The looming crisis in human genetics

[KLR_650]

Chen, you seem to know whereof you speak.

Would you care to comment on the atmosphere in the universities, regarding the discussion of heritable traits such as IQ and behavior. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. I mean … the discussion we’re trying to have in this thread: how would it be received in some major universities. I know, I know, we can’t generalize; but, yes we can.

My suspicion is that the atmosphere is Orwellian, and that double-bad-speak would elicit a five minute Hate.

For example, isn’t it true that Herrnstein and Murray have been demonized for The Bell Curve, although the research in it was impeccable.

I welcome your comments; please correct me where I’m off the mark.

Regards,

KLR 650

P.S. The KLR 650 is the motorcycle I ride. The prince of motorcycles.

[Chen019]

KLR 650,

‘The IQ Controversy’ by Snyderman & Rothman is a good analysis of how the media tends to present a very misleading view of psychometric research.

I’m not at a University but that sounds right. Look at the reaction James Watson received for his comments. Of course he was telling the truth but that didn’t matter. Interestingly, if differences are partly genetic then those who want to suppress discussion will also suppress research that could help in the future.

Blocking out possible explanations also leads to increasingly elaborate explanations for differences in achievement. It also means that people can be unfairly blamed.

[KLR_650]

Chen,

Thanks.

I think your comments sum up very neatly the consequences, all negative, of holding steadfastly to the a priori racial equivalence doctrine.

I have no science background, but I can read, and write. And as I read this thread it’s apparent to me that the animus, the rancor, comes mainly from the equivalence camp. I think they protest too much. Animus suggests defensiveness; defensiveness suggests doubt. Suppressed doubt.

Objectively, the equivalence camp has been reprimanded several times by the moderator; the non-equivalence side, not at all.

In fact, your, and especially Chief Pedant’s, mildness astonishes me. I see the two of you (and others) patiently describing facts and theories, almost oblivious to various angry insults coming from, and not at all befitting, the other side.

In my opinion, the equivalence side resorts much more frequently to quibbling about imperfect definitions or data, as a spurious rebuttal of a serious argument. Of course definitions and data will never be perfect, therefore the larger picture need never be considered by them.

Unless you are seriously “captured by the system,” you cannot fail to appreciate that enormous social and political pressures are aligned with the equivalence crowd; and against, sometimes virulently against, the idea of non-equivalence. Clearly, equivalence is the default, “establishment” position; non-equivalence the taboo.

It would be grand if some in the equivalence camp could recognize this bias, and make some effort to correct for it, if only by listening.

Group heritability of IQ and behavior can be easily observed in domesticated animals, where it’s considered unremarkable. Import the same features into a different animal, man, and the rules suddenly change.

I pointed out the example of dog-breeding, and I believe that example to be particularly apt. The only rebuttal I got was this: that human groups don’t differ as much as Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Which is no rebuttal at all; and in my opinion, a tacit admission of my point.

Intentional breeding of domesticated animals produces much more dramatic results than accidental, historical breeding of humans in relatively isolated gene pools, across tens of thousands of years. But the same genetic laws apply, having the same potential to produce behavioral differences among groups.

In fact it’s extremely unlikely that intelligence and behavior could somehow be exempt from this process, in humans. If Occam’s Razor still means anything to scientists, then accidental, historical “breeding” of humans would explain observed differences among human groups very elegantly.

By contrast, the effort to explain observed differences in terms of nurture, seems increasingly labored, and complex. And rancorous.

[Marley23]

@KLR_650

In my opinion, the equivalence side resorts much more frequently to quibbling about imperfect definitions or data, as a spurious rebuttal of a serious argument. Of course definitions and data will never be perfect, therefore the larger picture need never be considered by them.

In other words, “I’m right, regardless of the facts.”

[KLR_650]

Greetings Marley,

Perhaps in your haste to score a point against me, you overlooked the first three words in the paragraph you quoted. “In my opinion.” It makes a difference, you see. I’m acknowledging that in this instance I do not consider myself to be “right.” I consider myself to have an opinion.

But why would you single out one throw-away paragraph in which you think you see a flaw? Isn’t this the very definition of “quibble?” And why resort to the underhand tactic of “in other words?” That tactic sets up a straw man.

The point I was (perhaps laboring) to make in that post had to do with Occam’s Razor, and breeding. A point that is germane to the OP.

Care to respond to THAT?

Regards,

KLR 650 (The prince of motorcycles)

[Marley23]

@KLR_650

Perhaps in your haste to score a point against me, you overlooked the first three words in the paragraph you quoted.

I did not miss anything.

It makes a difference, you see. I’m acknowledging that in this instance I do not consider myself to be “right.” I consider myself to have an opinion.

No, this makes no difference. In fact it doesn’t even mean anything.

The point I was (perhaps laboring) to make in that post had to do with Occam’s Razor, and breeding.

I don’t think Occam helps you in this argument because you are comparing specific traits in dogs with much more generalized ones in humans. And I’m still waiting for you to post the universally recognized racial hierachy.

[Marley23]

Furthermore, if studies show that your points are invalid - and Belowjob2.0’s posts show this is the case - that’s not just nitpicking. You’ve attempted to dismiss any rebuttal of your argument as a “sorry task.” That’s the attitude I was talking about.

[tomndebb]

@KLR_650

For example, isn’t it true that Herrnstein and Murray have been demonized for The Bell Curve, although the research in it was impeccable.

Actually, the research in The Bell Curve was quite peccable.

The early chapters on the history of measuring intelligence are, indeed, an excellent display of scholarship in that arena.
After that, it all goes to hell with deliberate choices of mismatched data being forcibly joined, based on the assumptions needed to get to their desired goal and propped up with unsupportable illogic. Then there was there explicit effort to avoid peer review so that the scientific reaction could not be presented until the popular uproar had died down. They were, indeed, excoriated unjustly by pundits, (not scientists), on the Left who had not thoroughly examined their work, (and lionized by pundits on the Right who were equally ignorant), but when the hoopla had subsided and the work was examined rationally, it was found to be built on smoke and mirrors.
That their conclusions were an exact and perfect match for the political positions that they had each argued for years did nothing to support any claims of objective research once the errors of their methodolgy and logic were revealed.

[KLR_650]

No, the traits I’m comparing in the two mammals, man and dog, are the same: IQ and behavior.

I know the drill: there can be no such thing as IQ, if measures of it don’t yield the desired results. So noted.

Read the thread. The hierarchy question has been addressed, more than once.

[KLR_650]

The dog issue seems to be a stickler. Nobody from the we-are-all-equivalent camp wants to seriously address it.

[Marley23]

@KLR_650

No, the traits I’m comparing in the two mammals, man and dog, are the same: IQ and behavior.

The most obvious differences between dog breeds are differences of appearance, not “IQ and behavior.” But confining ourselves to that, it’s possible to discern differences between types of dogs due to tens of thousands of years of breeding that was controlled to produce desired characteristics. That hasn’t happened in a particularly large or enduring scale in humans.

I know the drill: there can be no such thing as IQ, if measures of it don’t yield the desired results. So noted.

This is a strawman, and it’s of poor quality. You are the only one who has asserted that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. You are attempting to impose this position on others, but nobody has argued in its favor.

Read the thread. The hierarchy question has been addressed, more than once.

Not by you. Other posters have made guesses about what you might have meant, but you haven’t explained yourself other than making vague hints about the intelligence of Asians and Jews.

[tomndebb]

@KLR_650

The dog issue seems to be a stickler. Nobody from the we-are-all-equivalent camp wants to seriously address it.

Just as you refuse to address your claim for a clear racial hierarchy?

In point of fact, your dog comparison does not even do what you claim. You claim the distinction is in intelligence and behavior, but you have not demonstrated any changes among dog breeds. There are specific responses to trained stimuli among the breeds that demonstrates conditioning, not intelligence, and dog behavior remains constant: they all use the same signs to beg, to warn, to display dominance or aggression. They all circle their bedding before they sleep; they all roll in prey turds if permitted.

A pointer is no “smarter” than a retriever for standing on point and a retriever is not “smarter” than some other dog for not eating the kill; it has simply been trained to behave differently in a specific situation.

[tomndebb]

@KLR_650

Intentional breeding of domesticated animals produces much more dramatic results than accidental, historical breeding of humans in relatively isolated gene pools, across tens of thousands of years. But the same genetic laws apply, having the same potential to produce behavioral differences among groups.

The point has never been that humans could not be bred. The point is that is has not actually happened, historically.

We see changes in pigment and size based on relative warmth and seasonality, but there has never been a successful effort to segregate and breed humans and no geographic isolation has lasted long enough to allow actual breeding.

[Chen019]

The most obvious differences between dog breeds are differences of appearance, not “IQ and behavior.” But confining ourselves to that, it’s possible to discern differences between types of dogs due to tens of thousands of years of breeding that was controlled to produce desired characteristics. That hasn’t happened in a particularly large or enduring scale in humans.

The Skeptic Editor Frank Miele & former Berkeley Anthropology Prof Vincent Sarich wrote a book together on race. Miele makes the canine analogy here and discusses canine research by Dan Freedman.

Dog breeds provide the classic case study of within-species differentiation. Those who would dismiss race and race differences regularly point out that DNA differences between races are minimal. But ,as Vincent Sarich demonstrated in Race: The Reality of Human Differences (pp. 170 – 173) human racial differences in morphology are greater than in any non-domesticated species. They are around ten times the difference between the sexes within each race and larger than the differences that distinguish the two species of chimpanzee. Despite minimal genetic differences, human physical racial differences are clearly observable.

Likewise for dogs. But only recently has genetic analysis been able to distinguish between breeds—or even between dogs and wolves.

[[MOD EDIT]] Does race have any place in human medicine? The answer increasingly is “yes”.

Hypertension
African American patients, on average, do not benefit as much as whites from ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) inhibitors, a standard treatment for heart failure.

This is probably because of race differences in nitric oxide, which is produced by the cells that line our blood vessels and dampens contraction of the muscle cells, relaxing the vessels and lowering blood pressure. Blacks are more likely than whites to have nitric oxide insufficiency. Why, no one currently knows. [[MOD EDIT]]

The take-home lessons from our brief look at ourselves, our best friends, and our nearest relatives are:

Small DNA differences can produce large and significant differences in body shape, size, internal chemistry, and even behavior and cognition.

http://www.vdare.com/misc/080325_miele.htm

Freedman’s findings regarding infant behaviour are similar to those of Harvard Psychology Prof Jerome Kagan:

In the course of the experiment, Kagan noticed something unanticipated. The Chinese children, little more than babies, whether attending day-care or raised at home, were consistently more fearful and inhibited than the Caucasians. The differences were obvious. The Chinese children stayed close to their mothers and were quiet and generally apprehensive, while the Caucasians were talkative, active, and “prone to laughter”. These characteristics were confirmed by the mothers as typical of their children’s behavior at home as well. In addition, the researchers discovered that the Chinese tots had less variable heart rates than the Caucasians. Kagan could not avoid the clear evidence of an innate difference between the two groups of infants. It is ironic that this scientist’s conversion to a biological-genetic view came along the lines of racial differences. Kagan was a political liberal who only three years earlier had been one of the most vociferous critics of Arthur Jensen’s theories on the heritability of IQ, theories that he and most everyone else denounced as racist. Now he was publishing his observation of fundamental personality differences between racial groups. When we conversed in Harvard office many years later, I asked Kagan if there had been an uproar similar to the one Jensen provoked.

He smiled. “We got no flak on the Chinese paper All the reports of the book were about our day-care findings. Everyone ignored the fact that the Chinese children were different. I think it was because they were Asians, and Asians do well. If they would have been black we probably would have gotten flak.”

Asked if it was dismaying for him, an unwavering liberal, to observe inherent racial differences, Kagan snapped, “Nature doesn’t care what we want.” More reflectively, he added, “I wasn’t so much dismayed at my observations of the Chinese kids. . .I was a little bit saddened to see the power of biology.”

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000519.html

[Marley23]

Chen019, I shorted the first excerpt you quoted. We ask that people keep those kinds of quotations to a short ‘fair use’ standard.

That said, sickle cell anemia was discussed upthread, so I think we know that there are heritable health conditions that are linked to race. But when you extend this to behaviors and more general traits in humans, it simply isn’t well supported. Why is the behavior of these babies attributed to genes rather than culture?

[Chen019]

Why is the behavior of these babies attributed to genes rather than culture?

Why was the behaviour of the pups attributed to genes rather than culture? I’ll just excerpt the relevant passage summarising the findings on the infants, I’m not sure how these responses could be shaped by culture so early on. Also, the comparison with the Navajo babies is interesting. I haven’t actually read the full paper.

The Freedmans found that European American and Chinese American newborns reacted differently even though hospital conditions and prenatal care were the same.

White babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed. When placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as did the Whites.

In a maneuver called the “defense reaction” by neurologists, the baby’s nose was briefly pressed with a cloth, forcing him to breathe with his mouth. Most Caucasian and black babies fight the maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands. Not surprisingly, this is listed in Western pediatric textbooks as the normal, expected response.

But not so the average Chinese babies in the study. They simply lay on their back, breathing from the mouth, “accepting” the cloth without a fight.

There were other more subtle differences. While both Chinese and Caucasian infants would start to cry at about the same point in the examination, especially when they were being undressed, Chinese babies stopped crying immediately, while Caucasian babies quieted only gradually.

The Freedman noted that the film of their finding left audiences awestruck by the group differences.

They then tested Navajo babies. Anthropology, linguistics, and DNA agree that Amerinds have a relatively recent Asian origin. And the behavior of the Navajo babies was indeed like that of the Chinese-Americans, not the Whites…

Freedman submitted the paper on racial differences in neonate behavior to Science, the most prestigious scientific journal in the U.S. It had published his study behavioral differences in pups of different dog breeds without any problem or controversy.
Freedman’s studies are important because they used a comparable experimental design for humans and dogs…

[KLR_650]

Chen,

Thanks very much for introducing Kagan and Freedman into this thread. I’m reading up on both.

I think it’s illustrative that when Kagan found results that ran counter to his expectations, he admitted feeling “saddened to see the power of biology.”

Regards,

KLR 650

[Chen019]

I think it’s illustrative that when Kagan found results that ran counter to his expectations, he admitted feeling “saddened to see the power of biology.”

Yeah, Steven Pinker writes in his book ‘The Blank Slate’ how for a period there was a tendency in psychology to ascribe most things to environmental causes. The role of genes got downplayed.