The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

[OldScratch]

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...

Your first sentence sums up much of what I have been trying say.

The answer to your question is actually quite simple I believe - it matters, if for no other reason, because our western liberal democracies have demanded that it matter! Egalitarianism made it matter. Multiculturalism and mass-immigration make it matter.
The universal "equality" movement insists that it matters. Alas, if one were to suggest that these differences(intellectually speaking) are there, or even could be there, then they have committed an act of vile bigotry, according to modern sensibilities.(see again Dr. James Watson being pilloried)

It also matters, because of how the west measures "success" and achievement. If one group(or several groups)continues to lag behind, the holy "equality" scales are thrown out of balance. And when rationale after rationale continue to fail in fully explaining these persistent, notable gaps, despite herculean efforts to close them up, it creates a conundrum for the architects of this egalitarian experiment: Continue to insist that mass-equality is achieveable no matter how much harm, resentment via social inequity it creates - or acknowledge that maybe we really aren't all "equal" in every sense...and that is okay! It doesn't mean anyone is "inferior," just different in specific ways. Given that the latter conclusion is a social heresy, I certainly won't be holding my breath.

This is a complex issue all around, and I for one, am not suggesting all this is easily explained away by a few tests, etc. Neither am I willing, however, to concede that the explanation is purely one of economics or social status.
I just think we need to entertain all possibilities - even very uncomfortable, or 'insensitive' ones. But the socio-political climate in which we live will have none of that. Thus we are left to hash this stuff out in cyber-space, when our leaders, scientists and educators should have the courage to face these issue head-on. Clearly they do not...

 

[Blowtus]

Hmmm ok. I guess I can agree with that motivation, though I don't really see why specific racial groupings are important to demonstrate inequality any more so than general populace iq spread.

Reminds me of a long conversation with a stubborn ex-friend of mine who was studying justice... he insisted that it was proper / moral / made sense to subsidise an aboriginal more highly than a caucasian in exactly the same state and environs because, measured as a 'race', the aboriginals lag behind on whatever indicators are used.

 

[OldScratch]

Hmmm ok. I guess I can agree with that motivation, though I don't really see why specific racial groupings are important to demonstrate inequality any more so than general populace iq spread.

(If I'm reading your statement correctly
Because that, by and large, is where the divisions(ie. measured "equalities or inequalities")lie. In essence the populace divides itself, in terms of measured successes, achievement, etc. Those standards exist - and all are measured thereby. When one group, on average, falls behind, or fails to achieve and succeed at the rate of others, the general populace takes note. In and of itslef IQ is not important...it is where it leads that is. At least that is how western society operates, for better or worse.

 

[Blowtus]

The measurable inequalities lie between everyone, not merely between specific racial groupings. Of what use is grouping in this instance?

 

[Norsemaiden]

The measurable inequalities lie between everyone, not merely between specific racial groupings. Of what use is grouping in this instance?

It is useful because if Africans as a group have a lower IQ than another race, then it would be cruel and unfair of the other race to label the Africans as being (not in a racial group with different talents) but as being failures by the standards of the other race. It is fair for the more highly intelligent race to look upon co-ethnics who are less intelligent as lacking in an important trait, but the Africans should not be measured with the same yardstick.

Similarly, if you took as the desirable trait the ability to run in marathons (something Africans excell in ) and then classified Asians as failures because they rarely reached the required standard - it would be unfair because they would be feeling inadequate for no sensible reason and be considered by the Africans to have something wrong with them.

Each race has its own abilities and we shouldn't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. In fact it is a kind of aggressive "racism" to insist that each race must meet the standards considered ideal from a Eurocentric point of view. This can only be avoided by acknowledging racial, rather than individual, differences.

[Note: Africans are too diverse to count as a single race in fact. This diversity means that there is no "Black" race - although a "White" race exists in a definable, if not entirely objective, sense. "Blacks" are defined by what they are not, while "Whites" are defined by what they are. It is more scientific to talk about specific ethnicities].

 

[Blowtus]

In that case, is it not just as 'cruel and unfair' to judge low iq caucasians as failures, when it is just their own genetics to blame? I still don't see any use in the large scale grouping.

 

[Norsemaiden]

In that case, is it not just as 'cruel and unfair' to judge low iq caucasians as failures, when it is just their own genetics to blame? I still don't see any use in the large scale grouping.

No it isn't unfair, because there are measures that can be taken to improve that. We have the right to upgrade our own genepool, but while it is fair to use positive eugenics on your own ethnic group, it is inappropriate to meddle with the natural characteristics of other ethnic groups, trying to make them fit your own racial ideal.

IQs can drop through idiotic social policies (deliberate social engineering, arguably) that encourage the least intelligent to breed at the expense of the most intelligent. We have had that for a very long time now. If we are to reverse that we should take into account that we should leave other ethnicities out of it, and let them judge what is needed in their particular circumstances. That's not our business.

 

[Blowtus]

No it isn't unfair, because there are measures that can be taken to improve that.

You can improve dumb peoples genes?

We have the right to upgrade our own genepool, but while it is fair to use positive eugenics on your own ethnic group, it is inappropriate to meddle with the natural characteristics of other ethnic groups, trying to make them fit your own racial ideal.

What on earth makes it 'fair'? Bearing more similarity in genes to someone allows you to meddle in their lives more? Where the fuck is that written?

IQs can drop through idiotic social policies (deliberate social engineering, arguably) that encourage the least intelligent to breed at the expense of the most intelligent. We have had that for a very long time now. If we are to reverse that we should take into account that we should leave other ethnicities out of it, and let them judge what is needed in their particular circumstances. That's not our business.

Just because you identify with some notion of 'race' doesn't mean others do. Why is 'race' the dividing line? If, as a Caucasian, you assert that I have some 'right' to improve the Caucasian gene pool, surely as a human, should I not also have the 'right' to improve the human gene pool? Or, as an animal, why not the animal gene pool?

 

[Norsemaiden]

You can improve dumb peoples genes?



What on earth makes it 'fair'? Bearing more similarity in genes to someone allows you to meddle in their lives more? Where the fuck is that written?




Just because you identify with some notion of 'race' doesn't mean others do. Why is 'race' the dividing line? If, as a Caucasian, you assert that I have some 'right' to improve the Caucasian gene pool, surely as a human, should I not also have the 'right' to improve the human gene pool? Or, as an animal, why not the animal gene pool?

If you try to improve humanity as a whole, you end up condemning other races for not fitting in with a Eurocentric set of standards. But, yes, Supremacists would advocate this. That way lies genocide. Or, if you choose to ignore race, it leads to a frustrating situation (which we have now)where people are made to feel sub-standard when they actually are not sub-standard for their ethnic group at all.

If you agree that eugenics is ever justified (which it seems you do not) then you have to have a set of standards to breed towards. These standards will always be ethnically defined. "Blacks" will not value the abilitity to be a rocket scientist to the same extent that Germanics do. Of course this is a generalisation, but it still stands.

 

[MetalBooger]

"Blacks" will not value the abilitity to be a rocket scientist to the same extent that Germanics do. Of course this is a generalisation, but it still stands.

True, interestingly, Germans seem to have several characteristics that they tend to aim for when breeding, particularly in the fields of homo erotica and the maths/sciences, while blacks tend to aim for, well, who are we kidding, theres far more diversity in African culture than there is in the extremely gay and scientific realm of the Germans.

 

[death metal black metal]

BlackMetalWhiteGuy: "One study suggested" -- what about the preponderance of the data? What about a comprehensive study? Oh, there was none of that in your article. Bad science.

 

[Blowtus]

Or, if you choose to ignore race, it leads to a frustrating situation (which we have now)where people are made to feel sub-standard when they actually are not sub-standard for their ethnic group at all.

Of what particular relevance is ethnic group in determining whether someone is 'sub standard' or not? Why not judge them based on their family, or the street they live in, or whether they are left or right handed? You can alter the results of any judgement by altering the comparison sample, what makes ethnic group the specific comparison that should be used for people?

If you agree that eugenics is ever justified (which it seems you do not) then you have to have a set of standards to breed towards. These standards will always be ethnically defined. "Blacks" will not value the abilitity to be a rocket scientist to the same extent that Germanics do. Of course this is a generalisation, but it still stands.

Why on earth would 'these standards always be ethnically defined'? Perhaps in your own world where race is of prime import, but in other peoples? Is there not a single 'black' who values rocket scientistry more than a single Germanic? You can group people however you like, it's all rather arbitrary.

 

[OldScratch]

Of what particular relevance is ethnic group in determining whether someone is 'sub standard' or not? Why not judge them based on their family, or the street they live in, or whether they are left or right handed? You can alter the results of any judgement by altering the comparison sample, what makes ethnic group the specific comparison that should be used for people?

Why on earth would 'these standards always be ethnically defined'? Perhaps in your own world where race is of prime import, but in other peoples? Is there not a single 'black' who values rocket scientistry more than a single Germanic? You can group people however you like, it's all rather arbitrary.

Surely you see that Norsemaiden is speaking in terms of averages and majorities. No one people will universally display any trait - but that hardly means such things are "arbitrary" don't you think?

This whole debate strikes as bizarre everytime it comes up. Is there not a wealth of empirical evidence the world over and across recorded history to illustrate the differences between disparate peoples at work? The acedemic achievement and success/wealth gaps persist between racial-types the world over.
Even now, various groups wail and moan loudly about "global poverty" and the like - where is this poverty? Can you name ONE white nation that can be called impoverished? third world? etc? Half of the African continent fits that description; much of South America fits that description; a good deal of Southeast Asia fits that description! Again, as I've noted before - these judgements are based upon standards that have driven western society for more than a century.

If all this seems "arbitrary" to you, I am thoroughly puzzled?
I know you are not an ideological leftist or someone who blames all the "short-comings" of the so-called "developing" world on the evil white man. Perhaps it's just me - I just cannot understand how or why you don't see the ethno/racial connection in these things.

 

[death metal black metal]

Still want to know why it matters...

The real reason: having truth be taboo is insane.

I believe in nationalism for different reasons, but I resent the neo-Stalinist idea that we can suppress truth for political reasons.

I have less of a problem suppressing opinions than I do with the suppression of truth. Our society supports any insane opinion that doesn't offend the major taboos, but will then re-write truth for its own pretense.

That's bad fucking psychology.

 

[Blowtus]

Surely you see that Norsemaiden is speaking in terms of averages and majorities. No one people will universally display any trait - but that hardly means such things are "arbitrary" don't you think?

Yes, of course - it is precisely this talk of averages and majorities that I question the purpose of. On average, my friends family has a higher iq than my neighbours - so what? What use is the knowledge? I don't deal with the families as a whole, I deal with the individuals, and must tailor my actions to suit them, not their family, racial, or handedness 'average'.

If all this seems "arbitrary" to you, I am thoroughly puzzled?
I know you are not an ideological leftist or someone who blames all the "short-comings" of the so-called "developing" world on the evil white man. Perhaps it's just me - I just cannot understand how or why you don't see the ethno/racial connection in these things.

I am happy to accept the possibility of some connection there, even though as I've argued before I think it is difficult to seperate culture from genetics on the broader scale. I just don't see the relevance to anything - effective methods of dealing with people are not going to be found relying on anything as ridiculously broad as some sort of racial average score. If all members of these 'races' conformed to specific ideals, behaviours, and attributes, then sure, it would make a lot of sense. But the diversity within even a small sub-group of the human population, makes it seem rather crazy to me to expect useful conclusions to be drawn based on such broad averages.

 

[death metal black metal]

I don't deal with the families as a whole, I deal with the individuals, and must tailor my actions to suit them, not their family, racial, or handedness 'average'.

Okay, so would you support testing of everyone in America or your home country, and deportation of those below the level you deem to be Borderline Retarded?

I am happy to accept the possibility of some connection there, even though as I've argued before I think it is difficult to seperate culture from genetics on the broader scale. I just don't see the relevance to anything - effective methods of dealing with people are not going to be found relying on anything as ridiculously broad as some sort of racial average score. If all members of these 'races' conformed to specific ideals, behaviours, and attributes, then sure, it would make a lot of sense. But the diversity within even a small sub-group of the human population, makes it seem rather crazy to me to expect useful conclusions to be drawn based on such broad averages.

Culture and genetics are linked -- depending on your genetic inclinations, that's the culture you create. Doesn't that make sense?

 

[Blowtus]

Okay, so would you support testing of everyone in America or your home country, and deportation of those below the level you deem to be Borderline Retarded?

Nope. Why would I?

Culture and genetics are linked -- depending on your genetic inclinations, that's the culture you create. Doesn't that make sense?

Of course they have some link, yes. I'm not really in any mood to go back over this one though sorry, it is not necessary to the point...

 

[Έρεβος]

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.

Nice job reducing European society to "we like cattle ."

There are thousands of catalysts for cognitive evolution, and the main ones are certainly not the means of getting food.

Hunter-gatherer society most definitely has much less advanced cognitive competition; the competition is much more geared towards physical attributes: speed, strength, endurance, et cetera; and also physically-geared cognitive attributes: reflexes, pain tolerance, coordination, et cetera. This is all really quite self evident. Hunting & gathering requires great physical aptitude, and not too much advanced thinking.

Whereas agricultural society takes the focus away from the importance of being able to acquire enough food: farming leaves society with much added free time. This free time was filled with thinking: advanced cognitive pursuits. These activities became much more meaningful, much more central, to society, and the simple ability to acquire food and the attributes associated with thus became inconsequential. Philosophers, scientists, writers, artists, et cetera became the highest class, those most likely to survive, and hence intellect became the most naturally selected trait.

So no, you are very, very wrong. African society has spent much more time in hunter-gatherer society, therefore advanced cognition is at a much lower level. Whilst European society has spent much more time in agricultural society, therefore advanced cognition is a much higher level.

As for the increased variation between individuals than between groups, that is entirely irrelevant. It is fucking obvious that the genetic differences between the degenerates and greats of any single race are going to be larger than the difference between races, but that doesn't mean anything, extremely fucking obviously.

 

[Blowtus]

As for the increased variation between individuals than between groups, that is entirely irrelevant. It is fucking obvious that the genetic difference between the degenerates and greats of any single race are going to be larger than the difference of two different races, but that doesn't mean anything, extremely fucking obviously.

Rather than simply stating how obvious it is as your argument, how about a coherant reason for it's obviousness?

 

[Έρεβος]

Rather than simply stating how obvious it is as your argument, how about a coherant reason for it's obviousness?

Because it is a simple train of logic which is very self-evident. I don't need to argue why 1+1=2. No one ever argued that all whites are geniuses and all blacks are morons, or the other way around; that is the only way it would be relevant. There are huge variations between individuals, and there are general differences between races, which on the average are "small"; but when it comes down to it, as the compared groups are so huge, small is colossal.

The type of difference between individuals is entirely different than the type of difference between races, therefore comparing them is downright imbecilic, and I really can't see how you can't see how bloody obvious that is. It's like saying the difference between white and black is larger than the difference between circular and square.