I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but my post wasn't meant to endorse what I said. It was an observation of what I think is happening, or being attempted at.
The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling
- Thread starter death metal black metal
- Start date
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but my post wasn't meant to endorse what I said. It was an observation of what I think is happening, or being attempted at.
Sorry, my sarcasm wasn't clear enough, especially given the usual opinion on this board heh.
Given that entirely different, far less intelligent species are capable of evolving and cooperating together, I think it's pretty funny to suggest that the varying human 'races' would be unable to, particularly given the wealth of examples showing the contrary.
Given that entirely different, far less intelligent species are capable of evolving and cooperating together, I think it's pretty funny to suggest that the varying human 'races' would be unable to, particularly given the wealth of examples showing the contrary.
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
The "facts" you peoeple are spouting are nothing of the kind. IQ testing is a reflection of socioeconomic status, not "race".
According to whom, you? That is the oldest and weakest 'argument' against IQ testing extant. This "socio-economic" assertion has been refuted for decades, as the tests are designed specifically to measure beyond such alleged obstacles.
Who do some of you think develop and administer IQ test, the
Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, etc.?!
IQ results may not be a perfect reflection of something as nebulous as pure intellect, but they sure as Hell are more than a refelction of some ambiguous "socioeconomic" status.
Why the need to place race in quotes - are you suggesting race isn't a reality either? Why are some so terrified by the suggestion that not only does race in fact exist, but that there are indeed measurable differences between races?
Speaking purely for myself on the matter of 'race' it goes in inverted commas because it appears to be a fairly fluid, opinion based term with less grounding in apparent absolutes and more arbitrary lines in the sand. That is not to say I think it's a worthless or silly term... more that I think it is inherently limited because it's very nature is to try to divide a continuum of human genetics into discrete chunks.
Limited how? Is your objection semantic or genetic? There ARE divisions in that human continuum - so what is the harm in naming and acknowledging them, even if the terminology cannot adequately represent every exception, aberration, or variance?
Indeed, the whole point is that there ARE tangible, measurable differences on the average by racial-type, not to further blurr the issue because we supposedly lack 100% effective terminology.
Semantic, I think? It's not so much an objection, as an acknowledgement of what I see as somewhat limited terminology applied a little broadly at times. Would you argue that you can accurately define a 'race'? I will be the first to admit I'm no expert on genetics, but it seems to me that it's a few parts fluffy idea, a few parts culture, and a few parts genetics. Given common ancestry, interbreeding, and distinctly blurred national boundaries, I don't know how you can claim there are distinct divisions in the 'human genetic continuum' other than the arbitrary lines in the sand drawn by people as a fairly crude tool. I'm entirely willing to be educated on the matter though! 
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Africa is the most genetically heterogeneous place on the Earth, and genetic variations within groups are sometimes greater than those between. Two white people could very well be less genetically similar than a white and a black. What do you mean that socioeconomic status as an explanation for race disparity has been "refuted for decades"? The socioeconomic explanation is a recent rebuttal to what had been considered self-edivent. Studies dealing with adopted children indicate that more than 60% of the factors affecting IQ are environmental. The rest are due to genetics that differ as much between people as between groups. The scientific community's rejection of James Watson last week for comments very similar to yours should give you the overall impression of what scientists think.
Jared Diamond has pointed out that if anything, tribal folks such as Papua New Guineans and Africans would be intellectually superior to Europeans, if anything. Intelligence would be selected for in a hunter-gatherer situation, whereas resistance to disease would be the prime genentic selection factor for Europeans, who have been in close contact with livestock for millennia.
People on this board don't seem to care about science unless it can be twisted to back their pseudo-fascistic agendas.
Jared Diamond has pointed out that if anything, tribal folks such as Papua New Guineans and Africans would be intellectually superior to Europeans, if anything. Intelligence would be selected for in a hunter-gatherer situation, whereas resistance to disease would be the prime genentic selection factor for Europeans, who have been in close contact with livestock for millennia.
People on this board don't seem to care about science unless it can be twisted to back their pseudo-fascistic agendas.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
This is interesting, because in my behavioral bio class a couple years ago, we discussed a study of fraternal and identical twins separated at birth, which concluded just the opposite, stating that genetics play a greater role and only about 15% to 20% of IQ is explained by environmental factors.
The role of species resilience would lead me to think that high population density would play a greater role in selection for disease resistance than proximity to livestock would. Either way, Caucasians actually do have better immune systems than Africans as a result of the immense selection pressure during the black death. Consequently, white people are more resistant to modern plagues, such as HIV, which may explain why even outside of Africa, black women are at the greatest risk for AIDS.
Obviously, the sentiment in your last sentence cuts both ways.
We can cite various statistic back and forth all day long, including the balance of measured intellect being environmental and genetic - you say 60/40 - I have long read 50/50...but what does this matter in the bigger picture. I challenege any number of your statements, but we have been through this here on many threads and it is tedious in many ways.
Whenever this topic arises, we either get bogged down in a lot of complex genetic theory(and NO ONE here is an expert on this), or observations by scientists and researchers who, may have reached conclusions even they fear to publish - see Dr. Watson's crucifixion.
But let's move beyond this. You insist socio-economics determine intellectual capacity rather than genetics. What then explains the fact(as I've asked in posts above) the persistent racial "achievement gaps" in students, regardless of socio-economic status. It is well documented that wealthy black children, do not achieve acedemically at a rate appreciably different from their poorer cousins. Indeed, this is perhaps the most contentious issue in acedemia today, and the whole of the acedemic establishment is at a loss to explain it - unless genetics do play a more prominent role than they(or you)will admit!
Explain to me the primitive, almost stone-age situation in Sub-Saharan Africa up through much of the nineteenth century(areas having never had contact with Europeans specifically). North Africa, (Northern)Asia, parts of South America, Europe, North America had all moved well into the civilized era. The wheel was unkown to much of Africa. You have either mischaracterized Jared Diamond's conclusions on African intellect, or he is delusional on this issue.
Still, let us test Diamond's theories - there have been scores of Sub-Saharan African's relocated to the west. What evidence have we to show this superior intellect on display? How many Nuclear Physicists, Engineers, Brain Surgeons, inventors, or indeed, Genetic Scientists have come out of this pool? As it is stated in your post, Diamond's theory is ludicrous.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Okay, I finally performed a search on google scholar for "iq, genetics" and the consensus between publications seems to be that there is at least a 50 - 60% correlation between IQ and genetics (as low as 20% in children, or as high as 80% in adults) IN SIBLINGS.
I then searched for "race, iq, genetics." Here is a breakdown of data that I gathered from different articles.
- The average IQ of mothers of black students in an intervention program was 85. Following intervention, the average IQ of those students was significantly greater than 85, while the IQ scores of students who received no intervention averaged around 85.
- One study found that after WWII, the children of black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5, while the children of white GIs had an average IQ of 97. The 0.5 difference is most likely chance.
- A heritage survey of black students reveals that those students with IQs over 125 are less likely to have European ancestry than those with lower IQ scores. Additionally, black students with IQ scores over 140 reported being even more purely African than those students with IQs of 125.
- In one study, after which black (West Indian) and white (English) children (ages 4 - 5) were assigned to an "enriched institutional environment," the average IQs for black and white children were 108 and 103, respectively.
- Black children adopted by black families had an average IQ of 104, while black children adopted by white families had an average IQ of 117.
- While black people used to score about 15 points (one standard deviation) lower on IQ tests than white people, the gap has been steadily closing at a rate of 13% per decade.
Now, considering all this data, it looks to me as if culture and socioeconomic status really do play a major role, which is only supplemented by one's genetic predisposition.
I then searched for "race, iq, genetics." Here is a breakdown of data that I gathered from different articles.
- The average IQ of mothers of black students in an intervention program was 85. Following intervention, the average IQ of those students was significantly greater than 85, while the IQ scores of students who received no intervention averaged around 85.
- One study found that after WWII, the children of black GIs had an average IQ of 96.5, while the children of white GIs had an average IQ of 97. The 0.5 difference is most likely chance.
- A heritage survey of black students reveals that those students with IQs over 125 are less likely to have European ancestry than those with lower IQ scores. Additionally, black students with IQ scores over 140 reported being even more purely African than those students with IQs of 125.
- In one study, after which black (West Indian) and white (English) children (ages 4 - 5) were assigned to an "enriched institutional environment," the average IQs for black and white children were 108 and 103, respectively.
- Black children adopted by black families had an average IQ of 104, while black children adopted by white families had an average IQ of 117.
- While black people used to score about 15 points (one standard deviation) lower on IQ tests than white people, the gap has been steadily closing at a rate of 13% per decade.
Now, considering all this data, it looks to me as if culture and socioeconomic status really do play a major role, which is only supplemented by one's genetic predisposition.
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Many of those Africans came in chains. In many parts of the country lynching blacks was a good way to spend a leisurely sunday up until the first world war, and equal rights for blacks weren't formally granted until the 60's. Black scientists are not unheard of, either. Neil Degrasse Tyson runs the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is one of the best popularizers of modern science. Historically there were a number of African American scientists, the best known being George Washington Carver.
The statement from Jared Diamond was more of a refutation of race-based intelligence, rather than an actual statement of reality. Diamond's thesis in Guns Germs and Steel is that hunter-gatherer societies don't progress because of their geographical surroundings. If there aren't domesticable plants or animals, or good land for planting, it isn't likely that agriculture will take off. Ever try taming a water buffalo? Without agriculture you have no cities, very little trade, no formal law and no specialization of labour.
Also recall that for two hundred thousand years everyone lived in that primitive state, ten thousand years isn't much time on that scale. Plato walked the earth a mere 200 generations ago.
It's not that I don't think that genes are important, of course they are. It's just that genetic variance is greater within groups than between. The world's tiny Jewish population manages to scoop up almost a quarter of the Nobel prizes in the sciences. But, on the other hand, where are the Arabs? There has been only one Nobel prize winner in the sciences who was an Arab. And these are the same people who named the stars, preserved Aristotle, and formed the basis for modern medicine and chemistry. During the zenith of the Arab empire, Europe was a cold, irrelevant backwater. I don't know how Arabs score on IQ tests, but I'd imagine it is pretty low nowadays.
The beauty of Darwin's theory is that it can be understood by anyone. Darwin never met Mendel and was unaware of genetics. Based on the Malthusian assumption that not every organism that is born can survive and reproduce, there will be a struggle for existence in which any advantageous trait will be selected for. I would be more than pleased to leave out the complicated genetics and talk history.
Nevertheless, Homo sapiens is a relatively genetically homogeneous species. A Norwegian and an Indonesian are closer genetically than any two chimpanzees living on opposite sides of the same valley. What type of historical environmental selection pressure would account for the greater intelligence in caucasian/north asian populations in your opinion?
Given that certain 'races' are genetically better at athletics than others, I don't see that it is unreasonable to expect there to be 'some' variation in other attributes too. I just don't see why it is such a point of concern, to either 'side' as such. What does it matter?
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Ohh I see, it's alright to insinuate that Africans are inherently less intelligent than Europeans because they can dunk a basketball over our heads.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
This is correct. It explains the chaos in Africa even better than the IQ difference or other explanations based on the behaviour of Africans.
No. This is a misconception. The greatest genetic diversity exists in African and this becomes less so (people more homogeneous and more naturally altruistic to one another due to shared genes) the further we go from Etheopia.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125073157.htm
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
Any theory of altruism that extends beyond immediate family could be applied far beyond the tribe. If this is not so, please explain.
Who gives a shit about what is considered 'alright' - I thought we were trying to discuss what is 'true'? If you're only arguing your points because you think the world would be 'nicer' and more in line with current societies love of the image of tolerance, were they the case, (as opposed to *actually* being the case) then shoosh. I don't think anyone here is interested in being moralised to...
The Poona of Peshwa
Blood Glutton
It has nothing to do with morality. I should have said, "So it would be intellectually justifiable and well wihin truth conditions to accept with a shrug the assumption that Europeans are smarter than Africans based on the notion that ethnic groups vary in other attributes?"
With all due respect, you must either cite the source of these statistics(just generally even)or I can accept virtually none of it at face value. These numbers you list fly in the face of nearly every study of the subject I have seen, and I've studied this for a decade or more.
Again, what several of you keep missing is this - while the "scientific" and acedemic world stubbornly insist there MUST be some other explanation for racial intelligence/achievemnet gaps other than genetic predisposition, they CANNOT identify that explanation as such!(nor can anyone here)
If those statistics noted above were true, the whole of modern western society would be much, much different. If this "socio-economic" argument were true, acedemic achievement(which is under a social microscope at all times)would reflect it; test scores in civil-service applications would reflect it; black collegiate success(note law schools, medical schools, the sciences in specific) would reflect this. There is now a relatively large black middle(to upper middle)-class in America, possessed of better "socioeconomic" circumstances than any average white family several decades ago.
If you are suggesting that the acedemic/IQ levels of these two groups are today indistinguishable, then we are beyond debate, as we must live on different planets.
All of us here are WELL aware of how controversial, and unpopular these ideas are. We are equally aware there are many who endlessly challenge the informed conclusions on race, we have made - but that a) doesn't make them "right" b)more importantly doesn't explain why these issues between racial-types persist, despite wildly optimistic(if fantastic)statistics suggesting that success HAS been made...yet beyond those numbers, where is the proof in real world terms?
Moreover, where is the evidence of economically challenged Asian's lagging behind there wealthy fellow-Asians, This is not simply a black and white situation.
Finally, why are white IQ scores relatively consistent regardless of socio-economic status? In terms of measurable IQ, wealthy, "privileged" whites are not possessed of appreciably greater intellectual capacity than their poorer cousins.
For further consideration:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
No... but I think it would be intellectually justifiable to accept the likelyhood of some level of measurable variation between 'races' for mental attributes, given that the differences are there and measurable for physical attributes.
Still want to know why it matters...
