# Superior/Inferior Human Beings?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 7, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273 "2010-06-07T14:28:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/61 "2010-06-09T17:18:55Z")

</div>

> [@Darwins\_Finch](#):
>
> Not necessarily. A subspecies is simply as population that is distinct enough from it’s neighbors that it warrants having a trinomen assigned (i.e., it’s a label of convenience for discussing particular populations), but not distinct enough to warrant a new binomen; it says nothing whatsoever about the potentiality or actuality of interbreeding (indeed, it’s rather assumed that such populations can potentially or do in actuality interbreed, otherwise they’d be classified as separate species). The aforementioned “ring species” are examples of species wherein the various subspecies freely interbreed with neighboring populations.

Say what you will about [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies), but here’s what I was referring to:

> [@](#):
>
> If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
> 
> Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with ‘how different’ the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

I should have added that subspecies are generally expected to hybridize, although not regularly. If they never hybridize, then it would make sense to just call them 2 species.

It’s also my understanding that clinal variations are not accepted as grounds for establishing subspecies, for the obvious reason that there is no clear place to draw the line.

So, are the subspecies in the ring species really just clinal, or are they distinct populations that, from time to time, hybridize?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/62 "2010-06-09T18:19:36Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Say what you will about wikipedia, but here’s what I was referring to:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
> > 
> > If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.
> > 
> > Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with ‘how different’ the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

Strictly speaking, subspecies are entirely subjective (much moreso than are species, for example), so there really aren’t any definitive rules for deciding when a population represents a subspecies and when it might be considered any other subspecific category. In contrast with Wikipedia’s definition, [this Stanford University page](http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Species_and_Speciation.html) defines subspecies as follows:

> [@](#):
>
> Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.

> [@John Mace](#):
>
> It’s also my understanding that clinal variations are not accepted as grounds for establishing subspecies, for the obvious reason that there is no clear place to draw the line.
> 
> So, are the subspecies in the ring species really just clinal, or are they distinct populations that, from time to time, hybridize?

Since you mentioned Wikipedia, [here’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_%28biology%29) what it says regarding clines and ring species:

> [@](#):
>
> Typically, a well-marked cline does not allow for a delineation of subspecies, as it is then impossible, by definition, to draw any further clear dividing lines between populations.  
> […]  
> Ring species[6] are a distinct type of cline where the geographical distribution in question is circular in shape, so that the two ends of the cline overlap with one another, giving two adjacent populations that rarely interbreed due to the cumulative effect of the many changes in phenotype along the cline. The populations elsewhere along the cline interbreed with their geographically adjacent populations as in a standard cline. Ring species present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as chain species are closely related to speciation (in this case, parapatric).

Now, despite Wikipedia’s mention that “populations elsewhere along the cline interbreed with their geographically adjacent populations as in a standard cline”, and that “a well-marked cline does not allow for a delineation of subspecies”, many such intermediate populations are, in fact, given subspecies designations. For example, here’s what UC Berkeley’s [Evolution For Teachers website](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml) has to say about ring species:

> [@](#):
>
> Ring species are species with a geographic distribution that forms a ring and overlaps at the ends. The many **subspecies** of _Ensatina_ salamanders in California exhibit subtle morphological and genetic differences all along their range. They all interbreed with their immediate neighbors with one exception: where the extreme ends of the range overlap in Southern California, _E. klauberi_ and _E. eschscholtzii_ do not interbreed.

(bolding mine; also, note that, technically, the names given should really be written as _E. e. klauberi_ and _E. e. eschscholtzii_, since these are subspecies of _Ensatina eschscholtzii_)

And, of course, another often-used example of ring species, the herring gull, is typically divided into subspecies along its range, as well (and separate species, as well).

As one can see, subspecies are neither easily defined nor identified, and there is almost always controversy regarding whether a given subspecies should, in fact, be considered as such. They work as convenient labels for discussing certain populations, but not so well as discrete entities. Such is the nature of ranked taxonomic systems…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/63 "2010-06-09T20:16:14Z")

</div>

> **[Chimps outdo people in genetic diversity. - Free Online Library](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Chimps+outdo+people+in+genetic+diversity-a057828402)**
>
> Free Online Library: Chimps outdo people in genetic diversity.(Brief Article) by "Science News"; Science and technology, general Chimpanzees Genetic aspects Chromosome mapping Research

> [@](#):
>
> Overall, the common chimps exhibited about four times as much diversity in this genetic region as a group of 70 people, did, Paabo’s team reports in the Nov. 5 SCIENCE. Differences between individuals in a single chimp subspecies often exceeded those between common chimps and pygmy chimps.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/64 "2010-06-09T22:03:01Z")

</div>

**Smeghead** said:

> [@](#):
>
> I know all about ring species. The key point about them is that they’re still a single species, because of the genetic flow. Which is the point I was making.

Ring species are one element that shows the difficulty of the species concept. In theory, it is fine, but in practice, biology does not play in neat categories. Differentiation of species is a complicated mess that only loosly fits rules.

But you are correct that full speciation has not occurred.

**Napier** said:

> [@](#):
>
> But I do think there are inferior and superior creatures, including humans. If you ask somebody who doesn’t know what you are up to whether he tries in life to become a better person, or whether he hopes his kids will turn out well, he’ll likely say yes. Only when you say “So you think some people are better than others?” will he start hemming and hawing.

You are equating to different uses of the word “better”. That’s called equivocation, and is a fallacy of logic.

Trying to be a better person means self improvement, being more moral, living up to some set of standards of behavior. That is different than measuring by ability to perform (strength, intelligence, etc).

**Shmendrik** said:

> [@](#):
>
> You seem to have contradicted yourself there.

No he didn’t he just said it awkwardly. What he meant was test takers now effectively get 70 to 100 bonus points on their score. Ergo, if they got a 490 and you got a 490 back in 1982, it’s as if they really scored a 400. They aren’t as smart as they are getting credit for.  
**TriPolar** said:

> [@](#):
>
> Does anyone have good definitions of ‘species’ and ‘sub-species’ that could center this discussion of evolution?

Not really. Species is a useful concept that’s blurred around the edges.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/65 "2010-06-09T22:23:49Z")

</div>

> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#):
>
> [Chimps outdo people in genetic diversity. - Free Online Library](http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Chimps+outdo+people+in+genetic+diversity-a057828402)

I’m not sure if that was meant as a cite to back up the claim you made up-thread, but it doesn’t.

At any rate, as some have mentioned about the term “species”, it’s clearly a human construct that we have overlaid onto a natural world that often doesn’t divide itself up neatly into self-contained boxes. So any definition we use is just that-- a definition. Best to keep in mind that there are always going to be exceptions and populations that don’t fit any given definition.

As for sub-species, it can be useful to use that term to distinguish populations, but there isn’t some overseeing body to put its stamp of approval on any particular scheme of labeling subspecies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\
**Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/66 "2010-06-09T22:30:32Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> No he didn’t he just said it awkwardly. What he meant was test takers now effectively get 70 to 100 bonus points on their score. Ergo, if they got a 490 and you got a 490 back in 1982, it’s as if they really scored a 400. They aren’t as smart as they are getting credit for.

First he said that they raised the test scores because more students from less rigorous schools are taking the test. Then he said that we are “100 points stupider, as a nation.” No, we’re not. The population taking the test may be stupider, but as he just said, that’s because there are more students from crappier schools taking the test.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/67 "2010-06-12T12:26:39Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> You are equating to different uses of the word “better”. That’s called equivocation, and is a fallacy of logic.
> 
> Trying to be a better person means self improvement, being more moral, living up to some set of standards of behavior. That is different than measuring by ability to perform (strength, intelligence, etc).

I don’t specifically mean “better” in two different ways. “Trying to be a better person” could imply moral standards, but could also imply learning new skills, improving health, or other things. To equate “trying to be a better person” with “self improvement” is an empty tautology. We can’t try to improve our genetics or the circumstances of our birth and early origins, but in hoping our kids turn out well we can hope for these things.

What I’m getting at is that we reject the idea of superior and inferior humans because it is politically incorrect. And that’s understandable, because various political and social movements of the past hijacked ideas about superiority and inferiority to justify genocide, pogroms, holocausts, slavery, Jim Crow laws, wars, and a litany of other evils. I think the problem is some kind of human propensity to warp thought to serve vicious power agendas. Maybe the best practical solution is to pretend we are all equally “good”, and certainly it is almost an empty discussion without trying to break “superior” and “inferior” into multidimensional detail. But it is surely inaccurate to imagine that “better” and “worse”, which can apply to practically every kind of thing there is, have no application to ourselves.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/68 "2010-06-12T14:38:01Z")

</div>

> [@Napier](#):
>
> I don’t specifically mean “better” in two different ways. “Trying to be a better person” could imply moral standards, but could also imply learning new skills, improving health, or other things. To equate “trying to be a better person” with “self improvement” is an empty tautology. We can’t try to improve our genetics or the circumstances of our birth and early origins, but in hoping our kids turn out well we can hope for these things.

Fine, but in your anecdote you’re still leading the other person.  
“Do you think some people are better than others?” has certain implications, as evidenced in phrases like “Do you you think you’re better than me?!”.

If you were to ask “Do you think some people act better than others?” the answer would be yes, and the apparent hypocrisy disappears.

> [@](#):
>
> But it is surely inaccurate to imagine that “better” and “worse”, which can apply to practically every kind of thing there is, have no application to ourselves.

Few people actually argue that. Sure there are some people that subscribe to a philosophy that everyone’s talents balance out, and that we’re all equally “good”, but I think such people are the minority.

Generally, when people say “Everybody’s equal” they mean we’re all equally important, or should be treated equally. We’re aware that some people have a better set of genes than others.  
Even something like “We’ve all got something to contribute” doesn’t mean we believe our possible contributions are equal.

Even allowing for some people being more talented (for want of a better word) than others, we’d still have to choose how to measure that. In nature, you _could_ think of “better” as whoever reproduces most successfully.  
To us, it could be anything, or any permutation of anythings.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/69 "2010-06-12T16:06:44Z")

</div>

> [@Mijin](#):
>
> “Do **you you** think you’re better than me?!”.

This is often how fights start: one guy makes a syntactic error that enrages the other guy 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/70 "2010-06-14T21:42:10Z")

</div>

**Napier** said:

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t specifically mean “better” in two different ways.

But you said:

> [@](#):
>
> If you ask somebody who doesn’t know what you are up to whether he tries in life to become a better person, or whether he hopes his kids will turn out well, he’ll likely say yes. Only when you say “So you think some people are better than others?” will he start hemming and hawing.

That _is_ two different uses of the word “better”. The difference in response is precisely because the meaning of the word is different in each case.

You’ve set up a strawman with your equivocation. If your intent was to point out why the second use is different and so the response is different, you’ve done a poor job of making that clear. You’ve focused the argument on “why does a person say they want to be a better person but then disagree that there are such things as better people?” rather than on some other argument.

> [@](#):
>
> What I’m getting at is that we reject the idea of superior and inferior humans because it is politically incorrect. And that’s understandable, because various political and social movements of the past hijacked ideas about superiority and inferiority to justify genocide, pogroms, holocausts, slavery, Jim Crow laws, wars, and a litany of other evils. I think the problem is some kind of human propensity to warp thought to serve vicious power agendas. Maybe the best practical solution is to pretend we are all equally “good”, and certainly it is almost an empty discussion without trying to break “superior” and “inferior” into multidimensional detail. But it is surely inaccurate to imagine that “better” and “worse”, which can apply to practically every kind of thing there is, have no application to ourselves.

You have a point about power agendas. There may be superior and inferior people, but that doesn’t mean that division breaks down on ethnic, gender, religious, genetic, national, or any other similar set of lines. But those are the lines that people most easily see and try to break the distinction down along. Before you can establish if there can be superior or inferior humans, you first have to establish the system of measurement, the criteria by which they are being evaluated. Only then can “superior” and “inferior”, or “better” and “worse”, have any meaning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/71 "2010-06-14T21:49:18Z")

</div>

> [@Icerigger](#):
>
> Not until the year 802,701 AD.

Morlocks & Eloi?:dubious:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\
**Post date:** [June 14, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/72 "2010-06-14T22:00:03Z")

</div>

> [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#):
>
> But genotypically, if humans were dogs, we’d all be the same breed.

Really? Why do you say that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\
**Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273/73 "2010-06-15T12:01:15Z")

</div>

> [@Gestalt](#):
>
> Really? Why do you say that?

There’s very low genetic variation among Homo sapiens, especially in populations outside of africa.

The leading explanation for this is generally that only a subset of population types migrated from africa, and indeed that the human population within africa was small to begin with.

Having trouble finding a site that spells this out clearly though. According to [this](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5442/1159) paper, total human genetic diversity is comparable to that of a single (large) chimpanzee population.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superior-inferior-human-beings/542273.md?page=3)