What is racism?

[Chief_Pedant]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Very, very, very roughly, with Australian aboriginals sorted in with sub-Saharan Africans, and folks from western African sorted in with those from south Africa, and so on. We sort according to skin color almost exclusively, and that’s not an accurate indicator of ancestral relationship.

I’m not so sure we sort by skin color per se; I don’t see a lot of south asians (Indian subcontinent, e.g.) self-identifying with “black” as a SIRE group, and in fact there are sub groups in modern Pakistan, (Siddi, e.g., who do identify more closely with recent african ancestry among their equally dark-skinned fellow Pakistanis). There is something besides skin color…

As for Australians, I believe the current thinking is that at the M-N split, a very early group migrated along the coast of India and eventually made it to Australia; the aborigines there are a fairly old line. If the group(s) that came out of africa evolved different genes subsequent to M splitting off, then the expectation would be that early splits who had already migrated away would not share those genes and might well end up identifying more closely with an ancestral population in africa. It all depends on which groups got what genes as evolution tinkered with them.

Within africa, the only reason to group all (sub-saharan) africans together is that they are all L3 or earlier (pre M-N), so as a group they aren’t going to share post M-N genes in their pool any more than post M-N groups would share in sub-saharan genes that developed after L3.

I completely agree it’s silly to try and divide “races,” and silly to pretend haplogroups within africa are particularly similar.

But as I mentioned, the discussion at hand is about average gene pools driving average differences, and regardless of how strongly one might oppose genetically defining a “race,” there’s no debate at all that average gene pools for self-identified SIRE groups cluster, and cluster for two reasons: First, some gene variants created by evolution achieve high penetration suggesting reproductive advantage and driving up the frequency of that gene variant; and second, historic migration patterns have separated broad groups long enough for those genes to evolve, penetrate, and alter average gene pools.

The egalitarian insists–on faith–that evolution affects only genes for “superficial characteristics.”

There is no debate, as far as I know–that the average gene pools of SIRE groups are different. This is why the “races don’t exist” argument fails. The argument for genetically driven differences is not that races exist (this is a semantic question), but that average gene pool differences exist, and because no nurturing influence has been found to erase outcome differences, then the residual difference might plausibly be ascribed to genes.

[iiandyiiii]

@Chief_Pedant

The argument for genetically driven differences is not that races exist (this is a semantic question), but that average gene pool differences exist, and because no nurturing influence has been found to erase outcome differences, then the residual difference might plausibly be ascribed to genes.

This is basically the best shot of the “blacks are dumber” crowd. They don’t actually have any genes, so they just pretend that because the outcome differences have not been completely erased by various non-genetic factors, that means they will never be erased. It seems far more plausible that, in America, just being black carries with it various challenges that make achievement more difficult- challenges that can be even more powerful than the socio-economic factors that are also disparate between groups.

Racist claims about genetics, in other words, without accompanying genetic evidence.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Indeed–reading over what I wrote, it’s pretty obviously wrong. I’m not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote it, but I think I was trying to get at the idea that we’ve not found genes that control for intelligence. And I’ve even been corrected on that, I think.

Your buddy Inbred is not so sure.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

I’m not even sure there are genes associated with intelligence in a replicable fashion.

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

They don’t understand basic things, like the field of importance for them in understanding individual differences in IQ is behavior(al) genetics, not the population genetic studies they frequently point to. If they knew they were “students” of behavior genetics they might actually read an article or two and see how the association studies they sometimes reference are only the most basic tip of the iceberg. They’d know of the 1000s of studies that found an association between an allele of a gene or genetic marker and variability in some behavior only to be matched by a study that could not find such a relationship. Behavior genetics requires the analysis of the steps from a potential gene locus to the expression of a protein in a tissue that results in the modification of behavior. In all these many tiered processes of expression you have interaction between these processes and the environment. This is very hard to do and the field is hardly out of the gate on intelligence and has hardly scratched the surface on human intelligence.

And here’s an anti-racialist from a prior thread who (to the extent that I can tell what he’s saying) appears to have been arguing that variations in intelligence are not caused by genetic difference. (The argument goes past this post, and possibly extends to other threads - I remember this guy arguing that position, and this is the only place it turned up in a brief search.)

[Shodan]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Well they identify likely targets by these various types of association studies. They all essentially identify genomic regions that vary with behavior. It’s better still if the findings are replicable because the pattern of associations can be quite different from study to study.

Data that can be interpreted as cause and effect may be developed from this genetic work or may come about as a result from other types of research. So the combined sets of data increases the confidence that one is studying a gene that controls intelligence.

Then AFAICT we agree that it is not necessary to be able to point to a specific gene before stating that it is likely that a given characteristic is influenced by genetics.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The thing about twin studies is, they necessarily can’t do anything to prove differences between races…

They aren’t meant to. They are meant to show that intelligence is another of the characteristics strongly influenced by differing gene patterns.

Unfortunately, that means that discussions about race and intelligence cannot be dismissed out of hand. Because
[ul][li]Intelligence is strongly influenced by genes.[/li][li]Gene patterns vary between average gene pools.[/li][li]SIRE corresponds roughly to “average gene pools”.[/li][li]Therefore, it is possible that average intelligence could vary among differing SIRE groups.[/ul][/li]
[QUOTE=iiandyiii]
It seems far more plausible that, in America, just being black carries with it various challenges that make achievement more difficult- challenges that can be even more powerful than the socio-economic factors that are also disparate between groups.
[/QUOTE]
Since you believe this to be “far more plausible”, could you list specifically what these challenges are, and especially what evidence you have that causes you to choose this explanation over any other?

Please be specific. I would like to see the actual, positive evidence, that shows that there is a factor that does not disadvantage the SIRE group in question socio-economically, but does disadvantage them in IQ.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

As to your third bullet: Have we identified any differences in allele frequency between SIRE groups that correspond to phenotype differences that are both (a) unconnected to the basis for self-selection (.e.g, skin color, facial structure, etc.) and (b) persistent across SIRE groupings regardless of the regional location (i.e., as true of self-selected groups in Italy as they are in Texas)?

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Since you believe this to be “far more plausible”, could you list specifically what these challenges are, and especially what evidence you have that causes you to choose this explanation over any other?

Please be specific. I would like to see the actual, positive evidence, that shows that there is a factor that does not disadvantage the SIRE group in question socio-economically, but does disadvantage them in IQ.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Shodan

First of all, I did not say that I believe there is a factor that disadvantages them in academic/education/test score outcomes (like IQ tests) but doesn’t affect them socio-economically- I said there might be factors that are more powerful than the socio-economic factors.

But here are the factors (from Frank Sweet’s research) I believe are involved, supported by his research: disparate parenting skills for young children, disparate teacher expectations for children of school age, and “oppositional culture” peer pressure for older children. These hypotheses are supported by data and actually fit the facts- the genetic explanation does not fit the facts, for reasons cited by Sweet (such as the following, from the linked paper)

@Frank Sweet

No gap appears between the scores of unassimilated first-generation immigrant grade-school children from sub-Saharan Africa and those of White children.
No gap appears between the test scores of unassimilated first-generation British West Indian immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry and those of White children.
No gap appears between the test scores of unassimilated first-generation Latin American immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry and those of White children.
Although there is a slight correlation between the gap and sub-Saharan features (skin tone, hair texture, etc.), there is no correlation between the gap and actual sub-Saharan DNA genetic admixture markers. (There is a difference between ethnicity and genetic admixture in the United States. The former depends on a few superficial appearance genes. The latter depends on actual ancestry. Millions of ethnically White Americans have detectable genetic admixture from African slave ancestors. They do not show a gap. Millions of ethnically Black Americans lack sub-Saharan genetic markers. They do. The gap follows self-identity, not genes.)
No gap appears between the test scores of Black grade-school children raised by two White adoptive parents and those of White children. (Until adolescence, when their mental skills plunge to the same level as Black children raised by Black parents.)
Grade-school children of a White mother and Black father show a slightly less severe test-score gap.
Grade-school children of a Black mother and White father show the same test-score gap as children with two Black parents.
In England, Afro-descent children of British West Indian immigrants show a temporary gap that lasts only until they acculturate.

In addition, I’ll add my own hypothesis that, unfortunately, would be hard to test for: there are unique challenges to the “black experience” in America (and perhaps elsewhere), which might include day-to-day interactions with others, media depictions, and other factors that simply make it harder to reach one’s intellectual potential. And these challenges may exist regardless of the educational and financial background of one’s parents.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

Unfortunately, that means that discussions about race and intelligence cannot be dismissed out of hand. Because
[ul][li]Intelligence is strongly influenced by genes.[/li][li]Gene patterns vary between average gene pools.[/li][/ul]

That is going to a misleading path, just there is the problem for the “race realists”. Yes, intelligence is influenced by genes. (And again the research quoted points to the environment as influencing those genes)

Before you said “so what?” To the point that even trees have the gene that an early poster told us was evidence for an intelligence gene, what you missed was that all humans, that is the whole human race has it, intelligence has a connection with genes but it as for being evidence of a difference between races that was not it.

[Shodan]

No gap appears between the scores of unassimilated first-generation immigrant grade-school children from sub-Saharan Africa and those of White children.
No gap appears between the test scores of unassimilated first-generation British West Indian immigrant grade-school children of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry and those of White children.

I’m not clear on what these mean. Is there an explanation in the link?

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@GIGObuster

Before you said “so what?” To the point that even trees have the gene that an early poster told us was evidence for an intelligence gene, what you missed was that all humans, that is the whole human race has it, intelligence has a connection with genes but it as for being evidence of a difference between races that was not it.

I don’t understand your point. OK, trees have the same gene. But trees are not as intelligent as humans, therefore the gene must not be expressing itself in the same way in humans as in plants. If the gene can be expressed differently in trees than in humans, then it can be expressed differently. And therefore it is possible that it is expressed differently in SIRE groups. So the argument “it is present in plants” does not argue against the possibility that it expressed differently in different gene groups.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

I’m not clear on what these mean. Is there an explanation in the link?

It means that there is no test score gap between immigrant children, regardless of race. So black immigrant kids (1st generation) average the same test scores as white immigrant kids (1st generation). In later generations, the test score gap starts to rear its ugly head, but it’s not there for brand new immigrants.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

I don’t understand your point. OK, trees have the same gene. But trees are not as intelligent as humans, therefore the gene must not be expressing itself in the same way in humans as in plants. If the gene can be expressed differently in trees than in humans, then it can be expressed differently. And therefore it is possible that it is expressed differently in SIRE groups. So the argument “it is present in plants” does not argue against the possibility that it expressed differently in different gene groups.

Not the point either, the point is that it is present in all races, and the research did not show any different expression between races, nor SIRE groups.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Your buddy Inbred is not so sure.

Nice out-of-context quote. You got a future in politics!

@Shodan

Then AFAICT we agree that it is not necessary to be able to point to a specific gene before stating that it is likely that a given characteristic is influenced by genetics. .

Yes, it’s a reasonable hypothesis to make nowadays for individual differences in behavior.

There is not enough evidence out there to say the same for average differences in populations defined by ethnicity.

There are none for average differences in behavioral traits between populations defined by ethnicity.

Hopefully those facts have some effect on your estimation of how improbable the racists’ claims are. And if you get to that, maybe then you’ll start to wonder at their enthusiasm for arguing what is essentially speculation, fantasy, and perversion of data.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

Nice out-of-context quote. You got a future in politics!

Those quotes were completely in context, much as you might now prefer to have not said them.

I would ask you to explain what alternative context you are now claiming they have, but frankly your posts on this subject have not exactly been models of clarity or of directly addressing the points at hand, so it’s probably just as well if you didn’t.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Those quotes were completely in context, much as you might now prefer to have not said them.

Heh–and to think I thought you only played this silly game with me.

Look, if multiple people are telling you, and only you, that you’re misunderstanding what they say, maybe just maybe you ought to look for the common denominator.

Or, of course, you could continue to insist that you understand things just fine, if that’s working out hte way you like.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Look, if multiple people are telling you, and only you, that you’re misunderstanding what they say, maybe just maybe you ought to look for the common denominator.

I already know the common denominator.

Multiple people are similar in being really really opposed to racism, and thus viscerally opposed to the idea that there might be race-based differences in intelligence. Therefore they attack this notion with everything they’ve got and with some stuff they haven’t got, which leads to them overshooting the mark sometimes and saying things that they would later like to pretend they haven’t said.

[There are some differences in that Inbred seems to be highly educated about genetic matters while you seem completely ignorant, but it’s the same basic phenomenon.]

Or, of course, you could continue to insist that you understand things just fine, if that’s working out hte way you like.

Any time I respond to a post from you I accept upfront the possiblity that you’ll respond with this approach.

I’m not complaining.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I already know the common denominator.

Multiple people are similar in being really really opposed to racism, and thus viscerally opposed to the idea that there might be race-based differences in intelligence. Therefore they attack this notion with everything they’ve got and with some stuff they haven’t got, which leads to them overshooting the mark sometimes and saying things that they would later like to pretend they haven’t said.

[There are some differences in that Inbred seems to be highly educated about genetic matters while you seem completely ignorant, but it’s the same basic phenomenon.]

If that were the common denominator, the prediction would be that I would have responded to Shodan in the thread the same way I responded to you.

Oh, wait–check it out! Prediction falsified!

You may want to look for a different common denominator.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If that were the common denominator, the prediction would be that I would have responded to Shodan in the thread the same way I responded to you.

You probably would have, but Shodan had headed it off by suggesting upfront that you might try to make that claim.

And even then, you claimed you were “slightly misunderstood”. Just couldn’t let it go …

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You probably would have, but Shodan had headed it off by suggesting upfront that you might try to make that claim.

Ah, then, I encourage you to test this prediction as well.

And even then, you claimed you were “slightly misunderstood”. Just couldn’t let it go …

Speaking of just can’t let it go, keep on riding that “I understand just fine!” horse. It’s mighty persuasive.

(I explained how I was slightly misunderstood in this case–did you get it?)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK.

[Chief_Pedant]

@iiandyiiii

This is basically the best shot of the “blacks are dumber” crowd. They don’t actually have any genes, so they just pretend that because the outcome differences have not been completely erased by various non-genetic factors, that means they will never be erased. It seems far more plausible that, in America, just being black carries with it various challenges that make achievement more difficult- challenges that can be even more powerful than the socio-economic factors that are also disparate between groups.

Racist claims about genetics, in other words, without accompanying genetic evidence.

You are missing (deliberately?) the other half of the argument, which is that it is exceedingly unlikely mother nature would only fiddle with “superficial” genes.

Sure; half of the “genes” argument is that no amount of normalization for nurturing erases the very consistent pattern differences for skillsets. We see “blacks” from every political system, and every cultural history excelling in similar skillsets to “blacks” elsewhere. We see asians showing up as the math whizzes even when they had crappy starts to life–again; across every political and cultural system. And when we normalize plausible variables such as income or parental education for SIRE groups in the US, we see marked persistence of various test-taking skillset patterns. So marked that whites from poor and undereducated families outscore blacks from wealthy and educated families on skillsets like SAT -taking, or MCATs, or LSATs, or whatever. (And that pattern persists so that, for example, blacks substantially underscore whites and asians on specialty exams or post-med school exams, despite having had exactly similar exposure to exactly similar training for the prior 4-8 years).

So yeah; that persistent pattern of average skillset performance despite similar nurturing is persuasive, at least to many of us.

But you are absolutely wrong on the no genes front. You see, any student of human migration, evolution and population genetics concedes that the average gene frequency–the average gene pool–varies among the SIRE groups. Even when folks self-identify, the history of the human race is such that different average gene pools have been created by various splits along the way from 200kya. And where new gene variants have arisen, many are apparently so advantageous that they achieve high enough penetration in descendant groups to create frequencies high enough to be seen as gene clustering for those new genes. It is just such penetration, frequency and clustering that creates physical appearance differences–on average–which drive SIRE grouping in the first place…

So the second part of the argument for genes you are missing is that the most plausible position is that nature drives all genes equally blindly. If that is the case–and surely it is–it is a naive, creationist, faith-based position that genes probably are not the driver for outcome differences that cannot be normalized by nurturing. (I say, “creationist” because they believe in such minimal evolution and a 5kya start, all around mesopotamia)

Egalitarians have to cling to increasingly contorted and extreme “cultural” sorts of totally unsupported putative variables to explain away black sprinting dominance or asian test-taking skillsets. The persistence of pattern in quantified huge studies for such things as test-taking skillset by opportunity level is quite remarkable. The egalitarian earnestness may be beyond question, but it is their science that is lacking. However well-intentioned is their blindspot that drives huffing about over there being “no such thing as a genetically-defined race” or some other irrelevant strawman, it doesn’t make the proposition that mother nature is fair a sound one.