< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The background knowledge for genetic racial intelligence differences

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17358
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 February 2019 09:25
 
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 08:19 AM

Anti-GMO campaigns:  GMO crops may not have been shown to harm humans who consume them, yet.  (Personally, I do not trust companies like Monsanto to keep us safe, based on their past record.)  But you are overlooking the environmental and economic dangers.  Plants can do funny things with reproduction.  Crop plants can cross with wild cousins, thereby spreading GMO’s beyond the controlled fields, with unknown repercussions.  Second, the more farmers around the world switch to GMO’s, the more that companies like Monsanto will control them and the less variety there will be in plantings.  (I can provide actual examples of this control, if you want.)  Currently, Peru grows 4000 varieties of potatoes; the US produces less than 1/20 of that number.  This leaves US agriculture much more vulnerable to devastation from crop diseases.  (The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of potatoes planted were of one variety.)

That is just fear and projection.

 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 09:28
 

Please don’t bark up the GMO tree in this thread! It is a great thread. I would not have brought up the topic of GMOs if I knew it would provoke disagreement among us (how naive).

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 February 2019 13:20
 

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 13:31
 
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
08 February 2019 14:30
 
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 08:47 AM
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 08:19 AM

I will address a several points in your last post:

The Red X:  You are disregarding the assumptions behind the big, simplistic Red X.  These include, how are “white” and “black” defined, and can they be segregated in any meaningful way?  Is IQ testing an accurate measure of genetic intelligence, or is it skewed toward certain types of culturally defined intelligence?  Are intelligence genes and whiteness or blackness genes linked?  How much of intelligence is nature, and how much is nurture?

Anti-GMO campaigns:  GMO crops may not have been shown to harm humans who consume them, yet.  (Personally, I do not trust companies like Monsanto to keep us safe, based on their past record.)  But you are overlooking the environmental and economic dangers.  Plants can do funny things with reproduction.  Crop plants can cross with wild cousins, thereby spreading GMO’s beyond the controlled fields, with unknown repercussions.  Second, the more farmers around the world switch to GMO’s, the more that companies like Monsanto will control them and the less variety there will be in plantings.  (I can provide actual examples of this control, if you want.)  Currently, Peru grows 4000 varieties of potatoes; the US produces less than 1/20 of that number.  This leaves US agriculture much more vulnerable to devastation from crop diseases.  (The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of potatoes planted were of one variety.)

You cling to the assumption that a genetic link will be proved.  Then you extrapolate all sorts of negative consequences of liberals not accepting the purported proof.  From my point of view, it appears that you are the one not accepting contrary evidence.  This notwithstanding that the terrible negative consequences of racial prejudice are abundant and very real.

The GMO debate is another important debate, and I don’t want to chase that red herring within this thread too much. I may start another thread on the topic at a later time.

The Red X is simple for sure, and the dogma is likewise simple. My argument assumes definitions of racial categories that are commonly accepted, accepted even by critical race theorists: self-identification. The critical race theorists don’t deny the existence of races, but merely their biology. They claim that races are social constructs, and, as social constructs, they give rise to vast inequalities we see in the world today. Is the fuzzy definition of each racial category a problem for their claims? No. But, it is somehow a problem for racial hereditarians, because they claim biology is involved in some of the differences among those social constructs? For sure, defining races as social constructs means that a few people (statistically, about 5 in 1000) classify themselves in a way at odds with biology: they have a racial self-identification at odds with how a geneticist would classify them. But, even if self-identification were biologically perfect, then the claims of racial hereditarianism would be about group averages and frequencies, not about individuals. The definitions of each race are really not the problem. It seems to be a popular ad hoc objection, applied selectively to deny claims at odds with the dogma. I will put your other objections to the side for now.

Self-identification is famously inaccurate (as we were reminded by Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee claim).  Many people miscategorize themselves.  Ask your friends who have tried 23-and-Me.  I have heard people say things like, “I’ve always thought I was northern European, but my results came back with 40% southern European.” 

Obviously, people who identify as “white” may have ancestors from numerous parts of the world, and the same for “blacks.”  People who look superficially “black” may have progenitors from one of the African nations, Southern Asia, Australia, S. America, or the Caribbean.  That’s why I keep repeating that the likelihood of characteristic genes for intelligence in common among all (or most) “black” people is a myth.  And the Red X chart is meaningless because it makes untenable assumptions about categories.  I don’t think this is dogma.  It’s science. 

By the way, the book The Bell Curve was written a decade before the human genome was sequenced and modern analysis of genomes could be carried out.

[ Edited: 08 February 2019 14:36 by hannahtoo]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 15:07
 
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 02:30 PM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 08:47 AM
hannahtoo - 08 February 2019 08:19 AM

I will address a several points in your last post:

The Red X:  You are disregarding the assumptions behind the big, simplistic Red X.  These include, how are “white” and “black” defined, and can they be segregated in any meaningful way?  Is IQ testing an accurate measure of genetic intelligence, or is it skewed toward certain types of culturally defined intelligence?  Are intelligence genes and whiteness or blackness genes linked?  How much of intelligence is nature, and how much is nurture?

Anti-GMO campaigns:  GMO crops may not have been shown to harm humans who consume them, yet.  (Personally, I do not trust companies like Monsanto to keep us safe, based on their past record.)  But you are overlooking the environmental and economic dangers.  Plants can do funny things with reproduction.  Crop plants can cross with wild cousins, thereby spreading GMO’s beyond the controlled fields, with unknown repercussions.  Second, the more farmers around the world switch to GMO’s, the more that companies like Monsanto will control them and the less variety there will be in plantings.  (I can provide actual examples of this control, if you want.)  Currently, Peru grows 4000 varieties of potatoes; the US produces less than 1/20 of that number.  This leaves US agriculture much more vulnerable to devastation from crop diseases.  (The Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the fact that the majority of potatoes planted were of one variety.)

You cling to the assumption that a genetic link will be proved.  Then you extrapolate all sorts of negative consequences of liberals not accepting the purported proof.  From my point of view, it appears that you are the one not accepting contrary evidence.  This notwithstanding that the terrible negative consequences of racial prejudice are abundant and very real.

The GMO debate is another important debate, and I don’t want to chase that red herring within this thread too much. I may start another thread on the topic at a later time.

The Red X is simple for sure, and the dogma is likewise simple. My argument assumes definitions of racial categories that are commonly accepted, accepted even by critical race theorists: self-identification. The critical race theorists don’t deny the existence of races, but merely their biology. They claim that races are social constructs, and, as social constructs, they give rise to vast inequalities we see in the world today. Is the fuzzy definition of each racial category a problem for their claims? No. But, it is somehow a problem for racial hereditarians, because they claim biology is involved in some of the differences among those social constructs? For sure, defining races as social constructs means that a few people (statistically, about 5 in 1000) classify themselves in a way at odds with biology: they have a racial self-identification at odds with how a geneticist would classify them. But, even if self-identification were biologically perfect, then the claims of racial hereditarianism would be about group averages and frequencies, not about individuals. The definitions of each race are really not the problem. It seems to be a popular ad hoc objection, applied selectively to deny claims at odds with the dogma. I will put your other objections to the side for now.

Self-identification is famously inaccurate (as we were reminded by the Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee claim).  Many people miscategorize themselves.  Ask your friends who have tried 23-and-Me.  I have heard people say things like, “I’ve always thought I was northern European, but my results came back with 40% southern European.” 

Obviously, people who identify as “white” may have ancestors from numerous parts of the world, and the same for “blacks.”  People who look superficially “black” may have progenitors from one of the African nations, Southern Asia, Australia, S. America, or the Caribbean.  That’s why I keep repeating that the likelihood of characteristic genes for intelligence in common among all (or most) “black” people is a myth.  And the Red X chart is meaningless because it makes untenable assumptions about categories.  I don’t think this is dogma.  It’s science.  And by the way, the book The Bell Curve was written a decade before the human genome was sequenced and modern comparisons of genomes could be carried out.

I think you are expressing a common intuition: that self-identifications of races tend to not line up with actual geographic ancestry. I see the belief reflected in the advertisements for genetic testing services: the actors proclaim surprise that their true ancestry is not what they had always believed. When I had a 23andMe test done years ago, I was surprised for the opposite reason. The results claimed that I had 100.0% European ancestry. I did not even know that was possible, because I was told that everyone is mixed. I expect that I must have some non-white ancestors somewhere in my family tree, but their alleles were almost completely wiped out in the subsequent white-only inbreeding.

Whatever the anecdotes, the data is at odds with the advertisements. Self-identification really does almost always line up with the actual facts of geographic ancestry. See the study of Hua Tang, et al., 2005, titled, “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies.” You can find the full text at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/. They claimed that, “Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.”

If we put a little thought into it, then we may understand why this high correspondence exists. People may have the wrong ideas about who their specific ancestors were, and maybe they make up stories, but they can’t make up believable stories about their own majority geographic ancestry at odds with reality, because the false ideas would be up against their own phenotypes. Even racial mixture is not as significant as you may expect. Let’s say a woman cheats on her husband, sleeps with a man with a different race, and she gives birth to mixed-race children. Those children have only 50% of the respective race, but the grandchildren have 75%, the great-grandchildren have 87%, and before long the foreign alleles become just a slim minority among thousands of other ancestors of the majority race.

We don’t even need such a high correspondence between self-identification and genetic identification for the racial hereditarian arguments to remain plausible prima facie. Instead of 99.86%, let’s say it is only 75% correspondence, or 60%, or 40%. Even with such low values, we would still have a large set of significant genotypic differences among those self-identified groups (including the obvious traits like skin color, not so obvious traits like lung size, and so on), and genotypic psychological differences are plausibly expected to be among them.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 February 2019 19:26
 
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 01:31 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

You racist opinion of what constitutes a good theory has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It certainly is an example of the influence of culture on a common genetic heritage.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
08 February 2019 19:40
 
burt - 08 February 2019 07:26 PM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 01:31 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

You racist opinion of what constitutes a good theory has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It certainly is an example of the influence of culture on a common genetic heritage.

The trouble with judging claims of objective reality on the basis of whether or not a claim is racist is that some of those claims are true. Objective reality is not affected by our moral judgments. Rushton’s theory was confirmed by the correlation of Templer and Arikawa, 2006. They found a correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among nations of the Old World of -0.92. Another possible explanation would be that they lied about the skin pigmentation data, and the “Cold Winters” theory of Richard Lynn explains the same data just as fittingly.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 February 2019 07:32
 
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 07:40 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 07:26 PM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 01:31 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

You racist opinion of what constitutes a good theory has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It certainly is an example of the influence of culture on a common genetic heritage.

The trouble with judging claims of objective reality on the basis of whether or not a claim is racist is that some of those claims are true. Objective reality is not affected by our moral judgments. Rushton’s theory was confirmed by the correlation of Templer and Arikawa, 2006. They found a correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among nations of the Old World of -0.92. Another possible explanation would be that they lied about the skin pigmentation data, and the “Cold Winters” theory of Richard Lynn explains the same data just as fittingly.

You have no objective reality to talk about and your rhetoric is getting stale. You are talking about the “reality” of results claimed in a paper that has been shown faulty (e.g., Hunt & Sternberg 2006) so the only “objective reality” you can claim is that a paper was published making claims that were shown to be faulty. But I imagine that you like Templer, here’s some thing of a bio for him, a darling of white nationalists and known as Dr. Prick: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Donald-Templer. Racism makes strange bedfellows.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 07:50
 
burt - 09 February 2019 07:32 AM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 07:40 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 07:26 PM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 01:31 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

You racist opinion of what constitutes a good theory has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It certainly is an example of the influence of culture on a common genetic heritage.

The trouble with judging claims of objective reality on the basis of whether or not a claim is racist is that some of those claims are true. Objective reality is not affected by our moral judgments. Rushton’s theory was confirmed by the correlation of Templer and Arikawa, 2006. They found a correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among nations of the Old World of -0.92. Another possible explanation would be that they lied about the skin pigmentation data, and the “Cold Winters” theory of Richard Lynn explains the same data just as fittingly.

You have no objective reality to talk about and your rhetoric is getting stale. You are talking about the “reality” of results claimed in a paper that has been shown faulty (e.g., Hunt & Sternberg 2006) so the only “objective reality” you can claim is that a paper was published making claims that were shown to be faulty. But I imagine that you like Templer, here’s some thing of a bio for him, a darling of white nationalists and known as Dr. Prick: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Donald-Templer. Racism makes strange bedfellows.

Hunt and Sternberg criticized the analysis, but the criticisms were seemingly weak, though not quite as weak as ridiculing a co-author’s other studies or ideological associations. Hunt and Sternberg did not effectively show the analysis to be faulty. What they really need to do is to repeat the study, preferably with an independently-observed data set of skin pigmentation and a broader geographic scope. At least someone needs to do it. I am not happy with a highly-influential correlation resting on only a single study.

[ Edited: 09 February 2019 07:55 by Abel Dean]
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
09 February 2019 08:04
 

Mr. Dean, you have motivated me to learn more about this controversy.  I spent quite awhile yesterday and this morning reading about genetics and race and intelligence.  I’ll admit, though I have a BA in biology, I wish I had a PhD while trying to decipher technical scientific articles, like the one you linked regarding self-identification of race.  I ploughed through it several times and also read a few related articles which supported or refuted the claims.  I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t have enough expertise to determine the validity of info at this level.  I can’t say whether methodology was adequate, or whether cluster analysis was the best way to make comparisons among groups, or whether a few hundred loci is a sufficient sample within a genome of 20,000 genes.  I know that Burt is a professor (in a math-related field, I believe).  I wonder what your background is?

You are correct that we are both starting from our core beliefs and looking for evidence to back us up.  Most probably, throughout the rest of our lifetimes, the question about a racial link to intelligence will continue to be a bone of contention.

So let’s take a different tack.  Would you be willing to answer these two questions?:
1.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks are less intelligent than whites, what would the future look like?
2.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks and whites are equally intelligent, what would the future look like?

BTW, here is an article, describing better than I ever could, the perspective I ascribe to regarding race and intelligence:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 February 2019 08:22
 
Abel Dean - 09 February 2019 07:50 AM
burt - 09 February 2019 07:32 AM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 07:40 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 07:26 PM
Abel Dean - 08 February 2019 01:31 PM
burt - 08 February 2019 01:20 PM

Life history strategies (from Pascal Boyer, Minds Make Societies, p.144:
1. fast strategy: early sexual maturity and activity, early pregnancy for women, a more acqisitive and aggressive style that may result in antisocial or criminal behavior.
2. slow strategy: high investment in the future, fewer offspring, more nurturing, emphasis on things like eduation.

“The childhood environment is particularly crucial in calibrating individual life strategies, as harsh and unpredictable conditions orient individuals toward a faster strategy [while] safe and stable environments seem to push people toward the slow end of the spectrum, with high investment in the future…”

Yes, I think that is a good general framework for understanding human inequality, both within and between races. Pascal Boyer understood it as cultural, and he borrowed the principle from evolutionary biology, where it is known as “r/K selection,” in which r is more quantity and less quality of offspring, and K is less quantity and more quality of offspring. JP Rushton’s central theory was to apply the biological pattern to explain differences between human races, and it seems to be a pretty good theory (not perfect), but it made a lot of people upset.

You racist opinion of what constitutes a good theory has no credibility as far as I am concerned. It certainly is an example of the influence of culture on a common genetic heritage.

The trouble with judging claims of objective reality on the basis of whether or not a claim is racist is that some of those claims are true. Objective reality is not affected by our moral judgments. Rushton’s theory was confirmed by the correlation of Templer and Arikawa, 2006. They found a correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among nations of the Old World of -0.92. Another possible explanation would be that they lied about the skin pigmentation data, and the “Cold Winters” theory of Richard Lynn explains the same data just as fittingly.

You have no objective reality to talk about and your rhetoric is getting stale. You are talking about the “reality” of results claimed in a paper that has been shown faulty (e.g., Hunt & Sternberg 2006) so the only “objective reality” you can claim is that a paper was published making claims that were shown to be faulty. But I imagine that you like Templer, here’s some thing of a bio for him, a darling of white nationalists and known as Dr. Prick: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Donald-Templer. Racism makes strange bedfellows.

Hunt and Sternberg criticized the analysis, but the criticisms were seemingly weak, though not quite as weak as ridiculing a co-author’s other studies or ideological associations. Hunt and Sternberg did not effectively show the analysis to be faulty. What they really need to do is to repeat the study, preferably with an independently-observed data set of skin pigmentation and a broader geographic scope. At least someone needs to do it. I am not happy with a highly-influential correlation resting on only a single study.

You have already admitted that you lack the background to judge such matters, so your comments on Hunt & Sternberg are nonsense unless you provide specific details with references to sources. Sorry, you fail. And your happiness or not has no relevance to this.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 February 2019 08:41
 
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 08:04 AM

Mr. Dean, you have motivated me to learn more about this controversy.  I spent quite awhile yesterday and this morning reading about genetics and race and intelligence.  I’ll admit, though I have a BA in biology, I wish I had a PhD while trying to decipher technical scientific articles, like the one you linked regarding self-identification of race.  I ploughed through it several times and also read a few related articles which supported or refuted the claims.  I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t have enough expertise to determine the validity of info at this level.  I can’t say whether methodology was adequate, or whether cluster analysis was the best way to make comparisons among groups, or whether a few hundred loci is a sufficient sample within a genome of 20,000 genes.  I know that Burt is a professor (in a math-related field, I believe).  I wonder what your background is?

You are correct that we are both starting from our core beliefs and looking for evidence to back us up.  Most probably, throughout the rest of our lifetimes, the question about a racial link to intelligence will continue to be a bone of contention.

So let’s take a different tack.  Would you be willing to answer these two questions?:
1.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks are less intelligent than whites, what would the future look like?
2.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks and whites are equally intelligent, what would the future look like?

BTW, here is an article, describing better than I ever could, the perspective I ascribe to regarding race and intelligence:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

Excellent article. I abstracted this link from it as having particular relevance: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/ What was quite interesting is how the white supremacy people of the alt right have tried to hijack and cherry pick current genetics to support their fantasies.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17358
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 February 2019 10:28
 
burt - 09 February 2019 08:41 AM
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 08:04 AM

Mr. Dean, you have motivated me to learn more about this controversy.  I spent quite awhile yesterday and this morning reading about genetics and race and intelligence.  I’ll admit, though I have a BA in biology, I wish I had a PhD while trying to decipher technical scientific articles, like the one you linked regarding self-identification of race.  I ploughed through it several times and also read a few related articles which supported or refuted the claims.  I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t have enough expertise to determine the validity of info at this level.  I can’t say whether methodology was adequate, or whether cluster analysis was the best way to make comparisons among groups, or whether a few hundred loci is a sufficient sample within a genome of 20,000 genes.  I know that Burt is a professor (in a math-related field, I believe).  I wonder what your background is?

You are correct that we are both starting from our core beliefs and looking for evidence to back us up.  Most probably, throughout the rest of our lifetimes, the question about a racial link to intelligence will continue to be a bone of contention.

So let’s take a different tack.  Would you be willing to answer these two questions?:
1.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks are less intelligent than whites, what would the future look like?
2.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks and whites are equally intelligent, what would the future look like?

BTW, here is an article, describing better than I ever could, the perspective I ascribe to regarding race and intelligence:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

Excellent article. I abstracted this link from it as having particular relevance: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/ What was quite interesting is how the white supremacy people of the alt right have tried to hijack and cherry pick current genetics to support their fantasies.

That they do is not a surprise, the surprise would be if they didn’t.

The first article, before it goes on a racism rant, says, yes, no, maybe, we don’t know yet on the science, which means the people here arguing about it can’t really know either. That is a surprise to me as my intuition and understanding was that genetics dictate, that no side in science (or this forum) have provided any definitive arguments for or against is surprising to me, I thought we knew a lot more.

The second article, before it goes on racism rant, says IQ is a helpful test but then undercuts it with environment. Yet that doesn’t change the actual group IQ data it just tries to change the cause from genetic to environmental. Nor does it show a base value vs environment i.e. if environment can raise IQ by 20 points but the base of two groups is 70 and 90 then there is still a 20 point delta between groups after factoring out environment. It also says that IQ is pretty much fixed by age 8, so collage or any other deep leaning is not the environmental factor, so what is?

   

 

 

[ Edited: 10 February 2019 12:17 by GAD]
 
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
09 February 2019 10:55
 
hannahtoo - 09 February 2019 08:04 AM

Mr. Dean, you have motivated me to learn more about this controversy.  I spent quite awhile yesterday and this morning reading about genetics and race and intelligence.  I’ll admit, though I have a BA in biology, I wish I had a PhD while trying to decipher technical scientific articles, like the one you linked regarding self-identification of race.  I ploughed through it several times and also read a few related articles which supported or refuted the claims.  I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t have enough expertise to determine the validity of info at this level.  I can’t say whether methodology was adequate, or whether cluster analysis was the best way to make comparisons among groups, or whether a few hundred loci is a sufficient sample within a genome of 20,000 genes.  I know that Burt is a professor (in a math-related field, I believe).  I wonder what your background is?

You are correct that we are both starting from our core beliefs and looking for evidence to back us up.  Most probably, throughout the rest of our lifetimes, the question about a racial link to intelligence will continue to be a bone of contention.

So let’s take a different tack.  Would you be willing to answer these two questions?:
1.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks are less intelligent than whites, what would the future look like?
2.  If everyone in the US were to agree that blacks and whites are equally intelligent, what would the future look like?

BTW, here is an article, describing better than I ever could, the perspective I ascribe to regarding race and intelligence:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

I have even fewer relevant academic credentials than you have. I have a Master’s degree, but it is in a field completely unrelated to the issues of human biological/racial differences. So, nothing I say should be believed based on my authority. And that should be a guideline with respect to anyone who talks confidently about these issues, authorities or not, as falsehoods pronounced by the scientific authorities are demonstrably the rule, not the exceptions.

I took a look at the Harvard blog post you linked to. The author wrote:

“Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).”

Within that statement she provided a link to a pop science article, which claimed:

“In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson… and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.

And, to the credit of Megan Gannon of Scienitific American, within that statement she provided a link to the original scientific article (Ahn et al. 2009 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2752128/). Not so much to her credit, the article does not back her claim. The greater number of shared SNPs between Watson and Kim and between Venter and Kim than between Watson and Venter is presented as an argument by Ahn et al. that the standard reference genome was incomplete (the reference genome is Caucasian, not Asian). That was a stated central purpose of the study. The numbers out of this context would be misleading. Ahn et al. wrote:

“Of note is that all pairwise comparisons between genomes are relative to the NCBI reference genome. This may partially explain why HuRef [Venter’s genome] and Watson, which are Caucasian as the NCBI reference, have lower levels (86.2% and 87.8%) of common indels [insertion/deletion SNPs] against SJK [Korean man’s genome].”

To enhance their argument, Ahn et al. contrasted those numbers with an “autosomal phylogenetic tree,” which they constructed using a statistical software tool designed to estimate evolutionary distances, without the biased NCBI reference genome. Look at Ahn et al.‘s Figure 4. Watson and Venter are on one side of that tree, and Kim is on the other side of it, next to other Koreans and next to Chinese, as you would reasonably expect from your own common sense. The anti-racist activist of Harvard laments needing to swim against the tide of common sense: “...the broader public is not convinced of this.” This dismay is typical among them.

Common sense is not always correct, but the actual established science is even more to the disadvantage of the Harvard blogger. If her claim (“that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other”) were true, then it would be a near-miracle, as it would be at odds with a fundamental rule of population genetics (genetic similarity among populations is largely a function of geographic distance). The race of northeast Asians diverged from the race of Europeans tens of thousands of years ago, separated by thousands of miles, with almost no admixture for hundreds of generations.

Both the Harvard blog and Scientific American mauled the actual science to promote scientific illiteracy. Why? An ideology. Both of their articles are openly swimming in it. They believe that their own take on the science is a solution to “all manner of discriminations and atrocities,” “obvious social and historical repercussions,” and “racist beliefs.” They may be partially correct on that point. Their wrong science may actually save lives, supposing that they convince EVERYONE with their wrong science, and supposing that white nationalists would otherwise use the correct science as a political basis to launch genocides. But, the likely reality is that such false claims can have only a temporary effect. The correct science including the worst probable realities of it are on course to be proved correct beyond reasonable doubt within one generation. In the meantime, neither the Harvard blogger nor Scientific American are fooling white nationalists. They are only fooling the people who most need to know the scientific truths and are least likely to politically misuse them: people like you.

So, I will now answer your two questions. I think hypothetical #2 is almost already the status quo, so there would not be much social difference, except for maybe an enhanced conspiratorial thinking against the white race. Supposing hypothetical #1, then white nationalism would be an open part of the platform of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party would oppose them not by denying the science but instead emphasizing the scientific truths in their favor (i.e. the variation within each race, the continuum between each race, the limited relevance of intelligence, the pliability of genetics and genetic expressions, and so on). I fear that the more probable future is that liberals will instead fight with a deranged anti-scientific conspiracy, effectively crippling their own political power.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›