Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 08-29-2002, 08:10 PM

To summarize the subject of “racism” up until now

Luvluv posited as part of her opening post that racism could be logically justified based on genetics. [It was a side issue on her main theme regarding absolute morality]

Quote:

per luvluv:
If morals are subjective, and evolution is true, why couldn't white supremacy be true? It's clear that whites are more succesful than some of the other races. From a naturalistic, evolutionary standpoint, we have no reason to believe that one race, or population group, could not have evolved superior mental capacity over another given the presence of the right selective pressures. Is their a naturalistic reason why white supremacy is wrong? Even if the case is not true at this time, or even if it were not true of whites (maybe asians are superior) why could there not be a race that, intellectually at least, was genuinely superior to other races?

My response was to demonstrate that statistics do not prove a mental superiority of one race over another regardless.

Quote:

… group averages say nothing about the individual. Because all the studies on genetics show there is so much variation in all groups -- that there will be a large number of [individuals performing above their group average], no matter what the averages show [for their racial group as a whole.]
That is why racism [based on race group identification] is ridiculous.

Ecidna went off orbit here to tackle some completely different issues. He responded that statistical studies based on race had value – even though race is “an arbitrary construct” and there is “no single scientific definition for race”.

Quote:

per echidna
Of course race is an arbitrary construct as you say, and yes there is no single scientific definition of race. Nonetheless there are obvious physical differences between groups from different heritages. Do you need evidence to demonstrate the minor genetic groupings necessary to create these grouped physical differences ?

Examples given by Echidna of physical differences were based on skin color, hair color, and bone structure. Never does Echidna give examples of EXACTLY WHAT VALUE one might obtain by grouping individuals together in racial categories for statistical studies.

More important: Echidna never attempts to directly tie in his points with Luvluv’s challenge correlating racial heritage with IQ. Instead, Echidna implies at one point this is not what he is after by categorizing races:

Quote:

I assert there are genetic differences which create black or white skin. I do not assert that then these genes are also linked with neurological characteristics at all.

( Nice euphemism for IQ – “neurological characteristics” by the way. Guess this would exclude tracking of race with mental illnesses as well?? Although I don’t know why one should stop here….)

I gave examples demonstrating there are no clear demarcations for race. A person might have inherited skin color/hair etc from multiple racial heritages. And this might have even gone back thousands of years to an intermarriage between groups that created a “mix” in genes that has been inherited over the generations. If more than one skin color is inherited, I demonstrated how it can be random as to which “characteristic” of race switches on around the time of birth. This is what happened in the case of the two identical twins – one born black, the other white.

(Echidna seems to know much of this first hand – he is of mixed racial heritage himself. Still he doesn’t tie this in for us.)

I then pointed out how I have read that scientists state it is impossible to tell race based only on looking at the human genome. Here’s one reference:

NPR Morning Edition: Race can't be defined in terms of genes...NPR's Richard Harris visits Genaissance, a company that's cataloging genetic differences among people from around the world. (Aug. 30, 2001)

<a href="http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/minorities.html" target="_blank">http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/minorities.html</a>

Echidna went ballistic when I went in this direction. But no links, no details.

Of course I never stated there was NO value in studying genetics – only that it was not 100%. Again that was RELEVENT BECAUSE OF THE FRAMEWORK I WAS PRESENTING THIS IN: ie, "IS WHITE SUPERIORITY or RACISM JUSTIFIED?".

The BEST scientific application of race is in correlating racial populations with genetic diseases and medicines. However, my SCIENTIFIC readings in this area have indicated there is, generally speaking, only about a 30-40% correlation for any race regarding response to medications. This is more evidence there is no clear marker for race.

Based on the above, I would argue that correlating race with IQ is non-existent. Echidna twists this to state I believe race is 100% “non-existent”, going on a rant:

Quote:

To dismiss race as non-existent because it’s not 100% precise is utterly ridiculous. I’m a half-breed between 2 major groups so of course my genes will be a little mixed. Further, DNA reproduction is not an exact process and exceptions occur.
There are statistical markers. You found an exception. Whoopee.

Again, to summarize:

Echidna has never told us what statistical value he sees placing people in racial groups for analysis:

(1) What characteristics (if not IQ) does he wish to correlate with skin color? Is hair color and bone structure as important as skin color? Maybe his “etc, etc, etc category is where all the action is???

(2) How does Echidna propose we distinguish between those who purposely try to twist/distort the simplistic correlations between race and IQ for their own ideological (non scientific) purposes? I think Luvluv was trying to use this argument to prove she had a moral system based on religion, while others really like to see their race as superior.

(3) Why doesn’t Echidna DIRECTLY address Luvluv’s original theme of correlating race with superiority ( as opposed to dropping an indirect line re: “neurological characteristics&#8221

Maybe other posters can help me out. Is Echidna just out to make noise, hoping it will distract everyone from the original premise??? Is this to distract from the religious angle of luvluv's original post?

I’m afraid I see this a lot: When people have run out of LOGICAL responses, They switch to rants/personal attacks hoping it will serve as a smoke screen.

Sojourner

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

echidna · 08-29-2002, 09:11 PM

This is all quite amazing coming from someone who suspects that Asians are on average more intelligent than blacks.

echidna · 08-29-2002, 10:20 PM

Maybe this summarises some of the reasons it is Politically Incorrect anathema to claim that race exists. Thanks for the link, I�d only bothered to look up the American Anthropological one, anyway �

<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/olson-p1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/olson-p1.htm</a>

Quote:

In 1991 Cavalli-Sforza and a group of colleagues proposed a comprehensive study of human genetic differences, which they called the Human Genome Diversity Project. The study would involve gathering cells from several thousand people around the world, "immortalizing" the cells by converting them into laboratory cell lines, and using the cells' DNA to reconstruct human evolution and history. For Cavalli-Sforza, the Human Genome Diversity Project was to be the culmination of a lifetime of work.

The proposal loosed a flood of controversy. Aboriginal groups in the United States, New Guinea, and other countries accused the HGDP of stealing their genes, destroying their culture, and even contributing to genocide. Academic critics claimed that the project could encourage racist thinking, by oversimplifying issues of great complexity. "The idea of studying human genetic diversity is a good one," says one outspoken critic, Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "But the way that Cavalli-Sforza has conceptualized it has problems at all levels."

Cavalli-Sforza has been baffled by the reaction to his proposal. He has always believed that the HGDP will help to end racism, not inflame it. In the 1970s he participated in public debates with the Stanford physicist William Shockley to dispute Shockley's racist ideas. He has worked closely with various African groups and cares deeply about their well-being. He protests that his intentions have always been purely scientific.

For almost a decade Cavalli-Sforza has been trapped in the paradox at the heart of human genetics: The only way to understand how similar we are is to learn how we differ. Yet any study of human differences seems to play into the hands of those who would accentuate those differences. Researchers might claim that the genetic differences they identify among groups have no biological significance. Yet simply by dividing human beings into categories�whether sub-Saharan Africans, Jews, Germans, or Australian aborigines�they reinforce the distinctions they would seek to minimize. How to resolve this dilemma is quickly becoming one of the most difficult problems facing the study of human genetics.

Let�s just say that once more �

Quote:

The only way to understand how similar we are is to learn how we differ.

But as for people who draw on pseudoscience to claim that IQ tests show that blacks are on average less intelligent than whites, well now maybe that�s the racism which Cavalli-Sforza had hoped he would kill off. Sadly in your case, not yet it seems.

echidna · 08-29-2002, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
f one chooses "color of skin" as a marker for race, then it is true that an IQ test for a group of blacks, whites, and say Asians will each have their own distribution curve and mean.

I suspect Asians "might" measure a slightly higher average than whites, and whites possibly a slightly higher average than blacks. Men would probably have a slightly higher average than woman. (Some or all of this might be influenced by the culture the test was written in as well.)

That said, I think it very likely that the smartest INDIVIDUAL on earth is a black female!

You see, group averages say nothing about the individual. Because all the studies on genetics show there is so much variation in all groups -- that there will be a large number of smart women and blacks, no matter what the averages show based on large numbers.

That is why racism is ridiculous.

You argue against racism from a convoluted, racist and false perspective.

You don�t seem to acknowledge that in terms of group population behaviour, genetics and environment are extremely difficult to separate as influences. Your parenthesed "(Some or all of this might be influenced by the culture the test was written in as well.)" is entirely the reason why these tests have been voided, not your subsequent paragraph which you offer as the main reason, and which most people who you succeed in marginalising, should find patronising.

So when you claim that statistical averages of behaviour characteristics between people who are physically different, can be statistically linked back to those physical differences, I�d wanna see evidence which hasn�t already been loudly discredited.

Whatever luvluv�s initial post, I think it�s an extremely important issue which needs correction.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

echidna · 08-30-2002, 01:24 AM

At least you�ve gone from �no marker� to �no clear marker�. Glad you�ve grasped that important difference.

Now, here�s more good stuff from your site.

<a href="http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010129.htm" target="_blank">http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010129.htm</a>

Quote:

Not to explore genetic differences and genes responsible for certain diseases that afflict different ethnic grips, is, as London Times journalist Anjana Ahuja writes, "to leave ethnic groups in the grip of disease for the sake of political correctness."

Entine, author of Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, makes a similar point. "Although we share a common humanity, we are different in critical ways such as our genetic susceptibility to diseases," he says. "For instance, blacks are genetically predisposed to contracting colo-rectal cancer; Eurasian whites are genetically prone to multiple sclerosis -- and Asians are by and large victims of neither. The problem with Clinton's pandering to political correctness is that it threatens confidence in the life-saving aspects of the genetic revolution."

Now I�d add another more personal reason we shouldn�t ignore race. I�m quite comfortable with my heritage, as are most people. I am also painfully aware of the wrongness of racism. And yet Political Correctness would almost have us believe that race doesn�t exist. We are conditioned to treat race as a taboo subject. But sweeping the issue under the carpet does nothing to address underlying racial bigotry.

Who are we trying to kid by saying that race doesn�t exist ? When science claims no single race gene, it�s a clumsy red herring. Of course there�s not since (as has been said countless times) it is an arbitrary construct. But pick a specific definition & set of markers, & you can find a group of genes which can statistically group together people with similar geographical appearances (if the set of markers is appropriate).

My Chinese mother was quite culturally English IMO, and yet my Australian father was quite Chinese in many ways. On the telephone, Chinese people used to tell me they couldn�t tell they were speaking to an Australian, and at the same time after speaking on the telephone, some are surprised when they find my mother is Chinese.

Hey, let�s talk about our differences, because that�s the way we can show which ones are real and which ones are imagined.

echidna · 08-30-2002, 01:26 AM

Another good piece from your link:

<a href="http://www.africana.com/Utilities/Content.html?&../cgi-bin/banner.pl?banner=Blackworld&../DailyArticles/index_20010927.htm" target="_blank">http://www.africana.com/Utilities/Content.html?&../cgi-bin/banner.pl?ban ner=Blackworld&../DailyArticles/index_20010927.htm</a>

Quote:

Why? Because of the lack of genetic and �racial� diversity in those 64 lines, most of them harvested from embryos at fertility clinics in the US, Sweden and Israel, where the clinic populations consist overwhelmingly of white couples. Based on discussions with the 10 laboratories with approved cell lines, it appears that as many as 49 of the lines are from whites, while roughly 15 of the remaining lines, harvested at clinics in Singapore and India, are of South and East Asian parentage. None are from blacks or many other minorities.

The unintended consequences could be far-reaching. Even if all of these stem cell lines are shown to be viable for research, that's a very narrow segment of the world's population and a tiny fraction of what is necessary to ensure genetic diversity in therapies eventually developed from the cells. In the past few years, and most dramatically in the past six months, medical geneticists have presented massive evidence isolating dozens of diseases specific to one population or another, such as sub-Saharan Africans, European-descended Jews, northern European Caucasians, and East Asians. Moreover, pharmogeneticists have discovered that many cures are more likely to benefit specific populations, ethnic groups, and races over others as a result of patterned genetic differences that effect physiological responses to drugs.

Note the problems of using stem cells from only white or south-east asian populations, is that only a �narrow segment of the world's population and a tiny fraction of what is necessary to ensure genetic diversity� is used to create drug therapies.

Hardly compatible with a world where there are no generalised genetic differences related to heritage.

Anyway, I'm off for the weekend, cheers.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

Sojourner553 · 08-30-2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
This is all quite amazing coming from someone who suspects that Asians are on average more intelligent than blacks.

Why feign surprise?? It's common knowledge that Asians score the highest on IQ tests and blacks the lowest. I noted in the same post that some of this might be due to culture.

That's why I used the term "suspect". That is, I maintain some "skeptism" as to the meaning of the results, even though I have heard that Asians score highest, etc on intelligence tests.

I am also aware that those groups that perform best on tests (and also have a disproportionately high number of professionals for their number) also equate to those cultures that emphasize learning and studying. I am very aware from personal experience and my readings that Asians strongly emphasize learning and education, requiring their children to go through long homework periods even at a young age. A Chinese friend of my son was grounded by his parents if he did not maintain straight A's in school. There were extra tutorial lessons, etc, etc. Jews also emphasize learning and education. In high school my best friend was Jewish. I was amazed when I hung around Jews at the strong compliments and encouragement given for reading and creative ideas. When I hung around my black friends, I saw more put downs.

**********************************************

My post stated that RACISM was ridiculous. My major issue with you is that you keep trying to EQUATE this to meaning that all grouping by race is ridiculous.

The two statements are NOT equivalent!

My support for why racism was ridiculous was to emphasize the variation among individuals in any racial group -- from intermarriage, natural variation, etc.

You keep trying to twist this to mean that I don't recognize that there are not characteristics of race that are meaningful (although not determinate) in the analysis of medical studies.

Reread over my posts and you might catch this.
You might find we are not really so different.

At first I thought your posts were in support of Luvluv's proposition that racism WAS justified by grouping the races. It was only later after an indirect reference (re: neurological characteristics) that I began to suspect this was not your position--However my earlier responses to you assumed this was YOUR position. And that was why I was framing my responses to discuss individual variation WITHIN racial groups.

Sojourner

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

beausoleil · 08-31-2002, 10:09 AM

It's clearly important to study a diverse sample of genetic makeups when developing a therapy. Since different genetic makeups are distributed differently, it is harder to do this by sampling just one population (say, european caucasians) since statisitically there are some gene combinations they are unlikely to have. By usng a wide sample and correlating results with genetic makeup you might develop different treatments for different gene combinations.

When it comes to treating an individual, however, you wouldn't simply look at them, assign them a race, then use the appropriate treatment. You'd need to test what their genetic makeup was.

Turning to intelligence, to define a 'race' you need to use multiple characteristics (someone said). You might then attempt to link the variation in one further supposed property (performance in IQ tests) with the catergories into which you've slotted people based on multiple characteristic results. This seems to me to be flawed methodology. First seek correlations among IQ performance and any one of the supposed multiple characteristics, or some linear combination of each. Then see how the optimum linear combination compares to the preconceived notion about what's important in selecting a race.

After all, what is it that makes skin colour, nose shape, hair-straightness or whatever the important characteristics and not, say, toe nail colour, finger shape and baldness pattern?

Sojourner553 · 09-01-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by beausoleil:


After all, what is it that makes skin colour, nose shape, hair-straightness or whatever the important characteristics and not, say, toe nail colour, finger shape and baldness pattern?

I don't disagree with your scientific reasoning. Just a couple of comments to it:

The vast majority of the interest in correlating "race" or "racial characteristic" to intelligence has historically been IDEOLOGICAL as opposed to SCIENTIFIC in purpose (Have you ever read about the study of Broca's measurements of brains analyzed by Stephen Jay Gould?]

The second point, is that the correlation coefficient is not high in comparing "racial characteristics" with intelligence -- meaning individual variation from the group mean is significant. Such correlations can be "meaningful" for a study on medicene (ie where even a correlation of 30% can be significant from a standpoint of evaluating treatments). However one would have to see correlations closer to 90 to 100% for this to be "highly significant" to warrant placing a label [such as level of intelligence] on any group.

This was where I had a major issue with Luvluv on the racial issue.

No one seemed to take issue when I addressed morality not being absolute -- ie the religious angle of Luvluv's post...

At the time, I had thought I was being FAR more controversial there than on race.

Sojourner

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

echidna · 09-01-2002, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:
Why feign surprise?? It's common knowledge that Asians score the highest on IQ tests and blacks the lowest. I noted in the same post that some of this might be due to culture.

That's why I used the term "suspect". That is, I maintain some "skeptism" as to the meaning of the results, even though I have heard that Asians score highest, etc on intelligence tests.

I am also aware that those groups that perform best on tests (and also have a disproportionately high number of professionals for their number) also equate to those cultures that emphasize learning and studying. I am very aware from personal experience and my readings that Asians strongly emphasize learning and education, requiring their children to go through long homework periods even at a young age. A Chinese friend of my son was grounded by his parents if he did not maintain straight A's in school. There were extra tutorial lessons, etc, etc. Jews also emphasize learning and education. In high school my best friend was Jewish. I was amazed when I hung around Jews at the strong compliments and encouragement given for reading and creative ideas. When I hung around my black friends, I saw more put downs.

A word of warning, clumsy analysis of these tests is exactly the reasoning which has been used by every eugenicist from Baptists through to Nazis. As with a phenomenal amount of statistical analysis, stating that Asians perform better in IQ tests only tells a half-truth, and as in this case, every bit as destructive as a lie.

Correlation does not prove causality.

The entire truth is : Asians brought up with Asian cultural influences, perform better in IQ tests than blacks brought up with black cultural influences.

Focussing only on race is the simple shortcut, and wrong. While you acknowledge the possibility, you still seem somewhat reserved.

Yet again from your site :

<a href="http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010129.htm" target="_blank">http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010129.htm</a>

Quote:

In fact, recent research has actually debunked theories of a genetic racial hierarchy. In one study, James Flynn of the University of Otago in New Zealand forcefully exposed The Bell Curve's shoddy reasoning, arguing that the IQ scores of today are significantly higher than those of previous generations and that IQ test scores are influenced by environment as much as any genetic factor. "An environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap need only posit this: that the average environment for blacks in 1995 matched the quality of the average environment for whites in 1945. I don't find that implausible," Flynn says. According to his findings, when other measures of intelligence are taken into consideration, results are spread out more evenly across ethnic groups, suggesting that there is a cultural bias in IQ tests that works against certain ethnic groups.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2002, 09:11 PM	#62
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	This is all quite amazing coming from someone who suspects that Asians are on average more intelligent than blacks.

08-31-2002, 10:09 AM	#68
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	It's clearly important to study a diverse sample of genetic makeups when developing a therapy. Since different genetic makeups are distributed differently, it is harder to do this by sampling just one population (say, european caucasians) since statisitically there are some gene combinations they are unlikely to have. By usng a wide sample and correlating results with genetic makeup you might develop different treatments for different gene combinations. When it comes to treating an individual, however, you wouldn't simply look at them, assign them a race, then use the appropriate treatment. You'd need to test what their genetic makeup was. Turning to intelligence, to define a 'race' you need to use multiple characteristics (someone said). You might then attempt to link the variation in one further supposed property (performance in IQ tests) with the catergories into which you've slotted people based on multiple characteristic results. This seems to me to be flawed methodology. First seek correlations among IQ performance and any one of the supposed multiple characteristics, or some linear combination of each. Then see how the optimum linear combination compares to the preconceived notion about what's important in selecting a race. After all, what is it that makes skin colour, nose shape, hair-straightness or whatever the important characteristics and not, say, toe nail colour, finger shape and baldness pattern?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.