4 ms·

>This statement is not true, because balls can roll down a hill faster than cubes. Yeah but that's because ability to roll down is directly caused by the obser

>This statement is not true, because balls can roll down a hill faster than cubes. Yeah but that's because ability to roll down is directly caused by the observable geometry. They are just different properties of the same trait. Skin tone or facial structure cannot cause someone to be intelligent. If you flattened the sides of the round balls, they'd be just as slow. But imagine there's some new way to painlessly crush people's faces into different racial-typical shapes and change the color of their skin to some racial-typical tone. Would this cause their intelligence to change? Obviously not. So how is this different than people with different physical characteristics from birth? Race categorizations are made by humans according to how people look. From wikipedia's definition "Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." You're saying that these physical characteristics somehow also indicate how people behave (outside of social conditioning). There is really no reason to conclude that. I think this wiki section on race along with the sources mentioned are useful here. >There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.[22][23][24][25][26][27] Nonetheless, some scholars argue that racial categories obviously correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype) to some degree, and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Complications_and_various_definitions_of_the_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Co...

xyzzyz 11y ago
> So how is this different than people with different physical characteristics from birth? That's because skin color and facial features are directly caused by the DNA. They are just different manifestations of the same trait. DNA is also known to correlate with intelligence. Just like flattening round balls will make them slower, picking embryos with gene combinations known to correlate with higher intelligence will cause the resulting humans to have higher intelligence on average. But imagine if genes responsible for genes correlated with higher intelligence occured million times as often among genotypes of white people than among genotypes of black people. Would then picking embryos based on skin color genes instead of intelligence genes themselves produced more (on average) intelligent people? Obviously yes. I don't really know whether intelligence genes actually occur more often among white people. I just want to point out that if it's so, it's not skin color that causes people to be more or less intelligent. It's their DNA.
- ryanmonroe 11y ago
  >DNA is also known to correlate with intelligence. But not with race. You can't tell which race someone is by their DNA, because, and here's the key point I think people are missing, race is a social construct based on appearance, not a biological reality. >picking embryos with gene combinations known to correlate with higher intelligence will cause the resulting humans to have higher intelligence on average. But imagine if genes correlated with higher intelligence occurred million times as often among genotypes of white people than among genotypes of black people. Would then picking embryos based on skin color genes instead of intelligence genes themselves produced more (on average) intelligent people? Obviously yes. Sure, if you assume from the start that skin color genes are correlated with intelligence genes then it follows that skin color is correlated with intelligence. I'm saying there's no reason to make that assumption to begin with.
  - xyzzyz 11y ago
    > [DNA is not known to correlate] with race. DNA obviously correlates with race. What do you think makes the skin color of black-skinned people black? Or are you claiming skin color doesn't correlate with self-identifying as black, or being identified as black by the rest of the society? > You can't tell which race someone is by their DNA, because (...) race is a social construct based on appearance, not a biological reality. So is gender. However, the biological reality is that you can tell which gender someone self-identfies with by their DNA correctly at least 99 times out of 100. How hard it is to believe you can do at least as well (success rate >0.99) with race self-identification? As a data point, some people claim they can do it, and would bet their lifes on results. http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna > Sure, if you assume from the start that skin color genes are correlated with intelligence genes then it follows that skin color is correlated with intelligence. I'm saying there's no reason to make that assumption to begin with. Nobody makes this assumption, though (well, except for the sake of argument). There's no reason to assume the opposite either. Science works by formulating a hypothesis and testing it.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    Here's the thing... traits some in collections. Mongoloid or African American are words that describe a collection of physical traits. Black people will have darker skin AND frizzy hair. Asians have asian eyes AND black hair. This is proof that traits are inherited in collective groups. You are stating by certain magic these collections of physical traits that describe an asian or a caucasian magically only correlate with other physical traits. So in a sense, for asians: Black hair correlates with asian eyes but these traits can absolutely never ever correlate with anything related to intelligence and behavior. What is the mechanism in genetics that deliberately demarcates physical traits from behavioral traits? What causes social traits to be totally random while physical traits come correlated with one another? I think it is more logical to conclude that there is no mechanism that does this. Please note that I am well versed in the theory you present. It is often used as a scientific basis for racial equality. I agree with the intent of the theory but I disagree with it as a practical truth. Life is just unfair. Anyway, the theory does address a valid point but here's why I think it's wrong: I think searching for genetic markers at the molecular level doesn't yield results because behavioral and physical traits are abstractions on top of DNA. Imagine two programs, one written in C++, the other in Haskell. Both programs have the same behavior... let's say they both return the derivative of an expression. If you analyze the source code for correlations without completely understanding it (largely the way we analyze DNA today) you will find that the languages are completely uncorrelated. Both are totally different in style, structure and syntax. This occurs even though the surface behavior (finding the derivative of an expression) is exactly identical. This is what I believe is happening with the DNA. You cannot find correlations with race because the correlations only occur at a higher level of abstraction not in the source code.

xyzzyz 11y ago

> So how is this different than people with different physical characteristics from birth? That's because skin color and facial features are directly caused by the DNA. They are just different manifestations of the same trait. DNA is also known to correlate with intelligence. Just like flattening round balls will make them slower, picking embryos with gene combinations known to correlate with higher intelligence will cause the resulting humans to have higher intelligence on average. But imagine if genes responsible for genes correlated with higher intelligence occured million times as often among genotypes of white people than among genotypes of black people. Would then picking embryos based on skin color genes instead of intelligence genes themselves produced more (on average) intelligent people? Obviously yes. I don't really know whether intelligence genes actually occur more often among white people. I just want to point out that if it's so, it's not skin color that causes people to be more or less intelligent. It's their DNA.

ryanmonroe 11y ago
>DNA is also known to correlate with intelligence. But not with race. You can't tell which race someone is by their DNA, because, and here's the key point I think people are missing, race is a social construct based on appearance, not a biological reality. >picking embryos with gene combinations known to correlate with higher intelligence will cause the resulting humans to have higher intelligence on average. But imagine if genes correlated with higher intelligence occurred million times as often among genotypes of white people than among genotypes of black people. Would then picking embryos based on skin color genes instead of intelligence genes themselves produced more (on average) intelligent people? Obviously yes. Sure, if you assume from the start that skin color genes are correlated with intelligence genes then it follows that skin color is correlated with intelligence. I'm saying there's no reason to make that assumption to begin with.
- xyzzyz 11y ago
  > [DNA is not known to correlate] with race. DNA obviously correlates with race. What do you think makes the skin color of black-skinned people black? Or are you claiming skin color doesn't correlate with self-identifying as black, or being identified as black by the rest of the society? > You can't tell which race someone is by their DNA, because (...) race is a social construct based on appearance, not a biological reality. So is gender. However, the biological reality is that you can tell which gender someone self-identfies with by their DNA correctly at least 99 times out of 100. How hard it is to believe you can do at least as well (success rate >0.99) with race self-identification? As a data point, some people claim they can do it, and would bet their lifes on results. http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna > Sure, if you assume from the start that skin color genes are correlated with intelligence genes then it follows that skin color is correlated with intelligence. I'm saying there's no reason to make that assumption to begin with. Nobody makes this assumption, though (well, except for the sake of argument). There's no reason to assume the opposite either. Science works by formulating a hypothesis and testing it.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  Here's the thing... traits some in collections. Mongoloid or African American are words that describe a collection of physical traits. Black people will have darker skin AND frizzy hair. Asians have asian eyes AND black hair. This is proof that traits are inherited in collective groups. You are stating by certain magic these collections of physical traits that describe an asian or a caucasian magically only correlate with other physical traits. So in a sense, for asians: Black hair correlates with asian eyes but these traits can absolutely never ever correlate with anything related to intelligence and behavior. What is the mechanism in genetics that deliberately demarcates physical traits from behavioral traits? What causes social traits to be totally random while physical traits come correlated with one another? I think it is more logical to conclude that there is no mechanism that does this. Please note that I am well versed in the theory you present. It is often used as a scientific basis for racial equality. I agree with the intent of the theory but I disagree with it as a practical truth. Life is just unfair. Anyway, the theory does address a valid point but here's why I think it's wrong: I think searching for genetic markers at the molecular level doesn't yield results because behavioral and physical traits are abstractions on top of DNA. Imagine two programs, one written in C++, the other in Haskell. Both programs have the same behavior... let's say they both return the derivative of an expression. If you analyze the source code for correlations without completely understanding it (largely the way we analyze DNA today) you will find that the languages are completely uncorrelated. Both are totally different in style, structure and syntax. This occurs even though the surface behavior (finding the derivative of an expression) is exactly identical. This is what I believe is happening with the DNA. You cannot find correlations with race because the correlations only occur at a higher level of abstraction not in the source code.