERE THE \*\*\*\* IS THIS LOOMING GENETIC CRISIS!? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 10, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669 "2010-06-10T16:22:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**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:** [June 18, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/81 "2010-06-18T23:14:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > My thinking is, race is just a hook here, as it were. Many RWs are hostile to **any** public action taken to “level the playing field” of society, to enforce or even encourage equality-of-outcome – anything at all in that direction smacks of “socialism” in their view; and programs designed to correct historic racial disparities are merely the most recently highly visible manifestation of that. > > Of course, there are other RWs, even today, to whom the idea of a racial hierarchy as such really **matters.** > > Which camp Murray and Herrnstein fall into is open for speculation. I, on the other hand, argue just the opposite: If there are immutable differences among races (and so far, at least, there are) and if we want a just and diverse society with everyone at the table (and I do), then we must recognize that and take positive steps. Among those positive steps are race-based affirmative action and race-based directed programs to give a helping hand up. Without those, we will never get anywhere close to proportionate representation. If we accepted low-scoring blacks kids into medical school, for instance, based solely on (lack) of opportunity, then we’d get even fewer kids in, because many of the higher-scoring black kids (whose scores are still way below the average matriculant) come from advantaged backgrounds… This problem has already happened in California, where a denial of race-based consideration for enrollment into state schools has caused schools to use creative ways such as essays to find out what race the applicant is so they can try to actively enroll under-represented minorities with low testing scores. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/82 "2010-06-19T21:01:56Z")
Gosh **Chief** , once again you have spectacularly misinterpreted and misrepresented what I’m saying. Apparently, because you’re consistently unable to rebut the point I’m actually making, you’ve decided on some level just to pretend that I’m making a different point altogether, and rebut that point instead. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > The data you are unable to provide is data that shows any pattern of blacks outperforming asians (in a representative population group) anywhere. And I’m not **claiming** to be able to provide any such data, because I don’t think that such a pattern of “blacks outperforming asians” on, e.g., test scores actually **exists** (at least, not in a broad enough context to qualify as what you would call a "representative population group). However, the fact that there **does** exist a consistent cross-cultural pattern of “asians outperforming blacks” on these various metrics, rather than vice-versa, **does not necessarily indicate that the pattern is caused by genetic factors**. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > And yet you persist in pretending I am cherry-picking data points to show a pattern. No, I certainly do not claim you are “cherry-picking data points to show a pattern”. I think that the pattern you keep pointing to (where “asians” consistently “outperform” blacks on, e.g., test scores) clearly **is** present in the data, and I’ve said so all along. What I object to are your unscientific arguments **pretending that your preferred hypothesis about the CAUSE of the pattern is empirically justified in any conclusive way**. I’ll repeat this statement from my earlier post, and am willing to continue repeating it as long as necessary for you to grasp it: _ **Yes, we recognize and acknowledge the existence of the pattern that you mention. But the EXISTENCE of the pattern does not intrinsically constitute evidence for YOUR PARTICULAR HYPOTHESIS concerning the CAUSE of the pattern.** _ > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > What data point do you want to present to show racial groups are equal? I’m not arguing that “racial groups are equal”. I’m just pointing out that the scientific evidence at present doesn’t justify your claim that certain inequalities between racial groups **MUST** be due to innate **genetic** differences between them. And if you want to support that claim convincingly, you need to be able to account for “cherry-picked” counterexamples and anomalies in the “inequality” data, rather than just dismissing them as atypical. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Still, I don’t deny that one can hide behind the non-identical nurturing argument for a long time, and simply demand nurturing be absolutely identical for group comparisons to be valid. What you call “hiding behind the non-identical nurturing argument” is more accurately described as “being scientifically responsible enough to object to your pulling arbitrary assessments of nurturing equivalence out of your ass and expecting us to accept them as scientific data”. > [@Chief Pedant](#): > > If I see, for instance, a particular family with two boys and two girls, and one of the kids excels in school while the other three are mediocre, I am likely to discount nurturing as the most likely explanation without some sort of extenuating explanation for the one kid. And you are completely entitled to your own personal opinion about whether it’s appropriate to “discount nurturing as the most likely explanation” in such a case. All I object to is your propensity to demand that your personal opinion should be accorded the same respect as actual science. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/83 "2010-06-19T21:50:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What I object to are your unscientific arguments **pretending that your preferred hypothesis about the CAUSE of the pattern is empirically justified in any conclusive way**. > > I’ll repeat this statement from my earlier post, and am willing to continue repeating it as long as necessary for you to grasp it: > > _ **Yes, we recognize and acknowledge the existence of the pattern that you mention. But the EXISTENCE of the pattern does not intrinsically constitute evidence for YOUR PARTICULAR HYPOTHESIS concerning the CAUSE of the pattern.** _ > I’m not arguing that “racial groups are equal”. I’m just pointing out that the scientific evidence at present doesn’t justify your claim that certain inequalities between racial groups **MUST** be due to innate **genetic** differences between them. There are two possibilities: nature and nurture. You continue to make a charge that it’s some sort of personal opinion of mine–and nothing more–to ascribe that pattern to nature. I have given cite after cite showing an inability to eliminate the disparity despite very specific efforts to normalize for nurture–indeed, in the field of US education, despite very specific efforts to give an additional helping hand well beyond what is extended to non-underrepresented minorities. These efforts may be deemed unsatisfactory to you. Perhaps, for instance, you are convinced there is some secret and unaccounted-for nurturing block that prevents blacks given identical educational opportunity from coming even close to Eurasians on the MCATS, or that prevents them from coming even close on post-medical school licensing exams (again, despite equal opportunity). Perhaps you suspect similar nurturing blocks in black families of high income, or black families with educated parents. Perhaps you suspect some undiscovered bad nurturing is blocking black success in STEM PhDs but not black success in basketball. Fine. But to pretend that I’ve simply formed a unilateral and premature opinion not based on “science” when all the available data out there supports ONLY my view that the differences are immutable is at best disingenuous and at worst deliberate hyperbole. If we were dealing with animal husbandry and not humans, with attendant social consequences and altruistic overlays, this debate would be long over. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/84 "2010-06-19T22:03:09Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m with Kimstu: still looming, and what “crisis”? > > Piece by piece we’ll figure out how much of who we are is our genes, and who has those genes. The rest is rhetoric. > > It will turn out to be mostly genes; of that I have no doubt. The simplest proof case I offer is the utter failure to eliminate differences so far. > > On the one hand, the genetic “crisis” side wants to pretend a timeline is Real Soon Now. I’m in that genetic camp generally, but I think the timeline might be closer to 10 or 15 years, especially to persuade the last stubborn soul that I don’t have the genes for golf and never will, and a better environment ain’t gonna get me there. Your utter faith in the validity (and future absolution) of your racist pseudo-science fantasy, comes as **no** surprise to me. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, the genetic egalitarians keep hoping to uncover the long-hidden nurturing-difference Secret preventing whole groups from performing equally, Real Soon Now. However the clever among them will continue to develop new potential nurturing-difference Secrets that then have to be disproved, so they have an almost unlimited amount of time in which to advance nurturing arguments. (Until all 6 Billion have been genome-mapped and compared, for some of them.) Still; their arguments are getting feebler: for children of wealthy, educated blacks underperforming in the US system, they are down to stuff like crappy grandparents, low self-esteem and low teacher expectations–slim pickings indeed, and the recognition of which have not changed the scoring landscape in at least the last ten or fifteen years.\* But I’d say they can milk those indefinitely for the Egalitarianly Devout. “genetic egalitarians?” Ha. Do you think you are using genetics? You are not talking about genetics! You are not a “genetic realist!” You are “race realist!” You are not promoting “genetism,” you are promoting “racism.” You are not a “geneticist!” You are something else! So just drop the doublespeak.[Go back and re-read any of my thousands of post to you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12416947&postcount=87). Genetics don’t play any part in what you are promoting. It’s 18th century race theory. > [@](#): > > There was one study this year, **Orcenio** , which seemed to be an initial shot across the bow against the general argument that we are all more or less equivalent branches of the same genetic trunk: [this Science article](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710) is one of the first to provide at least one genetically-based distinction between Eurasians and sub-saharans. I can’t wait for them to come. I can only wonder how wild your wild-ass racial interpretations of any of these papers will get. > [@](#): > > It’s a long way from that, though, to showing exactly which genes (Neandertal or otherwise) are different, and what they govern, and while that difference is “looming” in my opinion, it’s a stretch to say it’s “looming in 2010.” It’s my personal opinion that, like the Creationist-type mentality from which the egalitarian argument derives (one common ancestor; we are pretty much all God’s beloved and equal children), many will quietly set aside the nurturing explanation for differences as a personal belief while being publicly non-committal about it. There is no extra love or academic hoorahs extended toward those who want to raise the specter of genes as the driver for the differences among us. > > \*The Black-White Test Score Gap, c 1998 e.g., which I just bought and am perusing now. 15 years on from the data in this cheerily optimistic position, standardized test scores are still wretchedly disparate by race. See, for instance, MCATs [here.](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table19-mcatpgaraceeth09-web.pdf&pli=1) Blah, blah, blah. Assert. Assert. “the future will absolve me” crap. I aint interested… > [@](#): > > One bright and optimistic note for those of us discouraged by the belief that our differences **are** in fact genetic (and therefore immutable) is that inter-racial marrying is apparently on the rise. Perhaps a modern and mobile society can create such a dispersion of genes than none of us need take up one side of the argument or the other. Your “races” are already products of “Interracial marrying.” Your assumptions (of some sort of ancient mythical race purity) doesn’t exist. Regardless, you still draw your stupid race lines on the world map and grit your teeth in favour for 18th century race models. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/85 "2010-06-19T22:08:49Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > One more thing, **Orcenio** : > > You are aware that headlines, and particularly ones leaning toward rhetorical hyperbole, are used to sell magazines and newspapers, right? They aren’t always some sort of accurate succinct summary of the people whose opinions are contained therein…but neither does an overly-dramatic headline necessarily confer a refutation of the key content simply because it over-reaches. Brangelina could still be in trouble even if they aren’t separating tomorrow. No, the headline summarized what that idiot was trying to say quite nicely. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/86 "2010-06-20T03:03:19Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Your utter faith in the validity (and future absolution) of your racist pseudo-science fantasy, comes as **no** surprise to me.“genetic egalitarians?” Ha. Do you think you are using genetics? You are not talking about genetics! > \ Orcenio, I think I understand that you feel races do not exist. Is it the case, then, that you do not feel there are any differences in gene prevalence between sub-saharan African and Eurasion populations? Would the term “different allopatric groups” be preferable to “race” for you? ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/87 "2010-12-13T15:44:48Z")
Well, it’s December and I’ve heard absolutely nothing about “The looming crisis in human genetics” as of yet… Could it be that it’s not gonna show up? :smack: What am I saying? Of course it’s gonna happen. For all of those you, who (like myself) are deathly worried and fearful that it’ll pop up in the next two weeks; here is Geoffrey Miller’s departmental website, his email is right there too. I suggest everyone email him for answers to the alarming racial/ethnic questions he raised in his [Nov 2009](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2399950/posts) article. Just remember to **politely** ask “just when will this feared’ information ‘about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races’ going to come out?” I’ve sent mine already. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/88 "2010-12-13T15:52:04Z")
**orcenio** , I removed the link to Geoffrey Miller’s information. > [@Revised Forum Rules for the BBQ Pit: read this before posting](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/revised-forum-rules-for-the-bbq-pit-read-this-before-posting/487209/1): > > **Do not post contact information (email, phone, mailing address, etc.) to facilitate a campaign for/against a person, group, or issue** > > We don’t want the board used to hassle people or groups of people. You can urge people to write their Congressperson or other political leaders, but let people find the contact information themselves. Don’t post it here. The quote is from the BBQ Pit rules, but we don’t want this kind of thing anywhere on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/89 "2010-12-13T15:53:45Z")
I vote we bump this thread every year at christmas just to make sure it’s still looming. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/90 "2010-12-13T15:54:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **orcenio** , I removed the link to Geoffrey Miller’s information. > > The quote is from the BBQ Pit rules, but we don’t want this kind of thing anywhere on the SDMB. My mistake. ---
**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:** [December 13, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/91 "2010-12-13T20:35:32Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Well, it’s December and I’ve heard absolutely nothing about “The looming crisis in human genetics” as of yet… Could it be that it’s not gonna show up? > > :smack: What am I saying? Of course it’s gonna happen. > > For all of those you, who (like myself) are deathly worried and fearful that it’ll pop up in the next two weeks; here is Geoffrey Miller’s departmental website, his email is right there too. I suggest everyone email him for answers to the alarming racial/ethnic questions he raised in his [Nov 2009](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2399950/posts) article. Just remember to **politely** ask “just when will this feared’ information ‘about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races’ going to come out?” > > I’ve sent mine already. I think the genetic differences came out and nobody cared, so it never became the hyped “crisis.” Genetic drivers for human phenotypic and behavioural outcomes will, of course, continue to come out as we unravel the genome. We’re still our genes, even if there’s no social crisis around acknowledgment of that. We found out, for example, that most Eurasions probably have an injection of Neandertal genes–as much as 3%–laying waste to the implication on the part of egalitarians that we all pull our genes from the same basic genetic pool. My observation is that nobody really cares any more. We’re all more or less agreed that “race” is loose classification system. And (in my opinion) we’re all sort of willing to tiptoe around any research which shows that outcome differences between two populations are genetic. It’s easier, and much less socially insensitive, to simply attack the concept of “race” and pretend that attacking the idea that “race” is a (purely) genetically-definable category suffices to attack the idea that different populations with different outcomes are different because they have different gene pools from which they draw. Crisis averted. One last thing: this thread ended last time with a couple questions from me for you. Since you re-opened the thread, care to comment on my post from 6/19 at 10:03 PM? ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/92 "2010-12-13T21:33:24Z")
> [@](#): > > We found out, for example, that most Eurasions probably have an injection of Neandertal genes–as much as 3%–laying waste to the implication on the part of egalitarians that we all pull our genes from the same basic genetic pool. Wishful thinking on your part, my man, wishful thinking. The implications of the Neandertal genes are still being worked out, and will be, for decades. Those implications may not be positive for people who hold Neandertal ancestry. Further research will doubtless yield more complexity, contradictions, and anomalies. We ain’t out of the woods by a long shot. We’ve scarcely entered the woods. For example, Mexican Americans are almost entirely Eurasian in ancestry. So how could the presence or absence of a few Neandertal genes influence their test score gap, their higher crime rates, their astronomically high school dropout rate. The obvious answer is that nobody cares because Hispanics have never been the object of irrational obsession in the US the way black Americans have. What I find interesting is that research is beginning to uncover what I call the X factor in the race and IQ debate. Based on a cursory look at the data, it seems like race ought to be the causal factor in the test score gap. Yet, anytime it’s closely examined by qualified scientists, a racial cause is proven false. To the point where, as Frank Sweet notes, few other social science theories have been so thoroughly examined, and few other social science theories have so often been proven false. So if it’s not genetic, and it’s not, what is the cause? I suspect that it’s the influence of social hierarchy on the health and overall physical and mental function of all social primates. Life at the bottom of the social hierarchy sucks, in ways that are clearly measurable and have an influence on every system in the body. [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff\_stress\_cure/all/1](http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff_stress_cure/all/1) > [@](#): > > While stress doesn’t cause any single disease — in fact, the causal link between stress and ulcers has been largely disproved — it makes most diseases significantly worse. The list of ailments connected to stress is staggeringly diverse and includes everything from the common cold and lower-back pain to Alzheimer’s disease, major depressive disorder, and heart attack. Stress hollows out our bones and atrophies our muscles. It triggers adult-onset diabetes and is a leading cause of male impotence. In fact, numerous studies of human longevity in developed countries have found that psychosocial factors such as stress are the single most important variable in determining the length of a life. It’s not that genes and risk factors like smoking don’t matter. It’s that our levels of stress matter more ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/93 "2010-12-13T21:42:15Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I vote we bump this thread every year at christmas just to make sure it’s still looming. Until there are no humans left mentally capable of operating a computer. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/94 "2010-12-13T21:50:47Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We found out, for example, that most Eurasions probably have an injection of Neandertal genes–as much as 3%–laying waste to the implication on the part of egalitarians that we all pull our genes from the same basic genetic pool. I knew that the as-of-yet-unrepeated Neanderthal data would give scientific racists something to be excited about. I have a question for you in your interpretation of the findings: up to 3% of variants in genes or is it up to 3% of variation in genetic markers? There is a world of difference between the two, and the former might amount to something while the latter just implies that compatible creatures will attempt to hump. ---
**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:** [December 14, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/95 "2010-12-14T00:56:42Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Wishful thinking on your part, my man, wishful thinking. The implications of the Neandertal genes are still being worked out, and will be, for decades. \ > > So if it’s not genetic, and it’s not, what is the cause? I suspect that it’s the influence of social hierarchy on the health and overall physical and mental function of all social primates. Life at the bottom of the social hierarchy sucks, in ways that are clearly measurable and have an influence on every system in the body. But I’m not making an argument that Neandertal genes improved Eurasians–I’m only making the argument that we do not all draw from the same gene pool established 200,000 years ago. Each population has its own pool, with an extensive amount of crossover, to be sure. Lumpers and splitters have different notions of how to divided those populations. Still, it’s the case that gene prevalences for all sorts of genes vary by population–including the very crude division known as “race.” As a frequently-cited example, the US population self-described as “white” has a different prevalence for the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis than the US population self-described as “black.” Life at the bottom of the social heirarchy does indeed suck, no matter your color. It was the thesis of Herrnstein and Murray (and many others) that genetically-based competence (regardless of “race”) put underperformers there in the first place. I find that position difficult to dismiss. If we look at “white” populations, what we find is that by nearly any quantitative measurement, the wealthy whites measure higher as a population for intelligence than the poor whites. This is not a color barrier problem; it’s a consequence that success follows intelligence. And here’s another supporting example: if we look at SAT scores for wealthy blacks, we find that they are worse than SAT scores of poor whites. The same is true of parental education level: black children of highly-educated parents underscore white children of poorly educated parents. So it does not seem to hold that social hierarchy is an explanation for scholastic (and therefore, job) underperformance any more than it’s an explanation for why blacks outperform whites in certain athletic endeavors. Moreover, even within the broad category of “black” there are huge population variations in performance clearly not dependent on social hierarchy, and easily definable by population. The Kalenjin are going to be over-represented in marathon running, and the West Africans are going to be over-represented in sprinting. This notion that we are all genetically equal at a popluation level is a lovely notion to which most of us emotionally gravitate. I maintain it has no support in fact. ---
**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:** [December 14, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/96 "2010-12-14T01:04:07Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I knew that the as-of-yet-unrepeated Neanderthal data would give scientific racists something to be excited about. I have a question for you in your interpretation of the findings: up to 3% of variants in genes or is it up to 3% of variation in genetic markers? There is a world of difference between the two, and the former might amount to something while the latter just implies that compatible creatures will attempt to hump. I’m not sure what a “scientific racist” is, but one need not look to Neandertal genes to find examples of gene prevalence differences between any two reasonably-chosen populations, including the ordinary divisions of “races.” One can argue that in the US the black and white populations are “purely cultural” but then it’s hard to dismiss the fact that the prevalence of HbS gene is higher in blacks. Cultural? I think not. It’s higher in blacks because in the US more blacks than whites came from malaria-endemic regions. Just an ordinary example of gene prevalence varying by population. What is odd to me is this peculiar insistence that all populations must have some sort of equal-opportunity access to the exact same library of genes with the singular exception of pigmentation genes. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/97 "2010-12-14T02:35:41Z")
Nope. There are specific differences in environment that correlate exclusively with being of visible African ancestry in the US. Serious differences. Differences that could and still can get you killed. Your argument fails because you refuse to address all of the facts. As it is, it’s essentially useless. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But I’m not making an argument that Neandertal genes improved Eurasians–I’m only making the argument that we do not all draw from the same gene pool established 200,000 years ago. Each population has its own pool, with an extensive amount of crossover, to be sure. Lumpers and splitters have different notions of how to divided those populations. Still, it’s the case that gene prevalences for all sorts of genes vary by population–including the very crude division known as “race.” As a frequently-cited example, the US population self-described as “white” has a different prevalence for the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis than the US population self-described as “black.” > > Life at the bottom of the social heirarchy does indeed suck, no matter your color. It was the thesis of Herrnstein and Murray (and many others) that genetically-based competence (regardless of “race”) put underperformers there in the first place. I find that position difficult to dismiss. If we look at “white” populations, what we find is that by nearly any quantitative measurement, the wealthy whites measure higher as a population for intelligence than the poor whites. This is not a color barrier problem; it’s a consequence that success follows intelligence. And here’s another supporting example: if we look at SAT scores for wealthy blacks, we find that they are worse than SAT scores of poor whites. The same is true of parental education level: black children of highly-educated parents underscore white children of poorly educated parents. So it does not seem to hold that social hierarchy is an explanation for scholastic (and therefore, job) underperformance any more than it’s an explanation for why blacks outperform whites in certain athletic endeavors. > > Moreover, even within the broad category of “black” there are huge population variations in performance clearly not dependent on social hierarchy, and easily definable by population. The Kalenjin are going to be over-represented in marathon running, and the West Africans are going to be over-represented in sprinting. > > This notion that we are all genetically equal at a popluation level is a lovely notion to which most of us emotionally gravitate. I maintain it has no support in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/98 "2010-12-14T03:30:34Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’m not sure what a “scientific racist” is, but one need not look to Neandertal genes to find examples of gene prevalence differences between any two reasonably-chosen populations, including the ordinary divisions of “races.” One can argue that in the US the black and white populations are “purely cultural” but then it’s hard to dismiss the fact that the prevalence of HbS gene is higher in blacks. Cultural? I think not. It’s higher in blacks because in the US more blacks than whites came from malaria-endemic regions. Just an ordinary example of gene prevalence varying by population. What is odd to me is this peculiar insistence that all populations must have some sort of equal-opportunity access to the exact same library of genes with the singular exception of pigmentation genes. A scientific racist is somebody who uses the trappings of the scientific method to justify their race-based beliefs. It refers to the use of scientific methodology to support cultural beliefs about racial differences in the late 19th and early 20th century. I think you and **Chen019** fit the mold perfectly as modern scientific racists. You did not answer my question either and I think it is the fundamental weakness in possibly everything you and **Chen019** say, you are taking data that basically demonstrates that people hump the people near them and extracting it to a huge number of differences between subsets of larger populations. You also take single gene traits and confuse them with quantitative traits. ---
**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:** [December 14, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/99 "2010-12-14T13:56:11Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > A scientific racist is somebody who uses the trappings of the scientific method to justify their race-based beliefs. I believe the Neandertal paper in question suggested that a few percent of Eurasian genes were derived from Neandertals. As I mentioned, until those genes are elucidated, I’m not sure what, if any, significance that has. I certainly believe there are differences in gene prevalences among various populations, and that those differences result in average phenotypic differences. Whether or not “race” is a very good population definition is a matter of whether one is a lumper or a splitter. What I have tried to do in most of my arguments around “race” on this board is use the division of Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and suggest that within that particular mechanism of division, gene prevalences vary. This avoids the straw-man counter argument that one must have a genetic marker to define a population, a concept with which I disagree. SIRE groups are not the only, and not even the most useful, way to divvy up populations. Based on SIRE groups, we can say confidently that the next Olympian sprinter will be “black” but we can say with equal confidence he ain’t gonna be Kalenjin. While I respect the nurturing arguments for outcome differences, I have yet to be persuaded of it, since ameliorating or eliminating all known nurturing variables does not seem to eliminate differences among various populations, and since even within a given SIRE group, there appears to be a consistent and demonstrable difference in outcomes based on inherent abilities. This diminishes for me the argument that differences are nurture and not nature. If a very smart sub-group makes it out of the black ghetto or the appalachian coal mines, is there not a reasonable inference that the group left behind was less inherently capable? Perhaps it’s all entirely blind luck, but that’s not my observation. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669/100 "2010-12-14T14:44:31Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > A scientific racist is somebody who uses the trappings of the scientific method to justify their race-based beliefs. It refers to the use of scientific methodology to support cultural beliefs about racial differences in the late 19th and early 20th century. I think you and **Chen019** fit the mold perfectly as modern scientific racists. This is a textbook ad hominem argument. If someone performs a study and the results show that (eg) blacks are less intelligent than east asians, you automatically dismiss the study because the performer must be a “scientific racist” (as shown by the result the reached). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-its-june-where-the-is-this-looming-genetic-crisis/542669.md?page=6)