5 ms·

The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries

by gjm11 18y ago

The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries do correlate well with is sharp social differences, and therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2) acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1. On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1. So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light. And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)

ars 18y ago
"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically" People say that a lot - but it's not actually true. Do you think it's socially important for people to believe that, and to blind themself to differences? Fine, I can accept that. But do not delude yourself into thinking it's actually true.
byrneseyeview 18y ago
The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
- Retric 18y ago
  One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.
  - endtime 18y ago
    Some people might, especially if the person looks black, but I'm sure a lot of people would also label that person white, or mixed. There might even be people (gasp) who don't go around labeling people. * It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.* There are plenty of less-mixed people than the example you give. I don't think a studies invovling ethnicity necessarily have to involve every single person in the US, so people without a clear ethnicity don't need to cloud things (though studying someone of mixed ethnicity might be illuminating in some contexts).
    - Retric 18y ago
      My point is people don't consider 25% black an edge case. Having two parents that where 40% black does not make you 100% black but Americans label people that way. Take Halley Berry the "first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry) I would be shocked if she was more than 40% "black" at the genetic level. It would be an interesting study, but I suspect 60+% of "African Americans" to be at least 25% white in the USA. I suspect if you compared the relative percentage vs (whatever) you would see little change, because social issues tend to swamp most other issues and they tend to identify with black. My first boss was darker than the average African American, but he graduated from Yale and acted more stereotypically "white" than I do. Other classic examples would be trying to separate Arabs from Jews, Indian from white, Japanese from Chinese, etc. People like to identify with specific groups, but when you look at genetic studies anywhere up to 30% of children in married couples have a different father than they think they do. Culturally Incest is considered evil in part because genetic diversity is positively correlated with survival, but this also extends across cultural and ethic bounds. PS: Not to mention war / rape and other issues. I heard that the "Black Irish" originated from the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. Plenty of people swam to shore and never made it back to Spain.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  One problem with the kind of markers mentioned in the cited article is that they are not subject to selection pressure and not likely to be correlated with any phenotype of interest.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    The markers simply prove that race is, indeed, a definable category. This makes the question "is group A different from group B in way X?" meaningful. It proves nothing about the answer, nor is it intended to. For comparison, a less meaningful question is "are biologically NY people smarter than biologically NJ people?" The question doesn't even make sense since you can't differentiate between NY and NJ people biologically. As for whether the markers are likely or not to be correlated with interesting phenotypes, I'll wait to see data before guessing about what is likely.
jacoblyles 18y ago
>"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically;" One of the things that shocked me about taking my first Bioinformatics class was how casually the professor talked about race. It seems like the concept of race is well accepted in the field, at least as it denotes large haplogroups of the human species. If you gave me the mitochondrial DNA from an Indian, then I am pretty sure that I could tell you it came from an Indian. Also, I think well-designed statistical studies would easily meet all your objections. As to whether or not such studies would be useful - I think they would. A common public policy problem is the disparate performance of students from different racial groups in school. As long as public policy sees racial groups as meaningful, it is probably useful to study them.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
it is silly to have a strong opinion about race at this point. we don't have enough data either way. I will say that the blank slaters are pretty anxious to maintain the status quo. socialism isn't defensible without assuming neurological uniformity.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
also: you can do a statistical regression by cross referencing between the IQ results and socio-economic census data. this minimizes the effects of other variables. Many separated twin studies have been done as well and the results are consistent. try to give researchers a little more credit.
thras 18y ago
No. You are simply wrong. Here is a chart of the ancestry of European-American individuals across 587 SNP markers: http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/price.jpg http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/price.jpg The appropriate approach to that chart is to believe our lying eyes, yes? Even with that (relatively) small amount of genetic data, three racial groups are readily apparent, with the Ashkenazi Jews standing out quite drastically. And since you brought up IQ, it's interesting to note that the Ashkenazi tend to average 10-15 IQ points higher than the rest of Europe. Check out this article from the Journal of Biosocial Science: http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...

by gjm11 18y ago

ars 18y ago

"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically" People say that a lot - but it's not actually true. Do you think it's socially important for people to believe that, and to blind themself to differences? Fine, I can accept that. But do not delude yourself into thinking it's actually true.

byrneseyeview 18y ago

The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically You can find an interesting piece disagreeing with that view here: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

Retric 18y ago
One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.
- endtime 18y ago
  Some people might, especially if the person looks black, but I'm sure a lot of people would also label that person white, or mixed. There might even be people (gasp) who don't go around labeling people. * It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.* There are plenty of less-mixed people than the example you give. I don't think a studies invovling ethnicity necessarily have to involve every single person in the US, so people without a clear ethnicity don't need to cloud things (though studying someone of mixed ethnicity might be illuminating in some contexts).
  - Retric 18y ago
    My point is people don't consider 25% black an edge case. Having two parents that where 40% black does not make you 100% black but Americans label people that way. Take Halley Berry the "first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry) I would be shocked if she was more than 40% "black" at the genetic level. It would be an interesting study, but I suspect 60+% of "African Americans" to be at least 25% white in the USA. I suspect if you compared the relative percentage vs (whatever) you would see little change, because social issues tend to swamp most other issues and they tend to identify with black. My first boss was darker than the average African American, but he graduated from Yale and acted more stereotypically "white" than I do. Other classic examples would be trying to separate Arabs from Jews, Indian from white, Japanese from Chinese, etc. People like to identify with specific groups, but when you look at genetic studies anywhere up to 30% of children in married couples have a different father than they think they do. Culturally Incest is considered evil in part because genetic diversity is positively correlated with survival, but this also extends across cultural and ethic bounds. PS: Not to mention war / rape and other issues. I heard that the "Black Irish" originated from the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. Plenty of people swam to shore and never made it back to Spain.
tokenadult 18y ago
One problem with the kind of markers mentioned in the cited article is that they are not subject to selection pressure and not likely to be correlated with any phenotype of interest.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  The markers simply prove that race is, indeed, a definable category. This makes the question "is group A different from group B in way X?" meaningful. It proves nothing about the answer, nor is it intended to. For comparison, a less meaningful question is "are biologically NY people smarter than biologically NJ people?" The question doesn't even make sense since you can't differentiate between NY and NJ people biologically. As for whether the markers are likely or not to be correlated with interesting phenotypes, I'll wait to see data before guessing about what is likely.

jacoblyles 18y ago

>"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically;" One of the things that shocked me about taking my first Bioinformatics class was how casually the professor talked about race. It seems like the concept of race is well accepted in the field, at least as it denotes large haplogroups of the human species. If you gave me the mitochondrial DNA from an Indian, then I am pretty sure that I could tell you it came from an Indian. Also, I think well-designed statistical studies would easily meet all your objections. As to whether or not such studies would be useful - I think they would. A common public policy problem is the disparate performance of students from different racial groups in school. As long as public policy sees racial groups as meaningful, it is probably useful to study them.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

it is silly to have a strong opinion about race at this point. we don't have enough data either way. I will say that the blank slaters are pretty anxious to maintain the status quo. socialism isn't defensible without assuming neurological uniformity.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

also: you can do a statistical regression by cross referencing between the IQ results and socio-economic census data. this minimizes the effects of other variables. Many separated twin studies have been done as well and the results are consistent. try to give researchers a little more credit.

thras 18y ago

No. You are simply wrong. Here is a chart of the ancestry of European-American individuals across 587 SNP markers: http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/price.jpg http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekadna/price.jpg The appropriate approach to that chart is to believe our lying eyes, yes? Even with that (relatively) small amount of genetic data, three racial groups are readily apparent, with the Ashkenazi Jews standing out quite drastically. And since you brought up IQ, it's interesting to note that the Ashkenazi tend to average 10-15 IQ points higher than the rest of Europe. Check out this article from the Journal of Biosocial Science: http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...