So what? The group of dogs known as “north side dogs” is not a breed and is not genetically homogeneous either. And yet it is measurably different from south side dogs. And the difference is due to genetics.
Besides, the example could be done with pretty much any animal species including people. For example, one can envision a town. On the north side live 90 ethnic Swedes and 10 ethnic Japanese. On the south side live 90 ethnic Japanese and 10 ethnic Swedes. One can observe that north side people are on average lighter in hair color than south side people. And that the difference is due to genetics.
It’s not a matter of understanding this fact as understanding its implications – or lack thereof.
As noted above, it’s easy enough to think of classification systems for humans which are completely arbitrary and artificial; with classes that are significantly different in some measurable characteristic; and the difference is clearly the result of genetics.
I was not unable; I simply felt it was a waste of time to quote dozens of biologists only to have you go out and pretend that you had found a counter claim by quoting someone who is in a different field–which you proceeded to do even without my wasting my time.
Putting words in my mouth buys you nothing. I noted that using a claim for educational deprivation falls outside the realm of genetics and is not pertinent to this discussion. All the rest is just you trying to game the discussion.
One of the confusing things is that on the one hand you have claims like the above, that that race is a meaningless way of categorizing people, but then you have the New York Times and the Boston Globe concerned about whether or not enough people of a certain skin color are at certain schools or in certain jobs.
If these groups are only perceived, why does any of this matter?
It’s the fact that different clusters seem to show different frequency distributions for various genes, that gives rise to the potential for average group differences. Does the NY Times really want to keep going down that path?
I really did not expect to see this level of disingenuousness from you.
To answer your question, however: It matters because people’s lives are affected by that perception. The colonies/states that compose the U.S. had laws based on that bad perception going back more than 100 years prior to the existence of this country and continuing for nearly 200 years after its founding. Many of those laws were legislated or adjudicated based on erroneous beliefs surrounding those perceptions.
And, of course, a meaningless way to categorize people does not mean that it is a non-existent way to categorize people. Humans do appear to be hard-wired to set up in-groups and out-groups and rely on a lot of fairly stupid ways to form those associations. In many parts of the world, left-handed people are discriminated against. Regional dialects and accents are often bases of discrimination, although they indicate nothing more than the location where one spent one’s childhood. In parts of England and a few of its former colonies, hair color is a cause for social abuse, at least in the case of “gingers.” In the case of skin color and related physical features, we find that not only are various groups exalted or denigrated based on such features, but that some people will attempt to use “science” to perpetuate odd beliefs regarding such perceptions, (even expanding them to include unrelated groups). Perpetuating such errors of belief means that we face a future in which the old laws are liable to be brought back to harm future people based on a pretension that “science” dictates that those beliefs are true.
So shouldn’t the NY Times & Boston Globe stop perpetuating such errors of belief? If they keep asking why there are disparities between these categories of people, then at some point once the cost of genome sequencing falls people might legitimately look at whether genes have anything to do with it.
And once again you want to pretend that the founder effect/immigrant funnel to the U.S. is an indication of some world wide reality. It is not.
Even if your desire to hang labels on the descendants of West Africans imported to the U.S. had a legitimate basis, your need to pretend that they are “the same” as East Africans and Southern Africans–lumping Khoi-San, Maasai, Kalenjin, and many other disparate populations who were never imported to the U.S. into the same imaginary super group and then making pronouncements about them based on their perceived membership–fails on facts.
They are not perpetuating the errors of belief. They are reporting that the errors of belief have real life consequences on people who have been socially assigned to different groups created from such errors.
Up until this discussion, you have presented a facade of simply “looking for the facts.” (I would not say that the facade was very convincing, but you have held it up pretty steadily.) With this latest turn in your posts, it would seem that you are dropping that apparent facade and engaging in tactics that look much more agenda driven.
Chuck, I studied psychometrics at the highest ranked school of education in the country. The term “psychometrics” wasn’t used frequently, if at all, at that time. It was part of the psychology studies and not of particular interest to me. But I did do well enough in my classes to be recommended for graduate school by a professor who had worked with Carl Rogers. The GRE was waived for me. I attended another graduate school in Educational Psychology instead. (Oh well)
I know that much ground has been covered since I left school decades ago. But in reading the article presented first (which is fascinating), there is a lot of double talk. There is a lot of “meat” but there is also a lot of going in circles. And if you read all the way to the end you will see that they have not been able to determine what the components of intelligence are. You can say that it is g which equals GMC. But one’s General Mental Capability or General Mental Capacity remains a term which is still vague. They know many parts of it, but they haven’t put all the pieces together yet to determine what intelligenceis.
“They” say they belong to that race because they have been told that since they have a certain set of observable characteristics or their ancestors do, they are of X race. Yet other groups of people have another set of observable characteristics in common and they are not considered a “race.”
I am thinking of picts for example.
We had a world atlas in our home about sixty years ago. There were three races only: Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongolian. You had to fit in one of the three. Concepts about race were useless then and they are completely out-dated now. You can go into one country and be considered black and into another country and be non-black.
We live in a Global Village. Think outside of your former training. Your DNA may tell you that you are genetically more like someone of another “race” than someone of your own “race.” So much for the old way of thinking about “race.”
You’re obviously not familiar with the research. There’s little evidence that the Flynn effect represents a rise in general intelligence. To make a valid comparison between populations, the populations must show strict measurement invariance. Between cohorts strict measurement invariance does not hold. Between Blacks and White in the US, it does. This means that the US Black-White difference is comparable to the within-population differences (i.e. a real difference in intelligence) while the between cohort difference, at least in the US, is not (i.e. a nominal difference).
This is why, as I noted above, I don’t usually make claims about global IQ difference. The appropriate statistical tests have not been conducted to show that the global differences are real as opposed to nominal.
I agree that what’s missing is a underlying theory of intelligence. And that that throws some uncertainty into the situation. But I don’t see how that changes the situation. In the same way, one can speak of genetic/environmental susceptibilities for, say, schizophrenia, and explore whether group differences, if there are any, have a genetic origin, without knowing the exact mechanisms by which the disease develops.
What I am trying to explain to you is that if you want to look a “socially assigned groups” and the consequences of past errors, then you also create a legitimate reason to explore the potential role of genetic variation. That is an inevitable question that must arise if you frame groups in that manner and ask why there are discrepancies. And as the Economist article above indicates, soon people will be able to check for whether gene alleles linked with certain traits occur in different frequencies across those groups.
William Saletan tried to point this out a couple of years ago after another NY Times article on test results and race. Saletan suggests not using these groups for this reason.
