Just curiosity. I’m not going to try to change your mind.
Will you humor a follow-up question? What if you, personally, were shown to have a genetic predisposition for intelligence? How would that make you feel about yourself?
Exactly. I think Mr. Dibble would agree that in the US (or in any other given culture with the concept of the NFL–stick with me, please), most people agree on the social construct of who a Steelers fan is, and that most folks’ self-identification on the subject is pretty similar to how outsiders would identify them, given sufficient data. Right, Mr. Dibble? Similarly, in the US (or in any other given culture with the American concept of race), most people agree on the social construct of who a white person is, and that most folks’ self-identification on the subject is pretty similar to how outsiders would identify them, given sufficient data.
Which is to say, most folks, if they talk with me and ask me a few questions about football and hearing answers like, “Steelers, they’re football, right? Philadelphia? Wait, Pittsburgh, I think,” would conclude that I’m not a Steelers fan. And that matches my self-identification. And most folks, if they meet me and see my red hair and listen to my awkward nervous conversations about race, would conclude I’m a white person. And that matches my self-identification.
In neither case are we talking about a genetically discrete group: we’re talking about a social construct. Granted, most Steelers fans are likely to belong to a subpopulation of humans from a northern US state, and most white people are likely to belong to a subpopulation of humans distantly from Europe; but the binding factor in both cases is social, not genetic.
I agree with you on this.
Do you mind answering the same question I asked Magellan? What if you, personally, were shown to have a genetic predisposition for intelligence? How would that make you feel about yourself?
As Jesse Custer from Preacher would put it: “Why is it that the greatest champions of the white race are always the worst examples of it? YOU! Where the f–k is your CHIN?”.
Yes. “Steelers fan” is a socvial construct. So is race.
The rest of my argument is along the lines of “Just because someone is wearing a Steelers jersey, they’re not necessarily a Steelers fan. And not all Steelers fans can be identified by their clothing. So the only way to tell if someone is a Steelers fan is by deep observation and personal interview. There’s no easy test.”
Let me help you out a little here about which of us is being disingenous. You have said along w/ Mr Dibble the we all have “exactly the same genes.” This a remarkably incorrect statement in the context of this discussion, and not just because of archaic lineage gene introgression into otherwise anatomically modern human gene pools (although all by itself, that renders this statement incorrect).
We do not all have exactly the same genes when the term is used in a context to suggest that there are not genetic differences among humans or human populations, and mutated variants of genes that fall under the same nickname for the group of variants but drive different outcomes are NOT “exactly the same gene” in the plain sense of the term even though an introductory text on genetics for beginners might call all of the mutations the same gene. No geneticist study the HBB variants thinks they are all “exactly the same gene” if by that term what is meant is “exactly the same gene.”
A gene which codes for HbS is not “exactly the same gene” as a gene which codes for normal hemoglobin in the context of this discussion. It may have “exactly the same title” for the group, but the various permutations are not “exactly the same.” FWIW, the single nucleotide change from GTG to GAG is very much in a coding region, and the consequent coding for valine instead of glutamic acid completely changes the behavior of the hemoglobin molecule. (But you knew that.) You and Mr Dibble just want to quibble over language so that you can trumpet, “We all have exactly the same genes” to the masses who then leave reassured that we are homogeneous genetically.
We all have different genes. Different all the way from SNPs to whole chunks missing. Different pools of those different genes, driven by human migration patterns and evolution’s relentless assault on stability.
Different. Genes.
To maintain they are “exactly the same” in the context of this discussion is either a deliberate abuse of language to leave a false impression, or it’s ignorance. Take your pick.
And try to stay away from genes which code for defective proteins, even if they have exactly the same title name. A change so small as a single nucleotide can create a gene so remarkably different that an individual with that variant experiences a profound consequence.
I don’t give a rat’s ass for any genetic predisposition, unless it’s for a disease and it’s fixable.
I am not inclined much to “feeling about myself” on anything.
My various “intelligence” skillsets are what they are. From a neurophsyiologic standpoint, they range from spectacularly good to abysmally stupid.
Not that anyone cares, but GAG is the normal codon variant…s/b “GAG to GTG.” Ah well; that exam is long over, and I think I did OK on it back in the day. 
The degree to which “race” exists at all, or is social or biological is a lumper/splitter/linguistic argument.
But the fact is that if you take the entire population which self-identifies with “black” you get a higher frequency of genes for recent ancestry drawn from pre out of africa lineages. Self-identification with “white” or “asian” creates a different average gene pool, with a higher frequency of genes drawn from out of africa lineages (for mtDNA lines, post L3/M-N splitting point lines).
This is why we observe genetically-driven average differences in outcomes at those broad self-identified groupings, “socially driven” or not. Self identification by race is one way to create two different average gene pools.
If we want to make finer splits, we would find all sorts of sub populations that do not follow the average.
As with Fiveyearlurker, you want to use one use of the word “gene” (as a nickname for an RNA or DNA locus) to defend your use of the term in a colloquial context.
This may bail you out technically, but it does not bail you out from wordsmithing for the sake of obfuscation. When you use “exactly the same gene” in the context of a discussion on why humans are genetically predisposed to differences, it’s a colloquial use of “gene” as a unit of inheritance; not just the location on a DNA chain.
Using the phrase “exactly the same gene” in that context creates a false implication that the DNA-based unit of inheritance is not different, because the context of discussion is how genes drive inheritence. In that colloquial context of the word, genes are all different–even mutated variants belonging to the same nicknamed locus.
As long as we agree that humans have completely different DNA, and DNA pools, I’m all good.
So what do you do with littleTommy Sowell, who’s black but farts more knowledge about equilibrium prices after a taco salad than you or I will ever know? Kind of stupid to hold him back, isn’t it? What if Sally the Asian female student is just as dumb as garlic-flavored mouthwash?
It seems to me a rather more obvious approach to education would be to, you know, assess the students individually and progress them according to their needs, and that this would be true even if black people were on average less smart than white people. It would in almost every respect I can think of be better to continue treating people according to their individual characteristics.
No, we want to use the word the way it is defined, understood and used in every single scientific setting from high school biology (where the definition of “gene” and “allele” will likely be the first page of the section on genetics) to every molecular biology lab in the world. I do this for a living. I know how the word “gene” is used in very colloquial and non colloquial contexts. It is not my responsibility to dumb down what the word means anymore than it is my responsibility to incorrectly use the word “theory”.
At least your inaccuracy is common. I mean, it doesn’t make it any less wrong:
"A modern working definition of a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions “.[1][2] Colloquial usage of the term gene (e.g., “good genes”, “hair color gene”) may actually refer to an allele: a gene is the basic instruction— a sequence of nucleic acids (DNA or, in the case of certain viruses RNA), while an allele is one variant of that gene. Thus, when the mainstream press refers to “having” a “gene” for a specific trait, this is customarily inaccurate. In most cases, all people would have a gene for the trait in question, although certain people will have a specific allele of that gene, which results in the trait variant. Further, genes code for proteins, which might result in identifiable traits, but it is the gene (genotype), not the trait (phenotype), which is inherited.”
It’s not a fucking “nickname”, you … you… wordsmither. It’s the correct term. The “colloquial context” is a) wrong and b) out of place in a scientific discussion.
Completely different from what?
All normal humans have the same DNA pool as each other. Or, there’s a roughly 50-50 split, if you want to be pedantic.
All humans also have exactly the same DNA as any other humans - unless you’re aware of anyone using some funky base pairs or missing some…
Yeah, you gotta love the argument “Hey, you guys are using the word correctly, and I’m using it admittedly incorrectly, so you’re wordsmithing!”
Dr Sowell self-identifies as black; his genetic makeup has not been published, as far as I know. Neither the educational system nor society has held him back from enormous success and respect academically.
He is actually a very good example of the problem we’re talking about. Self-identified blacks, as an average, perform very poorly with respect to their white and asian peers. When we advance the notion that perhaps this is a legacy of culture and society and enslavement of ancestors and so on, Dr Sowell’s success is an equally shining example that those factors do not necessarily obstruct success for blacks.
The problem is average performance, of course. If average performance is so abysmal even when poverty is factored out, what do we do? Success stories like Dr Sowell make it even more difficult to argue that wealthy black kids are held back for average academic performance because gramps was enslaved and teachers don’t expect much of them.
The only way to get the highest performing tier of black students into more selective academic programs and higher–tier careers is to ignore Dr Sowell’s success and make a race-based academic double standard so that we can ensure success for all groups even when their group average is so disparate.
Substitute the word “prevent” for “obstruct,” and you might be right–but as it is, an alternative theory is that he’s just that good, so brilliant that he’s able to succeed despite obstructions thrown up in his path; further, without those obstructions, he might have accomplished even more.
No they don’t. Not in the slightest. If obstacles exist, some will still overcome them – or they will appear to overcome them, but won’t succeed to the degree that they would have without the obstacles.
Yep. The fact that some succeed doesn’t mean that there may not be various things in our society that serves as obstacles and make it more difficult but not impossible for black people to succeed.
The only reason to frame it in a binary way is so CP can pretend that any success is somehow evidence that such obstacles must not exist.
You may pleasure yourself that this is a “scientific discussion” and you are publishing papers here, but I think that’s a stretch, unless you are building your resume citations posting here. 
The wordsmithing that goes on with this “exactly the same genes” nonsense plays the linguistic wordgame as follows in an effort to reassure the public human populations are all about the same.
Step 1:
“We all have exactly the same genes.”
Step 2:
“We do notice some variations in the genetic sequences; these typically arise as single nucleotide substitutions, which we call polymorphisms.”
Step 3:
“Most of the time these SNPs aren’t even in coding regions.”
Step 4:
“Some SNPs are related to disease states, and perhaps superficial appearances.”
The strategy here is to confuse the layman about genes, because there is a colloquial use–among both scientists and non-scientists–for “genes” as a general nickname for the general variations in our genetic makeup. By beginning with the phrase, “all humans have exactly the same genes,” a theme is set for egalitarianism by leverage the word we use for a genetic locus/inheritance unit into a setting where the colloquial use is inferred; “genes” being the little molecular doodads that drive differences among us.
But those differences are profound, and of course even an SNP can be lethal or hugely advantageous, which is how evolution works.
It’s worse that the reason we can talk about SNPs commonly associated with disease or appearance changes is that those are the two areas we tend to care about. So the further butchering of science by egalitarians is to also leave an inference that, since so far only disease and superficial appearance are the areas in which various polymorphisms have been emphasized in science, perhaps those are the only areas where evolution is at play.
This is patently ridiculous, of course. Mother nature has no idea which function she is piddling with and genetic polymorphisms are equally likely across every gene whether sub-saharan, Neandertal, Denisovan or any other gene. The upshot is that none of us have “exactly the same genes” in the context of talking about genetic differences.
The only sense is which we have “exactly the same genes” is if we are talking about a chromosomal location–and even there it’s still wrong, of course, if we are talking about out of africa v sub-saharan populations (and likely we will find other examples of disparate archaic line admixtures into anatomically modern humans).
What gets obfuscated with the “exactly the same genes” wordsmithing is the remarkable difference among populations. Science is not finding we have exactly the same anything. The literature is chock full of science marching in exactly the opposite direction.
Here is a very typical study looking at “the” gene SCN5A. For somewhat boring reasons, variations in this gene will kill you in the wrong circumstance. In this study, half of the variants were found only in the self-identified black cohort.
Two conclusions are easily reached:
- All SCN5A polymorphisms may be “exactly the same gene” if we are using the term to be a DNA locus, but they sure as hell are not exactly the same gene if we are using the term colloquially. In a conversation with the scientists involved in this study, it would be perfectly accepted to talk about the “bad SCN5A gene” some newly dead patient had.
- Self-identified groups, over and over and over again, have average differences in their genetic pools. It is a nearly universal finding when we study by self-identified groups; much more common than not.
“Exactly same genes,” or not.
Exactly the same genes. With different alleles.
Read the context of the original post that you objected to. I was discussing GWAS studies, and citing a peer reviewed research article (again, one that I was using to largely support much of what you are contending regarding the genetic reality of self identified race).
Even if I accept your “we shouldn’t appropriately use the term ‘gene’ in a colloquial setting” hypothesis, which I don’t, that was a scientific discussion and not bullshitting at a bar.
Fair enough. “Exactly the same genes,” the expression of which is radically different from gene to gene.
That’s why the use of the “exactly the same genes” term gets so confusing to the layman hearing it when the entire rest of the communication is in the context of the colloquial way the word “genes” is used. You’ll see Sarah Tishkoff and others use the same linguistic trick in presentations to mass audiences…before you get into the science of how different we all are, and how interesting it is to study the inter-population differences, you start with a slide that reminds everyone how similar we are based on “genes.” Only then can you ease into the science that shows population-level distances for diversity like the one show on page 1036 here.
“Exactly the same genes” is a completely irrelevant fine point using “gene” as a chromosomal location mixed up into a conversation about how genetic material is substantially different at both the individual and population level. Wordsmithing for the masses, when in a conversational setting.
But look up any article you like looking at gene allele frequency by self-identified race group and get back to me about which study found those genes ( )–oops; gene polymorphisms–were exactly alike and did not vary by self-identified race group.
I reiterate that even leaving its technical inaccuracy aside, it is highly disingenuous to use the phrase “exactly the same genes” because of how amorphous is the boundary between “gene” used as a locus for a unit of heredity and “gene” as genetic material in general.