3 ms·

> 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations That's Lewontin's Fallacy [1]. There's no logical reason to think that genome-wide diversity within

by fdsaaf 10y ago

> 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations That's Lewontin's Fallacy [1]. There's no logical reason to think that genome-wide diversity within populations somehow proves that large-scale impactful allele frequency differences between conventionally understood races do not exist. They do. You can measure them. Given someone's DNA, you can identify his content-scale race. (You can actually narrow someone's ancestry much more narrowly too. Race is a cakewalk.) [1]: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstra... "In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example."

notahacker 10y ago
There is also no logical reason to believe that allele frequency differences betwen conventionally understood races are in any way "impactful" relative to the heterogenity of respective groups or relative to allele frequency differences between populations not generally understood as distinct races. We can reliably identify haplogroups associated with certain phenotypes popularly categorised as "races", but we can also [more] reliably identify genetic markers associated with other phenotypical differences which have little or no correspondence with haplogroups. The presumption of greater significance of haplogroup-associated differences is the social construct here.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  There are strong reasons to believe that the observed genetic differences between races have profound phenotype effects. After all, the races are different, physically. It's not "just skin color". Can you really argue that Koreans and bantus have the same physical characteristics except for skin color? Facial structure, stature, metabolic diseases, hair texture, and even earwax differ markedly between different heredity groups. These differences persist even when koreans and bantus move to the United States and have children; it's the people, not the dirt. These physical differences are heritable. Mixed-race children usually exhibit some mixture of the characteristics of their parents. If we don't agree that people from different races can differ across an array of physical characteristics and that these differences are genetically encoded, I'm not sure we can have a conversation. I bet you're also the kind of person who denies that men are much physically stronger than women. But suppose you accept physical differences. Why would you then reject cognitive ones out of hand? Evolution and genetic drift act on the mind as much as they do the body, since the brain is a physical organ built with proteins encoded by the same sorts of genes that code for eye color. The persistent very large racial gaps in IQ (one whole standard deviation) across different studies and population groups tells us that population differences are not merely physical. These differences are robust under twin studies and other measures that control for shared environment. Given that IQ is tightly coupled to life outcome, I'd call these differences quite "impactful". I know that nobody likes to read a paragraph like the one I just wrote, but we can't hide from facts. We can't make effective policy unless we start acknowledging reality, however unpleasant it may be.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    I repeat, attributing more significance to observed similarities than observed differences is a social construct. One minute we're talking about fairly obvious visible differences like Korean-descended people almost invariably having paler skin and narrower eyes than Bantu-descended people. You also mentioned stature, which is rather less helpful to your thesis because there's a huge range of average heights between different Bantu subgroups and on average North Koreans are substantially shorter than their genetically difficult-to-distinguish southern cousins. Except for someone like Ri Myung-hun, who's over 7'8". Would one say his stature is best evaluated by analysis of the average height of people bearing "Korean" genetic markers or using a tape measure? And of course, inevitably you move on to pretending that the huge and stable variation in measured test performance within a population is of lesser import than relatively small and unstable difference in average test performance between populations. Even if we grant the rather silly proposition that tests so unstable that the Dutch population improved by more than a standard deviation in thirty years are actually a good measure of innate intellectual differences unaffected by non-genetic factors, you've got the problem that it's impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what the person who took the test's genetic background actually is. I mean why would anyone interested in investigating innate intelligence choose to focus on genetic markers that predict my skin tone pretty accurately but can't even rule out the possibility of me being in the very top or very bottom percentile for results in any cognitive ability test?
    - fdsaaf 10y ago
      > relatively small and unstable difference in average test performance between populations I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that group differences exist. I think you'd be surprised at the magnitude of the group differences: US white and black populations differ by a full standard deviation as measured by contemporary IQ tests; this difference has been stable since at least the 1970s --- the Flynn effect changes the absolute scores, but not the difference. This difference is stable even when we subtract the effect of environment (e.g., adoption studies). No, it's not stereotype threat either: stereotype threat is one of those convenient social science theories of recent years that rests on experiments that happen not to reproduce. That is, it's bullshit. > attributing more significance to observed similarities than observed difference Significance depends on our purpose. For example, take technology: tech is a high-IQ field. We want people on the right side of the standard distribution. Some population groups (usually identified with races) are under-represented in tech, and many people have called this situation a "problem". The standard narrative is that prejudice and discrimination cause differences in representation and that the appropriate remedy is to take extra, unfair-to-individual steps to bring representation in line with the general population. This line of thinking inevitably leads us to the concept of "privilege", "unconscious bias", and in the end, because none of these measures actually work, we're left with brute-force quotas, unfairness, and resentment. The problem with the standard narrative is that it's built on the assumption that all groups have equal IQ distributions. If we relax this constraint, a simpler theory emerges: tail effects matter; the current system treats individuals fairly; differences in representation reflect real population differences. I'd prefer to look at individuals as, well, individuals, but some people have made racial representation an issue. These people picked a scientific fight, not people like me. It so happens that science is not on the side of the endless discrimination narrative. It's only to defend against charges of racism that we need to study racial IQ distributions at all.

by fdsaaf 10y ago

notahacker 10y ago

There is also no logical reason to believe that allele frequency differences betwen conventionally understood races are in any way "impactful" relative to the heterogenity of respective groups or relative to allele frequency differences between populations not generally understood as distinct races. We can reliably identify haplogroups associated with certain phenotypes popularly categorised as "races", but we can also [more] reliably identify genetic markers associated with other phenotypical differences which have little or no correspondence with haplogroups. The presumption of greater significance of haplogroup-associated differences is the social construct here.

fdsaaf 10y ago
There are strong reasons to believe that the observed genetic differences between races have profound phenotype effects. After all, the races are different, physically. It's not "just skin color". Can you really argue that Koreans and bantus have the same physical characteristics except for skin color? Facial structure, stature, metabolic diseases, hair texture, and even earwax differ markedly between different heredity groups. These differences persist even when koreans and bantus move to the United States and have children; it's the people, not the dirt. These physical differences are heritable. Mixed-race children usually exhibit some mixture of the characteristics of their parents. If we don't agree that people from different races can differ across an array of physical characteristics and that these differences are genetically encoded, I'm not sure we can have a conversation. I bet you're also the kind of person who denies that men are much physically stronger than women. But suppose you accept physical differences. Why would you then reject cognitive ones out of hand? Evolution and genetic drift act on the mind as much as they do the body, since the brain is a physical organ built with proteins encoded by the same sorts of genes that code for eye color. The persistent very large racial gaps in IQ (one whole standard deviation) across different studies and population groups tells us that population differences are not merely physical. These differences are robust under twin studies and other measures that control for shared environment. Given that IQ is tightly coupled to life outcome, I'd call these differences quite "impactful". I know that nobody likes to read a paragraph like the one I just wrote, but we can't hide from facts. We can't make effective policy unless we start acknowledging reality, however unpleasant it may be.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I repeat, attributing more significance to observed similarities than observed differences is a social construct. One minute we're talking about fairly obvious visible differences like Korean-descended people almost invariably having paler skin and narrower eyes than Bantu-descended people. You also mentioned stature, which is rather less helpful to your thesis because there's a huge range of average heights between different Bantu subgroups and on average North Koreans are substantially shorter than their genetically difficult-to-distinguish southern cousins. Except for someone like Ri Myung-hun, who's over 7'8". Would one say his stature is best evaluated by analysis of the average height of people bearing "Korean" genetic markers or using a tape measure? And of course, inevitably you move on to pretending that the huge and stable variation in measured test performance within a population is of lesser import than relatively small and unstable difference in average test performance between populations. Even if we grant the rather silly proposition that tests so unstable that the Dutch population improved by more than a standard deviation in thirty years are actually a good measure of innate intellectual differences unaffected by non-genetic factors, you've got the problem that it's impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what the person who took the test's genetic background actually is. I mean why would anyone interested in investigating innate intelligence choose to focus on genetic markers that predict my skin tone pretty accurately but can't even rule out the possibility of me being in the very top or very bottom percentile for results in any cognitive ability test?
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    > relatively small and unstable difference in average test performance between populations I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that group differences exist. I think you'd be surprised at the magnitude of the group differences: US white and black populations differ by a full standard deviation as measured by contemporary IQ tests; this difference has been stable since at least the 1970s --- the Flynn effect changes the absolute scores, but not the difference. This difference is stable even when we subtract the effect of environment (e.g., adoption studies). No, it's not stereotype threat either: stereotype threat is one of those convenient social science theories of recent years that rests on experiments that happen not to reproduce. That is, it's bullshit. > attributing more significance to observed similarities than observed difference Significance depends on our purpose. For example, take technology: tech is a high-IQ field. We want people on the right side of the standard distribution. Some population groups (usually identified with races) are under-represented in tech, and many people have called this situation a "problem". The standard narrative is that prejudice and discrimination cause differences in representation and that the appropriate remedy is to take extra, unfair-to-individual steps to bring representation in line with the general population. This line of thinking inevitably leads us to the concept of "privilege", "unconscious bias", and in the end, because none of these measures actually work, we're left with brute-force quotas, unfairness, and resentment. The problem with the standard narrative is that it's built on the assumption that all groups have equal IQ distributions. If we relax this constraint, a simpler theory emerges: tail effects matter; the current system treats individuals fairly; differences in representation reflect real population differences. I'd prefer to look at individuals as, well, individuals, but some people have made racial representation an issue. These people picked a scientific fight, not people like me. It so happens that science is not on the side of the endless discrimination narrative. It's only to defend against charges of racism that we need to study racial IQ distributions at all.