What is the evidence that races are equal in intelligence?

[JillGat]

*Originally posted by berdollos *
**There is no evidence to support the idea that races are equal in intelligence.

All evidence indicates Asian average intelligence is the highest, followed by White people, followed by Blacks in Africa.

In no way does this fact have anything to do with the worth of a human being. In eyes of God,all of us are of equal value and have something to contribute.
**

Fact?? What fact? I lived in an almost-all-African-ancestored country for a few years and saw the same distribution of qualities such as intelligence, sports ability, artistic inclination, etc. that I see in the U.S. “white” population.

[[But soon it came down to studies of Whites , Blacks and Asians (these are terms used frequently by racists)]]

To be fair, limited those these terms may be, they are also used by the Centers for Disease Control and by me, as an epidemiologist, to track the disparities in health indicators in different populations. And we do see important differences between these “races” when we look at disease rates. - Jill
But yes, we’ve been through all this before.

[JillGat]

*Originally posted by berdollos *
**There is no evidence to support the idea that races are equal in intelligence.

All evidence indicates Asian average intelligence is the highest, followed by White people, followed by Blacks in Africa.

In no way does this fact have anything to do with the worth of a human being. In eyes of God,all of us are of equal value and have something to contribute.
**

Fact?? What fact? I lived in an almost-all-African-ancestored country for a few years and saw the same distribution of qualities such as intelligence, sports ability, artistic inclination, etc. that I see in the U.S. “white” population.

[[But soon it came down to studies of Whites , Blacks and Asians (these are terms used frequently by racists)]]

To be fair, limited those these terms may be, they are also used by the Centers for Disease Control and by me, as an epidemiologist, to track the disparities in health indicators in different populations. And we do see important differences between these “races” when we look at disease rates. - Jill
But yes, we’ve been through all this before. And I think it’s time to move it to Great Debates…

[Shortie]

*Originally posted by glee *
**But soon it came down to studies of Whites , Blacks and Asians (these are terms used frequently by racists). Still no scientific definitions of how you tell which category anyone falls into. **

With reference to this, I looked a bit more, and as far as I can tell it’s based on ethnic ancestry, ie african-americans vs chinese and japanese-americans, vs hispanic-americans, etc. These are fairly inexact groups, can often be divided further, and don’t include everyone (notably other asian groups). On the other hand, implying that someone who uses them is racist is pretty harsh. For example, we just did a census in the UK, and race was one of the questions. I doubt many people would have trouble defining theirs, although that’d have to include mixed ancestry (of whichever groups).
While race may not be totally qualitative factor, it is a quantitative one, and due to historical divisions, I think you can fit the majority of people into groups. The smaller the groups\ethnicities the better everyone will fit, and there will always be exceptions. Yes the dividing lines between groups can be somewhat arbritrary*, but the centres can be identified. Whether studies are done by asking people to classify themselves, or by only using those of clear ethnicity, or it’s whatever the researcher decides I don’t know. To say that there are no races whatsoever, and no possible differences between them, isn’t fighting ignorance.

(*from memory of the census, some seemingly obvious categories were left out, presumably because of relatively low numbers)

[december]

*Originally posted by JillGat *
To be fair, limited those these terms may be, they are also used by the Centers for Disease Control and by me, as an epidemiologist, to track the disparities in health indicators in different populations. And we do see important differences between these “races” when we look at disease rates. - Jill

Thanks, Jill. You just beat me. I was about to make the same point about my wife’s bio-statistics research.

FWIW I think my wife and her colleagues are too quick to look at racial differences. Yes, there are cases where race has genetic significance to some health issue. More often, race has some significance only because of socio-economic or cultural differences. In those cases, they ought to directly reflect the cultural and economic differences, rather than use race for that purpose, IMHO.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
**(is there any evidence that Black people are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene? yes.
**

No. There is evidence that populations in areas where malaria is a frequent problem are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene than people in areas where malaria is rare or nonexistant. There is no evidence that the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation.

**
Does me using the term Black make me a bigot? I don’t think so).
**

No, it doesn’t make you a bigot. In many contexts it is a very useful term. However, if you think there is any scientifically distinct black race you are mistaken.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
**

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
**(is there any evidence that Black people are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene? yes.
**

No. There is evidence that populations in areas where malaria is a frequent problem are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene than people in areas where malaria is rare or nonexistant. There is no evidence that the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation.

**Actually the statement by mnemosyne is a true one, as I’m sure you yourself agree. (I didn’t see anyone claim that “the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation” so there’s no point in your contradicting this.) It may be that the reason black people are more likely to carry the gene has to do with malaria rather than skin color. But the fact remains a true one nonetheless, and is useful in a world where it is easier to ascertain skin color than location of ancestral habitat.

[mnemosyne]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
**
No. There is evidence that populations in areas where malaria is a frequent problem are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene than people in areas where malaria is rare or nonexistant. There is no evidence that the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation. **

I never said that there is any link between skin colour and the sickle cell gene.

Perhaps I should have put in more detail: American Blacks are more likely to carry the gene than are American Whites, Asians, Hispanics whatever. You are correct in that this is a result of ancestors coming from Africa and other areas where malaria is common, and heterogeneity is beneficial. Malaria is extremely rare in the US, but the gene persists because thats how genetics works: people have kids, their genes get passed on, their kids have the sickle cell gene. Because Blacks are more likely to marry other blacks, and skin colour is also genetic, their children will also carry the gene and be black, barring any unusual mutation or epistasis, etc. (must I really explain this, too?).

In the case of Sickle Cell, 1/10 African Americans are carriers, while approx 1/400 have the disease. I do not currently have the stats before me for American Whites, though I know it is a very small percentage for carrier, let alone disease.

Similarly, the Thalasseamia gene is more prevalent in people from or decended from areas around the Mediterranean - again it is thought that heterogeneity is favourable to combat falciparum malaria.

To look at other groups, Tay Sachs disease is most prevalent in American Ashkenazi Jews, with a prevalence of 1/3600, and a carrier frequency of 1/30.

So the point is, there are genetic differences among populations, and these differences in certain cases (i.e. examining sickle cell or Tay Sachs) are significant. Whether this is true or not for intelligence, I doubt it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth looking into, and that the research into it is automatically racist.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by mnemosyne *
Whether this is true or not for intelligence, I doubt it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth looking into*

Here’s where I disagree with my fellow un-PCniks. I don’t see why it is at all important to know if average intelligence varies by ethnic group. Beyond the fact that it is extremely difficult to draw accurate conclusions due to the difficulty of measuring intelligence and isolating cofactors (as noted previously by many posters), I don’t see what can be done with the conclusions. I guess if it could be shown conclusively that there was no difference there would be some societal value in demonstrating this, but this could not be conclusively known prior to the study itself. And if a study were to show the opposite, I see only negative consequences.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Actually the statement by mnemosyne is a true one, as I’m sure you yourself agree. (I didn’t see anyone claim that “the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation” so there’s no point in your contradicting this.) It may be that the reason black people are more likely to carry the gene has to do with malaria rather than skin color. But the fact remains a true one nonetheless, and is useful in a world where it is easier to ascertain skin color than location of ancestral habitat. **

Dark-skinned people are only likely to carry the gene for sickle cell anemia if they come from a population that arose in an area where malaria was common. A dark-skinned person who does not come from such a population would be unlikely to carry the gene. On the other hand, a light-skinned person from a population that arose in an area where malaria was common would be likely to carry the sickle cell gene. What’s more, many of the dark-skinned people who do carry the sickle cell gene are not of African descent, and thus not what is usually meant by “black”.

This issue has been dealt with many times in previous GD threads. I’d suggest that anyone interested in learning more should do a search on the subject.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
**
Perhaps I should have put in more detail: American Blacks are more likely to carry the gene than are American Whites, Asians, Hispanics whatever. You are correct in that this is a result of ancestors coming from Africa and other areas where malaria is common, and heterogeneity is beneficial. Malaria is extremely rare in the US, but the gene persists because thats how genetics works: people have kids, their genes get passed on, their kids have the sickle cell gene. Because Blacks are more likely to marry other blacks, and skin colour is also genetic, their children will also carry the gene and be black, barring any unusual mutation or epistasis, etc. (must I really explain this, too?).

In the case of Sickle Cell, 1/10 African Americans are carriers, while approx 1/400 have the disease. I do not currently have the stats before me for American Whites, though I know it is a very small percentage for carrier, let alone disease.
**

Sickle cell anemia is common in some (not all) African populations. However, it is also common among people from the Indian sub-continent and other areas where malaria is a frequent problem. If one looks just at the US sickle cell anemia might seem to be primarily a “black disease”, but that is because many American blacks are descended from populations from malaria-infested areas of Africa and because blacks in the US outnumber Indians. Even in the US it is dangerous to assume that sickle cell anemia is a “black disease”, as it might delay diagnosis of the disease in patients who have no recent African ancestry.

Again, I urge anyone who is interested to look up the previous GD threads where this has been discussed. It has been dealt with at length before by people with much stronger medical backgrounds than I.

[IzzyR]

Lamia,

You are merely repeating your previous post. I am aware of all that. Evidently, a dispropotionate percentage of the blacks (in this country, at least) come from malaria infected areas, and are hence more likely to carry the gene. As I mentioned previously, it is easier to tell whether a person is black than to tell what area their ancestors came from.

[glee]

Please can somebody define ‘race’.

JillGat,
what definition do the Centers for Disease Control use?

*Originally posted by Shortie *
… as far as I can tell it’s based on ethnic ancestry, ie african-americans vs chinese and japanese-americans, vs hispanic-americans, etc. These are fairly inexact groups, can often be divided further, and don’t include everyone (notably other asian groups).

This isn’t a scientific definition.

*Originally posted by Shortie *
For example, we just did a census in the UK, and race was one of the questions. I doubt many people would have trouble defining theirs…

Yes, I filled that in. Since my skin is white, I put white.
What other criteria should I have used?

*Originally posted by Lamia *
There is evidence that populations in areas where malaria is a frequent problem are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene than people in areas where malaria is rare or nonexistant. There is no evidence that the sickle cell gene is in any way tied to any gene that affects skin pigmentation.

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
is there any evidence that Black people are more likely to carry the sickle cell gene? yes…

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
I never said that there is any link between skin colour and the sickle cell gene.

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
Perhaps I should have put in more detail: American Blacks are more likely to carry the gene than are American Whites, Asians, Hispanics whatever. You are correct in that this is a result of ancestors coming from Africa and other areas where malaria is common, and heterogeneity is beneficial. Malaria is extremely rare in the US, but the gene persists because thats how genetics works: people have kids, their genes get passed on, their kids have the sickle cell gene. Because Blacks are more likely to marry other blacks, and skin colour is also genetic, their children will also carry the gene and be black, barring any unusual mutation or epistasis, etc. (must I really explain this, too?).

Well you don’t seem to understand the scientific method. Let me explain.
All the above shows is that most people living in malaria infested areas are black. If a race of white pygmies lived long enough in malaria infested areas, no doubt they’d evolve and become more likely to carry the gene. Would you then claim a relationship between shortness and the sickle cell gene?! :rolleyes:

[mnemosyne]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
**

Sickle cell anemia is common in some (not all) African populations. However, it is also common among people from the Indian sub-continent and other areas where malaria is a frequent problem. If one looks just at the US sickle cell anemia might seem to be primarily a “black disease”, but that is because many American blacks are descended from populations from malaria-infested areas of Africa and because blacks in the US outnumber Indians. Even in the US it is dangerous to assume that sickle cell anemia is a “black disease”, as it might delay diagnosis of the disease in patients who have no recent African ancestry.
**

This is merely an example of a specific population. These are the stats I learned in school, and I make no effort to pinpoint the specific ancestry of the population in question. It seems every time someone tries to define even the loosest parameter in this discussion, someone else turns it around into some sort of racist assumption. Although there may not be any beneficial results to any such research, the fact is people are constantly trying to figure it out one way or another (why else compare SAT and IQ stats between groups?).

[december]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**

I don’t see why it is at all important to know if average intelligence varies by ethnic group. Beyond the fact that it is extremely difficult to draw accurate conclusions due to the difficulty of measuring intelligence and isolating cofactors (as noted previously by many posters), I don’t see what can be done with the conclusions **

I kind of agree with Izzy. E.g., there is a group of people who are much less intelligent than average, namely the stupid people. Social policy needs to take into account that this group exists, regardless of their ethnicity.

One conceivable value of llooking at racial differences would be to avoid mistaken conclusions. E.g., look at this quote from the NY Times, via Smarter Times: http://www.smartertimes.com/archive/2001/06/010610.html

“Elite colleges also place a premium on diversity. And because Asian-American applicants represent a clear minority at nearly all of the nation’s most selective colleges, a student who can check the box next to Asian-American on an application is likely to get a boost as a result.”

As Ira Stoll points out, if the Asian-America applicants are better students, then a higher acceptance rate would not be proof of any alleged “boost.”

Similarly, {i]The Bell Curve* points out that if one race is intellectually inferior to another (whether due to culture or genetics or anything else) then different results would not be automatic proof of racism.

Again quoting The Bell Curve, it would be impossible to prove a difference in African-American intelligence, because there is no way to separate out the impact of cultural and economic differences. So, I don’t see how this discusson can go anywhere.

[glee]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
Sickle cell anemia is common in some (not all) African populations. However, it is also common among people from the Indian sub-continent and other areas where malaria is a frequent problem.

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
This is merely an example of a specific population.

Yes, and it shows that the genes for Sickle cell anemia and skin colour have nothing to do with each other.

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
It seems every time someone tries to define even the loosest parameter in this discussion, someone else turns it around into some sort of racist assumption.

(wearily) What is your definition of ‘race’?
Look, you know about genes, and I’m sure you’re not a racist. But if you can’t give a scientific definition of ‘race’, and you can’t define ‘intelligence’ (except by IQ tests, which in my opinion only measure how good you are at IQ tests!), then what is the point of the thread?

*Originally posted by mnemosyne *
Although there may not be any beneficial results to any such research, the fact is people are constantly trying to figure it out one way or another (why else compare SAT and IQ stats between groups?).

Yes, and policemen regularly stop black people in expensive cars in London to ask if they’ve stolen them.
Is it science, or is it discrimination?

[mnemosyne]

*Originally posted by glee *
**If a race of white pygmies lived long enough in malaria infested areas, no doubt they’d evolve and become more likely to carry the gene. Would you then claim a relationship between shortness and the sickle cell gene?! :rolleyes:
**

Don’t be stupid. Maybe I should make this point clear: THE SICKLE CELL GENE AND THOSE FOR HEIGHT/WEIGHT/SKIN COLOUR ETC. ARE ** NOT LINKED**. They are independent of one another. Height and the sickle cell gene cannot be related.

That said, however, if in a PARTICULAR population, the genes for height tend to give people the stature of “pygmies”, AND if THIS PARTICULAR population has a noticeably carrier frequency of the sickle cell gene, then it IS possible to state that THIS PARTICULAR population is likely to maintain a pygmy stature and a steady frequency of the SC gene. So yes, these people will be short and have the gene.

Provided, of course, that there is no significant other force involved, such as significant breeding with members of another population - then the frequencies shift. However, since even now, blacks do tend to mary blacks, the SC gene frequency in the US has not changed very much in the past. And now I know that a bunch of people are going to show up and say “But I married a black person!” or whatever, but as of the latest information I have (a genetics course this past term) these people are still a very large minority.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by mnemosyne *
**
Don’t be stupid. Maybe I should make this point clear: THE SICKLE CELL GENE AND THOSE FOR HEIGHT/WEIGHT/SKIN COLOUR ETC. ARE ** NOT LINKED*. They are independent of one another. Height and the sickle cell gene cannot be related.

That said, however, if in a PARTICULAR population, the genes for height tend to give people the stature of “pygmies”, AND if THIS PARTICULAR population has a noticeably carrier frequency of the sickle cell gene, then it IS possible to state that THIS PARTICULAR population is likely to maintain a pygmy stature and a steady frequency of the SC gene. So yes, these people will be short and have the gene.
**

Okay, so we have a population that shares genes that produce certain physical traits such as height, skin color, and hair texture, and that also shares a gene that causes sickle cell anemia. The genes that affect these people’s appearance are not in any way tied with the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, they just happen to appear within the same population. Meanwhile, there are other populations whose members bear a physical resemblance to our first population but do not carry the gene for sickle cell anemia, and other populations who do not physically resemble the first population but do carry the gene for sickle cell anemia. I think we’re both on the same page so far, right?

That said, what does any of this have to do with race? Sickle cell anemia is not a racial characteristic unless one wishes to define race based on the presence of the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia. In some areas at least the gene might be more common in people who possess certain physical traits, but the gene for sickle cell anemia is not linked to the genes that cause those traits, it is not exclusive to populations that possess these characteristics, and it is not found in every population with these traits. It is not evidence of biologically defined races. Yet it certainly seemed as though you were attempting to use it as evidence of such. I apologize for misinterpreting you if this was not your intent, but I don’t understand why you even brought the subject up if it was not.

[december]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Lamia *
**
[QUOTE
That said, what does any of this have to do with race? Sickle cell anemia is not a racial characteristic unless one wishes to define race based on the presence of the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia. In some areas at least the gene might be more common in people who possess certain physical traits, but the gene for sickle cell anemia is not linked to the genes that cause those traits, it is not exclusive to populations that possess these characteristics, and it is not found in every population with these traits*[/QUOTE]
Knowledge of the disproportionate amount of sickle cell anemia affects the way public health is practiced. Similar considerations apply to Tay Sachs in Jews.

How did we get here from the OP?

[Tamerlane]

Mnemosyne: Well let’s try this tack - Is there a way to define “race” in America ( we’ll limit this discussion to the U.S. just for the moment )? Sure, you can put any definition to any word you like.

So let’s say I define “Black” as that group of melanistic individuals in the U.S. that self-identify with that term. Is this a useful definition? Sure, for some things. Obviously if there is self-identification there is a certain level of common cultural bond.Can this definition be used in a scientific study? Sure - In a sociology study for example.

Now does the above definition correspond to the classic definition of race as usually assumed by most racialists ( not racists ), or indeed most people? Obviously not.
Can this group be separated out on the basis of a consistent, synapomorphic or autapomorphic set of genetic markers from other self-identifying “races” in the the U.S.? All evidence points to no. Can this group be linked by a consistent set of genetic markers to all other groups of melanistic individuals in the world? Again, the overwhelming weight of evidence is negative. So does race as a fixed genetic category, mapping out to skin color and physiognomy, i.e. race as “biology”, exist? No.

So if there is no consistent genetic basis for defining race, but you ( the generic “you” ) are trying to determine whether there is hereditary difference in intelligence between “races”, do you see where the problem arises?

The above was not said with a patronizing tone, by the way . I’m just trying to point out why many find AWC’s very ( implied ) premise flawed.

Now all of the above said, is it useful to compare the performance on standardized aptitude tests, between “races” as I idetified them above. Darn tootin’! That can tell us quite a bit about socio-cultural factors and point out flaws in those tests.

But is that study useful in determining the relative intelligence of those self-identifing groups? Nope. Are they useful in determining any predicted difference in intelligence in “races”, as they are classically construed? Nope.

Frankly, IMHO, this whole argument is moot anyway, since I’ve yet to see a test, or battery of tests, that accurately measures real-world intelligence for any cultural group, let alone all of them. Assuming we ( the generic “we” ) could even agree on a common definition of “intelligence” anyway, which I really doubt. For me it all boils down to, “I know what when I see it.” Which isn’t very useful for a scientific study .

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

“I know IT, when I see it.” :rolleyes:

• Tamerlane