The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

[death metal black metal]

The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department and sheriff’s departments soon began a massive search. Based on an FBI profile and a confident eyewitness, the Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force futilely upended South Louisiana in search of a young white man who drove a white pick-up truck. They interrogated possible suspects, knocked on hundreds of doors, held frequent press conferences and sorted through thousands of tips.

In late December, after a fourth murder, police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men. Authorities spent months and more than a million dollars running those samples against the killer’s. Still nothing.

In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer’s race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.

“Your guy has substantial African ancestry,” said Frudakis. “He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all.”

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

“This means we’re going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction,” Frudakis recalls someone saying. “Are you comfortable with that?”

“Yes. I recommend you do that,” he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis’ advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint

Holy s**t! I thought race was a social construct!!!1!

 

[Justin S.]

How is this news to anybody who isn't comatose, let alone exposed to something like grade school biology?

How else would one be what they are, or speak of any lineage whatsoever, if not due to genetics? Magic? Roll of the dice?

When people say "race is a social construct" they do not mean that there is no genetic difference, or even regionally specific ethnicities and/or genotypes and phenotypes; they mean the non-empirical ideas usually found in the concept "race"--a concept which is an idealized generalization, not an actuality.

 

[OldScratch]

When people say "race is a social construct" they do not mean that there is no genetic difference, or even regionally specific ethnicities and/or genotypes and phenotypes; they mean the non-empirical ideas usually found in the concept "race"--a concept which is an idealized generalization, not an actuality.

Perhaps. But we may be able to move beyond some of those generalizations into more scientifically-based categorization, were there not such intense pressure to deny the realities of racial differences that may be rather inconvenient and out-of-step with out modern egalitarian idealism.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Honestly, I'm surprised it took them that long to get a professional analysis. I'd trust physical and biological evidence over an eye witness any day.

 

[death metal black metal]

When people say "race is a social construct" they do not mean that there is no genetic difference, or even regionally specific ethnicities and/or genotypes and phenotypes; they mean the non-empirical ideas usually found in the concept "race"--a concept which is an idealized generalization, not an actuality.

They don't draw those distinctions.

They do not understand that many of those ideas found in the concept "race" correlate to genetically-determined behaviors, much as our social constructs about intelligence differentiate between retards and geniuses.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

They don't draw those distinctions.

They do not understand that many of those ideas found in the concept "race" correlate to genetically-determined behaviors, much as our social constructs about intelligence differentiate between retards and geniuses.

Out of all the research I've seen about racial differentiation, I've never seen anything indicating a biological correlation between race and behavior. Does behavior have at least some genetic basis? Absolutely. Is it correlated with race? Not according to any of the research I've seen.

 

[JColtrane]

what does this have to do with philosophy?

 

[Scourge of God]

When people say "race is a social construct" they do not mean that there is no genetic difference, or even regionally specific ethnicities and/or genotypes and phenotypes; they mean the non-empirical ideas usually found in the concept "race"--a concept which is an idealized generalization, not an actuality.

All concepts are idealized generalizations - they're symbols, duh.

In any event, that's not the distinction being drawn by the race-as-social-construct crowd. The language the opponents of race isn't about the distinction between the 'empirical' biological 'actuality' of race and the supposedly 'non-empirical' connotations of race in cultural discourse, but rather with denying that there is any biological 'actuality' that correlates to the concept of race at all. This is clearly a politically motivated error, at best, though perhaps something a tad bit more sinister...

A lie, if you will.

 

[Justin S.]

All concepts are idealized generalizations - they're symbols, duh.

The issue here is not the essence of concepts and "symbols" as such, but what the ones under discussion signify...duh.

In any event, that's not the distinction being drawn by the race-as-social-construct crowd. The language the opponents of race isn't about the distinction between the 'empirical' biological 'actuality' of race and the supposedly 'non-empirical' connotations of race in cultural discourse, but rather with denying that there is any biological 'actuality' that correlates to the concept of race at all. This is clearly a politically motivated error, at best, though perhaps something a tad bit more sinister...

A lie, if you will.

The academic works I have been exposed to on race theory are primarily dealing with the distinctions I mentioned. I don't know what "crowd" you are or Old Scratch or DMBM are referring too, but they are probably not worth responding to. I don't understand the motivations for this thread, or what it is attempting to address other than one flavor of omnipresent idiocy. Good luck wailing away at that...

Also, it would help if those who think race actually denotes something to describe what they mean by it. It certainly comes loaded, and it is important to distinguish it with respect to its historical context and usage.

Frankly I don't find "race", as commonly used, to have much illuminative or explanatory power at all, nor is it clear what it is even supposed to correspond to.

 

[Justin S.]

what does this have to do with philosophy?

Since when do we do philosophy around here?

 

[death metal black metal]

Out of all the research I've seen about racial differentiation, I've never seen anything indicating a biological correlation between race and behavior. Does behavior have at least some genetic basis? Absolutely. Is it correlated with race? Not according to any of the research I've seen.

If race is genetic, and behavior is genetic, absolutely there's a correlation.

I would argue that correlation also exists within races between different clines of intelligence. Those who are under 85 tend to behave a certain way as distinct from those over 105, and so on.

 

[death metal black metal]

Frankly I don't find "race", as commonly used, to have much illuminative or explanatory power at all, nor is it clear what it is even supposed to correspond to.

As it is commonly used it is misunderstood, in part because the word means both root racial group AND ethnicity.

 

[JColtrane]

Since when do we do philosophy around here?

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

The way that article is written... gosh it's terrible. It's like a story. So I can't trust it. It seems like blatant propaganda.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

If race is genetic, and behavior is genetic, absolutely there's a correlation.

I would argue that correlation also exists within races between different clines of intelligence. Those who are under 85 tend to behave a certain way as distinct from those over 105, and so on.

Yes, they are both genetic, but as far as I know, most anthropologists are convinced that our intelligence is a characteristic that existed in our evolutionary history prior to the geographic isolation that allowed racial differentiation to occur. Just because many races are different in some ways, such as facial characteristics, body mass, skin tone, etc., you can't just assume that differences exist in other parts of our genome as well without at least testing the hypothesis, or presenting some sort of previous research on the topic. I won't deny that there could be a correlation between general IQ and race, but I've never seen or heard of any reputable research in that field, and it would be quite difficult to isolate confounding variables, such as culture, that might have a significant impact on the data.

 

[OldScratch]

I won't deny that there could be a correlation between general IQ and race, but I've never seen or heard of any reputable research in that field, and it would be quite difficult to isolate confounding variables, such as culture, that might have a significant impact on the data.

I suppose we could argue here all day about what is "reputable" or not, but volumes of research in this area are readily available. But that too has been argued here at great length in the past and we can all provide examples and, no doubt just as many refutations, until the proverbial cows come home.

Rather than go down that road, I would pose the question this way: If there is in fact not a correlation between IQ and race, what exactly explains the persistent "gaps" between racial-types in a variety of critical areas from acedemic achievement to cognitive skills to behavioral issues and social issues such as criminal predilection, aggeression?
Citing cultural differences is nothing but a canard, and probably the oldest and most tedious riff in this argument. Japanese and Norwegians have cultural differences galore, yet display no significant differences in measured intellectual capacity. Similarly, the old stand-by of blaming "poverty" falls flat under examination as well.
In America Black children who come from suburban to upper class homes, and are ensconced in the very same culture as their wealthier White or Asian peers, do not achieve significantly higher results acedemically than their impoverished urban brethren. Conversely, poorer White and Asian children do indeed score much higher than even those wealthy Black children. All this is the bane of the modern acedemic establishment, who dutifully twist themselves into knots, to avoid even having to consider that there are, or even could be difference in intelligence - at least insofar as we measure and determine intellect to exist - between racial-types.

We must remember - "different" does not necessarily denote inferiority as some insist - but heritable differences in critical areas do go a long way toward explaining what nothing else, but for so much hand-wringing and other abstract nonsense, presently does.

I suggest that the "confounding variables" mentioned above are nothing more than excuses. IQ testing and similar measuring of intellectual capacity has taken all this into account.
No expense or effort has been spared to expunge the alleged cultural and economic biases in tests, etc. The results remain largely, if even entirely unchanged for decades and across continents.

 

[kmik]

Ive always been thinking... Race exists, Africans have an average of 60 IQ, whatever. Why does it matter? Diversity in groups is far greater than between them... So even if one group is like this and one like that every individual should be judged individually

 

[Justin S.]

We must remember - "different" does not necessarily denote inferiority as some insist - but heritable differences in critical areas do go a long way toward explaining what nothing else, but for so much hand-wringing and other abstract nonsense, presently does.

I suggest that the "confounding variables" mentioned above are nothing more than excuses. IQ testing and similar measuring of intellectual capacity has taken all this into account.
No expense or effort has been spared to expunge the alleged cultural and economic biases in tests, etc. The results remain largely, if even entirely unchanged for decades and across continents.

Scientism is a very distasteful thing and, ironically, it's just bad metaphysics. For all its huff and puff about its sober focus on the hard kernel of "reality" and its banishment of "abstract nonsense", it remains the most nebulous and muddleheaded of them all. It's almost comical how this way of thinking utterly fails to grasp the horizon or conditions of possible experience, tying itself in knots in the attempt to attain a perspective-less perspective ("expunging biases" to behold the really real ).

And, if IQ is such an accurate sage of the positive correlations of intelligence (as it "understands" it) and socio-economics (i.e., job performance, income, class, health, number of children, propensity towards violence) then... My friends! We have little to fret about! -(Aside from the meddling "modern academic establishment")- The stratification within our system (nay, within any human system whatsoever) is primarily due to the necessary expression of the bell curve of IQ distribution (Look at the data!). Nothing can be done for those that can only recall and manipulate minuscule number sequences, they are biologically (heritably and racially) unfit for the intellectual demands of Microsoft Office 2007. Clearly, a little eugenics weight-loss program is in order (say, a threshold of 120 IQ) and then we can build the crystal palace, read the Great Works of the Great Men, and consummate the Holy Ge-stell!

 

[OldScratch]

Scientism is a very distasteful thing and, ironically, it's just bad metaphysics. For all its huff and puff about its sober focus on the hard kernel of "reality" and its banishment of "abstract nonsense", it remains the most nebulous and muddleheaded of them all. It's almost comical how this way of thinking utterly fails to grasp the horizon or conditions of possible experience, tying itself in knots in the attempt to attain a perspective-less perspective ("expunging biases" to behold the really real ).

And, if IQ is such an accurate sage of the positive correlations of intelligence (as it "understands" it) and socio-economics (i.e., job performance, income, class, health, number of children, propensity towards violence) then... My friends! We have little to fret about! -(Aside from the meddling "modern academic establishment")- The stratification within our system (nay, within any human system whatsoever) is primarily due to the necessary expression of the bell curve of IQ distribution (Look at the data!). Nothing can be done for those that can only recall and manipulate minuscule number sequences, they are biologically (heritably and racially) unfit for the intellectual demands of Microsoft Office 2007. Clearly, a little eugenics weight-loss program is in order (say, a threshold of 120 IQ) and then we can build the crystal palace, read the Great Works of the Great Men, and consummate the Holy Ge-stell!

Yes, your mockery is ever so creative and clever as usual. But you answer and/or add nothing in your typically condescending and predictable manner. It is not I who demands the egalitarian standards of our day be met(or even considered - do you think I make this up?)...but you laugh and scoff, as if this doesn't exist, so long as you couch your dismissal in devilishly clever terminology and the standard nonsense - yes, nonsense.
Whatever may or may not be "real" to you, is indeed the "reality" society is saddled with, for good or bad.

What do you, Justin ever add to any discourse here or elsewhere for all your overbearing intellectual swagger? Please, do solve all these sociological riddles for us, ye grand sage and let us silly peons end our foolish, simplistic mental wanderings in darkness - scraping and scrounging as we are.

I wish you would share your own findings on the magic of race, intellect and the like with the acedemic world - perhaps you could spare them so much phoney soul-searching and endless quests of one variety or another, as you evidently possess all that need be known, but for the revealing.

 

[Nile577]

Scientism is a very distasteful thing and, ironically, it's just bad metaphysics. For all its huff and puff about its sober focus on the hard kernel of "reality" and its banishment of "abstract nonsense", it remains the most nebulous and muddleheaded of them all. It's almost comical how this way of thinking utterly fails to grasp the horizon or conditions of possible experience, tying itself in knots in the attempt to attain a perspective-less perspective ("expunging biases" to behold the really real ).

And, if IQ is such an accurate sage of the positive correlations of intelligence (as it "understands" it) and socio-economics (i.e., job performance, income, class, health, number of children, propensity towards violence) then... My friends! We have little to fret about! -(Aside from the meddling "modern academic establishment")- The stratification within our system (nay, within any human system whatsoever) is primarily due to the necessary expression of the bell curve of IQ distribution (Look at the data!). Nothing can be done for those that can only recall and manipulate minuscule number sequences, they are biologically (heritably and racially) unfit for the intellectual demands of Microsoft Office 2007. Clearly, a little eugenics weight-loss program is in order (say, a threshold of 120 IQ) and then we can build the crystal palace, read the Great Works of the Great Men, and consummate the Holy Ge-stell!

(sorry for the redundant post)