If the scientific method produces results which support the cultural beliefs about racial differences in the late 19th and early 20th century, should the results be discarded and the cultural stereotypes dismissed?
One of the dilemmas about the “scientific results” is that they universally conclude there are outcome differences between various populations, and to date no amount of manipulation of nurturing variables has been able to account for those differences, leaving nature as the only non-discarded explanation. On average, criticism of various studies are directed at the studies themselves. Were the differences nurture, then it would be much more effective to simply normalize for nurturing variables and publish a study showing that outcome differences have been eliminated. Unfortunately, to date no such studies have been successful in showing that populations do not vary in outcome if nurturing variables are accounted for.
In fact, quite the opposite (as, for example, with wealthy and educated blacks versus poor and uneducated whites on the SAT exams).
That a belief is “cultural” or a “stereotype” does not render it an inaccurate assessment of a group average.
One thing I read in the paper and which the authors pointed out is that half the genes that showed positive selection since humans split from chimps were skin-related and the rest looked to be related to metabolism. The point being that most selection acts on our immediate interaction with the physical environment. These are unlikely to have anything to do with intelligence, especially if you take the view that intelligence is most under the influence of sexual selection.
Also, the authors speculated on what was the most likely reason for such a large % of Neanderthal marker alleles in Eurasian descended humans: a wave of humping when the populations met.
Few would have much of a problem with this if you stuck to lactose intolerance, sickle cell anemia, or the alcohol flush response, but when you take such well-documented population differences that are (a) due to single genes (although there may be multiple alleles leading to the same phenotype; (b) correlated with well-documented environmental variable where there is a distinct selective advantage to having the trait, and then extrapolate to complicated and subtly variable traits such as intelligence or even sprint speed I think “scientific racism”.
Take another complex trait like Schizophrenia. It is easy to distinguish Schizophrenics from nonmentally ill individuals if given enough time to observe. Yet despite GWAS and what may be 100s of other linkage and gene association studies, there are many candidates but no uniformly agreed upon allele at any locus most commonly found in Schizophrenics versus nonschizophrenics. If we can’t find a few genes that contribute a substantial amount of variation to a broad difference like a mental illness versus nonmental illness, then how do we find something for a subtle trait like one or two individuals who are 1s faster than the last record holder. Or for that matter a few individuals who are a few points lower or higher on an inherently inprecise tool like an IQ test?
You almost sound like you are talking about individual differences here and I would not argue with it.
You should take the post as a whole though. My view on modern scientific racism is specific to the abuse of genetic information to make race-based and often classically stereotypical conclusions. The people who typically use genetic arguments in these threads tend to bias toward abusing the genetic information to make broad conclusions that support culturally held beliefs about this or that race - race being a culturally held belief as well. So if I were to use it for any population comparison I would not argue with the ad hominem deal, but I don’t and I clarify my reasons for it frequently.
You refuse to name or genetically define/delimit your 18th century based race groups; you simply reinvent crap as the wind blows. You make new racist assertions built upon old racist assertions without the single desire to back up any of your words with science nor citations. You just make one vague race based statement after another. You purposely confuse a core genetic concept of populations with race and pretend nothing happened.
Why should I spin my wheels to entertain you? I’ve tried; so, just stop repeating bizarre incantations like: “we are our genes!” in the hopes that everyone will become entranced by 18th century racialism.
Short version: The underlying concept of 18th century racialism is the problem. Replacing the word “race” with a non-equivalent and verbose term like “different allopatric groups” only serves to confuse people enough to blindly accept bad race-science.
Is it the case that you think I’ve taken a position that Eurasians inherited their intelligence from Neandertals? At this point such a speculation is premature, and pure conjecture. To reiterate: I used Neandertal gene presence as an example for why it is incorrect to think all populations derive their genes in equal proportions from the same underlying pool.
It’s a bit of a straw man to pretend the differences in question among populations are “a few points” or that the only measurement is “an inherently imprecise tool like an IQ test.”
Differences are profound, persistent and consistent. SeeMCAT admission scores by (Self-Identified) Race as an example of this; see[URL=] an Olympic 100-yard dash for another…
Perhaps these differences are all nurture. Perhaps blacks are treated disproportionately badly in college and therefore unable to learn the material for the LSATS or MCATS to the extent that asians can. Perhaps whites are undermotivated for sprint training, or are too rich and famous already to care for an NBA career. Perhaps asians have cultural proscriptions against basketball. Perhaps the slavic sub-groups which have found success in the NBA just like it more than other white sub-groups. Nevertheless, in every educational institution of which I am aware across the entire world, in every political system and regardless of the category of the majority population, the rank-order for talent and sucess for a given pursuit is remarkably similar from place to place and system to system. And interestingly, where more admixture has occurred between traditional “race” categories, the success of the admixed population falls somewhere in between, regardless of which SIRE group the individual identifies with (the Dominican Republic and Haiti, say).
Looming genetic crisis or not, it would be useful to find a broader range of exceptions than currently exists if we are truly to convince ourselves that we are all more or less equally enabled for equal tasks at the population level. And rather than simply injecting inflammatory labels such as “scientific racism” I’d like to see plain old “scientific studies” and see where the chips fall. How hard could it be to design more studies which normalize for nurturing differences and leave nature differences as the residual cause? The problem is that all such studies lead to the same conclusion: persistent differences. And so they are left undone, or unemphasized. If we were parsing out differences among strains of bacteria or breeds of dogs, I don’t think we’d be quite so sensitive to an underlying bias toward genetic differences as a key driver for performance differences.
You are arguing against your imagination then because nobody in their right mind thinks that. It is good to see you clarifying your statements to simply some alleles of some genes differ among different populations. That actually reflects reality.
But then we go back to fantasy land …
Those differences on the MCATs, like the IQ tests, are only a few points and this is particularly true of matriculating students. What I see in the data is a Spearman correlation close to 1 when going by stereotypes of academic performance and rank order of performance on the MCAT (asians on top with blacks at the bottom). I see that the two worst oppressed groups in United States history are at the bottom. Both are products of culture and not genes. Of course I am assuming these differences are significant.
Looking at Wikipedia’s history of notable 100-yard dash times I see steady improvement from the 1800s to today without regard to race. I also see (from one of the links) a predominance of Americans and Jamaicans as the record holders. Both patterns are products of culture and are unrelated to race.
Looking at the history of the 100-yard dash, although 1 second improvement in 100 years must be impressive by the standards of the sport, I have to say quantitatively that it isn’t very much. Hell, maybe there is some version of a gene in one population found commonly in America and Jamaica, but the effect of this allele(s) isn’t very impressive.
What’s really important here is your focus on genes and races. This is what makes you a scientific racist. You observe a difference, focus on the ethnicity, and you argue in thread after thread that it’s in the genes. These race difference are just as easily explained by culture and frankly, the mechanisms I described: stereotyping, improved training, geographic preferences for certain activities all enjoy a much longer and varied history of scientific support than your race-biased alleles for quantitative behavioral traits hypothesis.
Notice the phrase: quantitative behavioral traits. There are probably no studies supporting such a result and studies that might inform on how such results would turn out, such as studies of Schizophrenia, Autism, Alcoholism and several other diseases with far larger phenotypic differences in the population than the differences between blacks and whites on MCAT scores have been failures at finding consistent differences in the alleles of a gene or genes among the diseased and healthy populations.
Taking in the field of culture and genetic effects on populations, the data-based assumption is on nurture. Since you are a scientific racist you keep saying nature.
People aren’t breeds of dogs. Why don’t you fund your own study? There are two scientific racists on this board alone. You must be able to find the cash to perform such work. I can even make the research a lot easier on you: the gene for white superiority must be linked to skin color genes or could even be a pleiotropic effect of one of the skin color genes!
Also, oppression theory it seems strange that East Asians & Ashkenazi Jews seem to do so well. I would recommend that you read this paper. Redirect Notice
You believe that culture explains the inability of anyone from China, India or Europe (not counting Linford Christie) to run the 100 metres in under 10 seconds?!
The data based position is in fact now showing that your idea of biological egalitarianism is becoming unsupportable.
In the late 80s and early to mid 90s there was an unusual surge of white basketball talent coming from Eastern Europe. In the 2000s, for whites, most of the talent comes from Spain, Argentina (who beat our national team many years ago), and Greece. It’s also funny because right now the most explosive dunker in the NBA is Blake Griffin. He’s mixed, but his skin is pretty light. I’d tend to agree though that we’re going to be waiting a long time for a pure white, pure perimeter athlete a la Dr. J, Jordan, Drexler, Wade, or LeBron. There are some white guys who can dunk like crazy, but they have no game and tend to be 12th men.
When the Self-Identified “black” group took the MCATs in 2010, their group average was 22, in about the 30th percentile, versus the self-described “asian” group, whose average of 29 was in about the 70th percentile. See here.. You have characterized this difference as “only a few points.” I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. Since what is at issue here is performance as a group, the score difference of matriculating students is irrelevant (although it is still significantly different for blacks and asians).
Apparently you feel the likely explanation is “oppression” and “culture” but not genes. Yet you offer no evidence that black students are oppressed in college when they are trying to learn the material presented on the MCATs. And if, four years on after Medical School, you were to research the scores on the licensing exam, you’d find similar gaps; you would find similar gaps yet another 5 to 7 years on for specialty examinations. These sorts of patterns are repeated the world over, in every educational system, every political system and every system regardless of majority population or historical “oppression.” The same pattern is present if we correct for parental education or parental income.
I’m not interested in trying to convince you that you are wrong. This notion that we are only different in our skin pigments is a very attractive notion, and hard to eradicate it. I simply find no evidence for it, and I find remarkable and consistent evidence to the contrary.
Within any large group, there are sub-populations more successful than others within that same larger group. I find this supportive of the general notion that the gene pools from which we draw our genes are the major drivers of what our maximum potential is. I do not find “culture” as an easy explanation for differences in outcomes among groups. As a matter of fact, with respect to performance on the MCATs, plain old self-described race–not culture–must be taken into account if we want black physicians. If we take into account culture or opportunity, we’ll screen out too many high-performing blacks who do not have competitive scores with other groups from a similar cultural or socio-economic background. Although their scores are high for blacks, their scores would not get them into a high-enough tier for matriculation.
I am now and I am unsurprised, since you are a scientific racist, that you interpret the results the way you do. I did notice that black and interracial children showed a stronger decline in IQ from 7 to 17 than white children. This suggests society is playing a role beyond biological and adoptive parents. Also, the authors interpreted the data to mean that the group differences were environment. The study cannot possibly control for gestational maternal effects. On top of all that the study design does nothing to add evidence that supports one point-of-view or another.
To add a real data point using an actual experimental design, it has been demonstrated in white and black children as young as 4 or 5 that they understand racial differences and will behave in accordance with racial stereotypes.
So a well educated group of people puts together a few separate data points and a bunch of meandering speculations together and says “I don’t have shit, I have roses”. I can’t tell you how many times I see this clever trick in scientists, especially in the field I used to work in, and as I got more exposure to this clever trick I became less impressed. There is not a single data point linking any particular gene to Ashkenazi intelligence. That paper takes several pages to delineate strong evidence that one Ashkenazi tends to reproduce with another Ashkenazi. As far as oppression in the USA goes, Jews and East Asians do not come close to African-Americans and Native Americans. Not by a long shot. Remember, we were discussing MCAT scores.
Sure why not? Most of the best runners are from the USA and Jamaica. None of the best runners are from Sweden. One is from Australia. How big of a difference is 10s vs 9.8s among the very best athletes in the world? What’s your point anyway?
I have never discussed nor do I believe in this term “biological egalitarianism” but I sure do a great job of demonstrating that whenever you see a difference between one exceptional group of people with light skin and one exceptional group of people with dark skin you say race without any studies backing you up that can truly separate culture from skin color. There are none so when you interpret things the way you do it just makes you a scientific racist.
Actually the scores of matriculating and nonmatriculating students are all relevant and should be considered. When you say 30th percentile and 70th percentile you are describing small differences because these are differences in MCAT scores in a population of self-selecting, highly-motivated, and very talented individuals. 22 vs. 29 is not that big of a difference when you look at it this way. Both groups, regardless of their 22’s or 29’s on average probably blow away the population that knows better than to go anywhere near the MCAT.
Like I just said, this gap is tiny and is probably diminishing over time.
I find it kind of pathetic that you seem to be stuck on evaluating skin, exam, and track scores while seeming to ignore the huge effect our society has on the shaping of our identities, particularly in relationship to skin color, gender, and age.
I have to admit I don’t understand this part but judging from the overall vs matriculating MCAT score, we are getting the best physicians in training without specifically focusing on race.
Score gaps for MCATs, SATs and so on have not diminished in the last ten years, and minimally so in the last twenty. Perhaps blacks are permanent victims of societal shaping everywhere in the world. I think that’s more or less the standard (and vague) non-genetic explanation for performance differences, especially in light of the fact that every specifically-studied variable ends up not explaining the gaps (including the commonest ones of opportunity, economics and parental education, in the case of performance gaps for academics).
As I said, I’ll let you label a 30th percentile versus 70th percentile for all test-takers “a few points” and “tiny” if that makes you happy.
This is not a debate about whether or not matriculating students have better scores than non-matriculating ones. It’s about overall group performances at a self-described race/ethnicity level. That’s the thing that tells us what the average group performance is. If I said the whites who make the NBA are almost as good as the blacks who make the NBA, that says nothing about the broad average performance about the pools feeding the NBA.
This is also not a debate about why we use race as a criterion for accepting kids into medical school, but you are completely wrong that we take the best candidates using any quantitative measure. We don’t. At every level of academia, we take race into consideration for matriculation. Race–not just socio-economics. If we did not–and I strongly support that we do need to take race into account so that all groups end up at the table of success–we would have barely any black matriculants into any academically competitive environments, including medicine.
I can’t believe you said vague when you are the one doing things like taking evidence that people have sex with those near them and studies on a few single gene genetic variants under intense selection and turning it into a complete explanation for group differences defined entirely by the mashing together of thousands of ethnic groups based on skin color.
I think a focus on matriculating students is important because it shows that African-Americans who go to medical school show only very tiny differences in overall performance on the MCAT (as one standard of entry). It shows that some population of African-Americans are no different in intellectual capacity than whites. Anyone who is not a scientific racist would know this. As just a person who likes science, who is not using science to advance a political agenda ( i.e. a scientific racist), it occurs to me that culture is probably explaining the majority of the differences between African-Americans and whites on these tests and on the matriculation rates to various schools. Culture so far has been discussed as a negative force and I think that is due to the fact that I am white and raised with a vague sense of guilt over our culture and its relationship to minorities. So what about culture as a nurturing force? Did it ever occur to you that what you see in your precious MCAT scores is the possibility that the most talented African-Americans are not interested in medical school?
According to this chart, in 2004, blacks earning PhD’s showed significantly less interest in degrees associated with two aspects of the MCAT: biology and physics. They show a very strong interest in education. Perhaps our cultural differences nurture us toward biases in outcomes. This is analogous to the prevalence of African-Americans, Eastern Europeans, and Turks (sorry I just had to add in Turks) in Basketball. So judging from the PhDs earned in 2004 it looks like the brightest African-Americans are choosing fields that would pull them away from medical school. Just like Eastern Europeans and Turks are pulled toward Basketball and Soccer but show a Baseball deficit that the Japanese do not have.
So perhaps your argument is correct in the sense that negative cultural factors simply cannot explain the deficits we see in your hand-picked tests of achievement, but your conclusion of genes only reveals your racism; an enlightened view would consider the positive and negatives of culture and might conclude that medical schools need to do more to attract the same intellectually gifted proportion of the black population to the physical and life sciences (then on to med school) instead of worrying about pseudopopulation genetics.
If, “genetic information is a lot more complex…”, what are the implications for genetic engineering?
For years now, scientists have been inserting genes into organisms. If, only now, it is becoming apparent that there are hidden complexities, what have we created? What are the implications of this?
Are all the dire warnings from the anti genetic engineering people actually based on a reasonable foundation?
No because their warnings are based on unreasoned fear and mistrust. The statements you are responding to are superficial content-free throw-away statements based on popular ideas about genetics but is knowledge geneticists have been aware of for as long as they’ve manipulated breeding to learn more about inheritance. Anyway you should give specific examples and why not just start a new thread?
Did you read Sandra Scarr’s 1998 comment, in a tribute to Arthur Jensen, that she regrets that interpretation. She says she tried to make it palatable for her environmentally minded colleagues (probably so they wouldn’t call her a scientific r8cist). In hindsight she says she should have been agnostic, as it could be evidence also for the genetic hypothesis.
It’s interesting that the mixed ethnicity children scored in between the black and european children. Even when some were thought, mistakenly, to have two black parents they still scored in between the two groups. That seems consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis.
Also, you seem to be suggesting there is some mysterious oppressive ‘X Factor’ that is depressing scores. I suggest you read the reference here to research by the late behavioural geneticist David C Rowe on this issue.
see pages 249, 250. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.
Interesting, but note that Daniel Freeman has found that children from different races begin behaving differently from within about 36 hours of birth (also see page 92-93 of ‘Born that Way’ referring to research by Jerome Kagan). Groups also have different rates of physical maturation. So I’m not sure why you’re so averse to the idea that genes are also playing a role in the differences seen from age 2 1/2 onwards.
Sure, but the likes of Steven Pinker believe it would be easy enough to test. However, that hasn’t happened due to political reasons.
My point is that it is far more plausible that the inability of Asian or european runners to run the 100 metres in under 10 seconds is due to genetic factors. There are no barriers to people attempting to sprint the 100 metres, in the way there are say barriers to people becoming successful ice skaters. Also, it is a high prestige event and it is not for lack of trying that no one from these populations has managed it. Jon Entine has written an interesting article which touches on this.
Of course there are overlapping groups in large populations of humans. Any two populations being studied will have their own bell curve distribution and in general for humans, those bell curves will overlap. What is in contention is whether or not group averages different in a significant and immutable way–i.e. whether the bell curves are shifted between one another.
You argue the dismal performance of blacks in advanced STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) disciplines may be all cultural. But if you take MCATs as an example, that explanation breaks down. Only groups which already want to pursue that career take the preparatory courses. So by the time you get to the test-takers, any cultural predisposition against medical science has been eliminated. Similarly, perhaps over-representation of blacks in the NBA is all cultural. But since the feeder groups are overwhelmingly white–since there are far more white than black high-schoolers playing basketball, I’m underwhelmed by an argument that the whites somehow give up their NBA dreams voluntarily (versus just not being good enough).
In other words the data cannot be used to support genes, environment or genes x environment which makes it an utter waste of time for this argument. That data only acts as a mirror: If you see genes = scientific racist, if you see culture = really awesome human being.
It’s impossible to separate genes and culture in this design and we both know it.
Feel free to explain what you think it means first. In the past few posts I’ve seen quite a few links to meaningless data. Now you explain it before I spend my time on it.
Feel free to enlighten me on Freeman’s 36 hour differences.
Don’t whine politics, you can get the money, the technology is relatively cheap and the marker data is essentially free. There’s no excuses; go do it. Lying sacks of shit like Wakefield spawned a huge decade long field in Autism, maybe your study will cause legit sources to do the same after your data gets on CNN.
In your imagination there are no cultural barriers, only genetic barriers and there is plenty of motivation. In mine there are barriers, lack of motivation, but no genetic barrier. The only difference is that my pov enjoys more scientific support.
I am aware of the argument, sorry you wasted so much typing to explain the obvious.
That data just looks like a better broken down version of what I previously linked to. The simplest explanation is that it shows nothing more than a lack of interest on the part of the most talented black people in America. By the time you get to the MCAT test-takers you get very bright black people but maybe not the brightest; perhaps the brightest got into education. Why are you operating under the assumption that every American and every American subculture values achievement the exact same way? How come you are so uncomfortable with the idea that in an egalitarian society with basically egalitarian allelic distributions of all the genes (except those that help us cope with the immediate physical environment), people of different subgroups may choose to express their equivalent genius differently?