What is the evidence that races are equal in intelligence?

Great Debates
161

Just as it has been proven CONCLUSIVELY that blondes have more fun ?
Is this proof one of those things like relativity or the four color theorem that only six people in the whole world can understand ? All I’ve seen so far are a bunch of studies where people were able to show an absence of clusters of racially segregated genetic traits in a bunch of different places along the chromosomes. To which the appropriate scientific response is: “Well if the sock you are looking for isn’t in the drawer, perhaps it’s in the closet”. Sure, the size of any possible “bits of race” has been much constrained over the last decade. However, our knowledge of the genome, much less the non-coding regions, satellite DNA’s, viruses, prions etc. is just not complete enough to allow anyone to CONCLUSIVELY rule out the existence of trait groupings that correspond to the old fashioned notion of race.

As far as what those trait groupings might be, why should I care ? You after all are the one making the blanket claim that such things CANNOT exist.

162

Save your “rolleyes” for your own posts.

As opposed to the disputed or mythical “fast twitch” muscle, the ABO Blood Typing has been around for a hundred years. If you get it wrong in a transfusion, you will die.

From What are blood types?:

Scroll down to the chart showing “Relative Frequencies of ABO Blood Groups in Some Human Populations”

Look at the B column (rather than the AB column that I picked out of the air for my example, above).

Note that while Chinese, Nigerians, and American Blacks (sampled in Iowa!) all have frequencies of .233, .232, and .201, the next closest group for Type B blood is among Armenians at the much lower .132.

The general similarities among all groups is a good indication that we cannot divide them into races. The very close association between Chinese and Nigerians also indicate that there is not a “racial” component to blood typing. However, if I were living in Iowa and had Type B blood, I would certainly like to see the number of donors from the black community increased to give me a better chance for a match. Conversely, if I had Type B blood, I would probably not be keen on doing field work among the eskimoes or the Bolivian highlands unless I brought along a supply of my own plasma, since, at .059 and .016 frequencies, it is doubtful that I could quickly find a match in an emergency.

Since you are not interested in actual facts, sjgouldrocks, I can only suggest that you and AWC go off to a private room and hurl one-liners and cliches at each other until you wear each other out.

On a site dedicated to eliminating ignorance, neither of you seem to be interested in participating in that activity.

163

Weak analogies are not helpful.

And, as I expected, you have not offered a SHRED of evidence.

164

Squink,
It’s quite embarrassing having sjgouldrocks say this, since apparently he’s on my side of the discussion.
Of course he’s wrong - you can’t prove such a negative.
However you can give evidence to support a positive claim. This is what AWC has failed to do.

Are you getting confused between two posters? I’m the one who wants information.

You produce a paragraph on ‘arbitrary’ characteristics as if it meant something.

Feel free to ignore the spurious ‘race can’t exist’ argument. But contribute something to the real subject under discussion:
is there a way to subdivide humanity into races?
If so, what is it?
What are the resulting categories?

165

Here is a link to an earlier thread with a similar OP. There are many interesting points made in this thread, and I believe it is worth re-reading.

I would also like to paraphrase my contention that I tried to make in that thread:

Even if it were possible to clearly define race and/or intelligence to the point where they were usable in a scientific study, that study would be very difficult to carry out.

In the most accurate sort of study, all variables are held constant except that which one is trying to study, in this case intelligence according to race. In order to do this, only subjects with identical or highly similar socio-economic backgrounds, nutrition, educational opportunities, etc. (any factors which might make a difference in measured intelligence potential) could participate. The only factor that could majorly differ between these subjects would be the agreed upon definition of race. If the only variable were race as agreed upon by the originators of the study, then there would be a basis for an accurate study.

This would take years to set up, lots of money, and lots of intrusion into people’s lives, and to what purpose? Why do people want to know about this? My guess is that it is usually white people who ask this sort of question, with a pre-formed answer that they are hoping someone will agree with, that white people are superior to other races. What would they do with this sort of information? Use it to blame victims of poverty? Try to develop some super race? I really don’t know what the purpose of any of this information would be.

I don’t believe that there would be a difference in intelligence between people who are given equal opportunities. I think it would be a waste of resources to try to find out, when those resources could better be used to create more equal opportunities.

166

Exactly, and self-righteous declarations of certainty are un-called for when the research has not been done. If the concept of biochemically definable races fails to show any evidence of being useful for the next twenty or thirty years it’ll probably die a quite death like phlogisten, or the steady state theory of the universe. Until that happens, or someone wastes an incredible amount of effort failing to prove that races exist, it’s too soon to go shouting the death of the concept from the rooftops. If race is well and truly dead as a concept in biology, it’s absence will make itself known in its’ own time, and all the shouting in the world cannot change that.

167

Possibly true. However, since at this time we can find no evidence for race and substantial evidence against race , it is perfectly legitimate to note that we cannot identify any races (and that there is no purpose to holding on to a concept that we cannot support).

168

Look, it’s obviously impossible to know ANYTHING for sure. But race is about as plausible as the loch ness monster. So unless you want to waste time looking for ol’ Nessie, don’t bother with your “racial” groups.

169

I took a look at your so-called “chart,” and noticed that it’s talking about such groups as “French,” “Irish,” and “Nigerians” - hardly “races” by any stretch of the imagination.

Nothing like the ol’ bait & switch.

170

And had you any grasp of reading in the English language, you will note that I have made no “racial” association.

Nigerians are, however, by any standard one wants to examine, located in Africa. Irish and French are located in Europe. Chinese are located in Asia.

I have not asserted any connection to “race.”

Let’s review this “discussion.”

After several back-and-forth exchanges among different posters, you posted, with no reference indicating the person to whom you objected (06-14-2001 07:34 PM)

Now, no one had posted that blacks were better off with organs from blacks, so you have based your entire statement on a falsehood.

In addition, by not making clear the statement to which you were objecting, you came off as being more than a bit shrill and silly.

In order to put some context on the discussion, I posted (06-14-2001 09:51 PM) a general description of the sort of things the CDC and the Red Cross go through to find donors. (I had chosen blood type for simplicity, although actual organ donations involve a great deal more complexity.)

You responded (06-15-2001 07:19 PM) with a couple of lines taken out of context from my post and rephrased them using irrelevant paraphrases related to sports recruiting.

I then described (06-15-2001 08:03 PM) The specific differences between the self-fulfilling prophecies of the sports world and the physical reality of matching organ donors in the U.S. (including acknowledgement that racism had contributed to the situation and that racism had not been eliminated from the medical field).

AWC then quoted a selected portion of my post and declared “victory!” (06-16-2001 05:04 PM) which, since she had (as usual) provided no statement of substance to indicate what her victory meant, I facetiously accepted her claim for my victory in asserting that there are no races {06-16-2001 06:09 PM}.

You returned (06-17-2001 06:25 AM) one more time to assert

Which, as usual gets wrong both the assertions made (again, no one has claimed that anyone is “better off” with organs from someone of a particular “race”) and the facts of what had been asserted–that there are different frequencies of occurrences of various traits throughout various geographic regions.

I replied (06-17-2001 09:08 AM) with an analogy and imaginary chart trying to demonstrate what I had been describing.

You responded–if it can be called that–(06-17-2001 09:22 AM) with another sports analogy red herring

So I went out and found actual data (06-17-2001 10:17 AM) on distributions of ABO blood types based on geographic origin. You now respond that I am pulling a “bait and switch.” However, the only “switching” that has occurred in this thread has been your continued misrepresentation of anyone with whom you claim to disagree.

Let me point out just a few items since your reading comprehension is not sufficient to discern it by simply reading the posts:

  • I am among the “group” on the SDMB who has argued that race is not a valid category for any human population.
  • Noting that there is no coherent set of characteristics that can be used to identify a “race”, however, is different than claiming that all people are uniform.

Looking at the Type B blood column from my link arranged by ascending values, for example, we find

South America
.016 Bolivian Indians
North America
.059 Eskimoes
Europe
.091 French
.099 St. Louis, MO whites
.101 Danes
.106 Irish
.115 Austrians
West Asia
.132 Armenians
Africa
.201 IA blacks
.232 Nigerians
East Asia
.233 Chinese

Yes, I have “arbitrarily” placed the geographic locations into the column. However, my point has always been that there are geographic associations, while you have willfully misconstrued my point to be one of “race.” Note that I have at no time in my posts drawn the conclusion that Chinese and Nigerians are of some single “race” and have explicitly noted that the great mixture of numbers on the other blood types indicates that blood cannot be used as a racial indicator.

At this point, it would appear that you are actually a racist sock puppet (general, not a specific poster) pretending to be an Ultra-PC type who uses rudeness and a deliberate ignoring of both facts in general and of the posted statements of other posters for the purpose of making those who are fighting racism look bad.

Barring some semblance of intelligence in future posts, you no longer exist.

{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 06-19-2001 at 10:45 AM]

171

tomndebb says:

Sure, all I’m bitching about here is the intolerant certitude of folks who can’t seem to follow the arguments. If it weren’t for intolerance, the existence or nonexistence of races wouldn’t be such a sticky problem, socially or scientifically.

172

And I applaud you for that. But your statements about organ donation undermine your arguments and allow certain people to claim “victory.”

Oh and please feel free to not respond to my posts. It only distracts from the central issues.

173

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Central issue from you?

You have provided no factual information and appear not to have understood most of the discussion.

::: snort :::

174

For all those who need a link…

http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198intelligence/1198gottfred.html

its all in there matey, environment, testing for g etc.

175

I don’t see much there to forward this discussion. This is simply one more restatement that a measurable “general intelligence” (called g) exists. Gottfredson bases most of her assertions on a blind acceptance of Jensen’s work (with some points by Carroll)–and neither Jensen nor Carroll are not without critics. (I particularly love the notion that g has an outside indicator found in reaction time, since I am not generally considered low in intelligence although I have incredibly slow reaction time.)

She has also claimed that all the intelligence testing has come to the same conclusions regarding g, when, in fact, what she means is that all the intelligence tests created in the U.S., using most of the same assumptions (allowing for feuds between “schools” of psychology), have tended to come to the same conclusions.

She provides no evidence that intelligence researchers in China or India or Bolivia or South Africa have arrived at the same conclusions.

It is an interesting article, but a better contribution to this discussion would be a thorough review of Jensen and his critics.

I also note that she says that g is not the same as IQ, but that we can use them interchangeably. She then claims that g is not susceptible to changes in diet or training–despite the fact that school kids routinely score lower on IQ tests taken after summer vacation than on tests taken near the end of the school year, indicating some aspect of shooling, whether it is the recent apprehension of facts or the discipline of taking tests, does affect IQ scores.

176

And so we come full circle. Trying to predict I.Q… And the more stuptifying problem of trying to predict I.Q. by race. Add in the quite impossible: trying to predict I.Q. by the non-existant catagories of biological race.

Here are some links that critique this phenomenom.

http://www.psychologie.uni-mannheim.de/psycho2/publi/papers/issid97/issid97.htm
From what level of generality in the predictor or what level of generality in the criterion do the best predictions and explanations occur? Using the framework of a hierarchical variant of the Berlin model of intelligence structure (BIS) (Jäger, 1984; Wittmann, 1988) in predicting school grades or complex problem solving performance we found that the g-level was not the best level to predict and explain hierarchical variants of these criteria. For working memory capacity the g-level was very good, but even here we profited much from lower levels as regards explanation. The principles coined Brunswik-symmetry are demonstrated at a modification of Tucker’s lens equation leading to explanations under what conditions predictions succeed or fail.
I found this link to be easy to read and even-handed in the summing up of the different schools of thought in the “I.Q. sciences.”
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198intelligence/1198yam.html
The report actually does not disagree with the data presented in the book about IQ scores and the notion of g. The interpretation of the data, however, is a different story. To many scholars, The Bell Curve played on psychometric data to advance a politically conservative agenda–arguing, for instance, that g is largely inherited and that thus enrichment programs for disadvantaged youth are doomed to failure. As staff writer Tim Beardsley points out in “For Whom Did the Bell Curve Toll?”, several interpretations are possible, and other studies have produced results that run counter to the dreary conclusions offered by Murray and Herrnstein. Although it engendered heated debate, the book ultimately had little impact on government policy.
For a different view of “hereditablitly” look here.
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Heritability.html

I also find the type of sites on the Web that jump on the “g factor” bandwagon with a minimum of critical thought quite illuminating.

http://home.att.net/~eugenics/
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/

I read it on the 'net, it must be true!

177

[Moderator Hat ON]

Even though trolling/sock accusations are not as rampant as they once were, we still prefer an email to them being posted in threads. Thanks.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

178

so she is a prof at a university, been studying this for years, writes an article for a peer reviewed publication…and you say ‘naaaaaaaa’…

your right, it doesn’t push the ‘race’ question forward BUT i think its an interesting thing to post as this is a thread about intelligence.

I think there is an argument that you could IQ tests to check educational racism i.e. are certain kids doing worse at school than they should, given their iq etc. ?

179

Look dude, just because you give something a name “g” “iq” or whatever, doesn’t mean it exists.

You need to learn about reifixation (sp?).

And g is about as significant as what sign of the zodiac you are.

So unless you want to claim that sagitariuses are smarter, you link doesn’t mean much.

180

No. She is a prof at a university (which is also true of Rushton who equates penis size and intelligence) and has published an article (as Rushton has published in peer-reviewed journals), and I say that, based on the fact that her sources are all engaged in serious and unresolved debates–and that she only quotes the ones who favor her position–she has not proven the point that she claims.

I did not claim that she had to be wrong, only that we would be better off comparing the actual claims of the people she quotes and their opponents rather than accepting her one-sided presentation of the “facts.”

(BTW, Is Scientific American actually a peer-reviewed journal? I was under the impression that it was a popular (if very serious) magazine. In any event, the piece to which you linked was the equivalent of an Op-Ed piece, providing no actual description of work that Gottfredson, herself, has done and requiring no peer review for publication.)