Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Wicked, I've got an IQ of 140.889! High five!
Liberal Creationism, or: Yippee, It’s Bell-Curve Time Again!
- Thread starter Guybrush
- Start date
Wicked, I've got an IQ of 140.889! High five!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy
yurp
James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences - Jason Malloy, GNXP
Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence - Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy & Henry Harpending
A Family Tree in Every Gene - Armand Leroi
Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce - Lawrence H. Summers
Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence - Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy & Henry Harpending
A Family Tree in Every Gene - Armand Leroi
Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce - Lawrence H. Summers
Whether or not these hypotheses hold up (the evidence for gender differences is reasonably good, for ethnic and racial differences much less so), they are widely perceived to be dangerous. Summers was subjected to months of vilification, and proponents of ethnic and racial differences in the past have been targets of censorship, violence, and comparisons to Nazis. Large swaths of the intellectual landscape have been reengineered to try to rule these hypotheses out a priori (race does not exist, intelligence does not exist, the mind is a blank slate inscribed by parents). The underlying fear, that reports of group differences will fuel bigotry, is not, of course, groundless.
The intellectual tools to defuse the danger are available. "Is" does not imply "ought. " Group differences, when they exist, pertain to the average or variance of a statistical distribution, rather than to individual men and women. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that all groups are indistinguishable. Yet many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points, to say nothing of the wider world community.
Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously. Perhaps geneticists will forbear performing these tests, but one shouldn't count on it. The tests could very well emerge as by-products of research in biomedicine, genealogy, and deep history which no one wants to stop.
The Edge Annual Question - 2006. "What is your dangerous idea?" - Steven PinkerThe intellectual tools to defuse the danger are available. "Is" does not imply "ought. " Group differences, when they exist, pertain to the average or variance of a statistical distribution, rather than to individual men and women. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that all groups are indistinguishable. Yet many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points, to say nothing of the wider world community.
Advances in genetics and genomics will soon provide the ability to test hypotheses about group differences rigorously. Perhaps geneticists will forbear performing these tests, but one shouldn't count on it. The tests could very well emerge as by-products of research in biomedicine, genealogy, and deep history which no one wants to stop.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Interesting links, Vim.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Oh for fuck's sake.
Vimothy, are you really going to bring up Larry Summers' ridiculous speech in this context? You realize that he literally, in the course of what he ostensibly thought was a serious discussion of "gender" and science, brought up the anecdote "my daughter has always loved dolls" as "evidence" that "gender" is biological.
This thread just keeps getting worse.
Vimothy, are you really going to bring up Larry Summers' ridiculous speech in this context? You realize that he literally, in the course of what he ostensibly thought was a serious discussion of "gender" and science, brought up the anecdote "my daughter has always loved dolls" as "evidence" that "gender" is biological.
This thread just keeps getting worse.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Yes, of course people look different, but the genetic markers for, say, "skin color" (basically the sole criteria that works across what you would call "racial" difference) are a) not even very interesting or important markers as far as genetic difference is concerned, and b) more variation exists within one "ethnic" group than there exists similarities.
I realized after I posted that my examples weren't necessarily the best (hence my second-guessing edit), but my general point still stands. Why choose a bunch of geographically grouped hereditary physical differences as being important enough to call "race". The very act of calling some set of characteristics a race ensures that they are seen as being important enough distinctions to merit a name. But why these characteristics, and (even more key) why these visible, physical characteristics? There are plenty of other genetic characteristics (some visible, plenty not) that are linked to geography (such as the aforementioned resistances to malaria) that we don't distinguish upon, and that we don't call race. Why are these characteristics that you describe important enough to be given a name, and others not? Why do we "need to" call these things race?
We don't. It's not a necessary term that has arisen out of need from our study of biology and genetics, such as the distinction between different species. It's very telling that all the research given has started with the definition of various races, and then moved on to trying to prove how they differ genetically, whereas research into different species would first be concerned with determining whether differences exist that are significant enough to merit differentiation between species (itself a very rigorously defined term). So much of this research, (and indeed your own comments, Tea) presuppose the existence of race, and then go about trying to find differences. There are a lot of different ways you could slice up the human genome, and I have yet to see a reasonable argument why this culturally-defined, entirely contingent notion of "race" is the best one.
In fact, not only is it not the "best" way to slice it, it shouldn't even be a way at all. Because given that all the justification for racial differences has come after the definition of what race is, you have to ask why we're using the term at all. Well because it's been in use for thousands of years by people largely much more ignorant about genetic differences and what they mean. It's no mystery why you seem to have chosen visible physical differences as the genetic traits meriting the term "race", it's because these were the traits that people having been using to discriminate against other cultural groups for millennia. You would never categorize race on a bunch of non-physically observable traits, because they are very hard to discriminate against. Your use of the term race is the old, racist culturally-defined one, and the scientific "evidence" used here is a post-hoc fig leaf covering over this.
I don't want to claim that you (and others) are explicitly racist, Tea, it's just that your disavowal of racism takes an unnecessary dog-leg in order to get there. First you posit that race exists and that the differences between races are important enough to merit the term "race" and then you claim that the differences actually aren't really important. And though you may be working quite hard at denying the importance of racial differences, your never going to quite get over the fact that you've already admitted racial differences are important. So if you really believe racial differences AREN'T important, cut out that first step and stop calling them "racial" differences in the first place.
N
nomadologist
Guest
I find Bratz rather disturbing to be honest with you. Where does one draw the line between baby dolls and blow up dolls? In retail, just about where Bratz hit the market.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Awesome post, Turtles. The reason why Mr. Tea's arguments disappoint/frighten me is for the same reason any otherwise educated persons' arguments against the existence of institutionalized racism do--it is scary to me that those who have every excuse to know best how pernicious the denial of institutionalized racism is are joining in on the denial instead of vigilantly looking to knock down the house of cards every time it gets rebuilt...In the end, I do have to question the motives of someone who cannot see the ideological importance and volitility of these issues.
It's utterly baffling to me as well that Vimothy thinks the Bell Curve researchers were somehow conducting their research in a sort of political void where ideological biases and underpinnings didn't exist. Surely Vimothy would be the first to say research disproving the mapability of "intelligence" onto "IQ" onto "evolutionary success" had an ideological bias or "agenda." Why is it so difficult for him to see one at work in the Bell Curve?
It's utterly baffling to me as well that Vimothy thinks the Bell Curve researchers were somehow conducting their research in a sort of political void where ideological biases and underpinnings didn't exist. Surely Vimothy would be the first to say research disproving the mapability of "intelligence" onto "IQ" onto "evolutionary success" had an ideological bias or "agenda." Why is it so difficult for him to see one at work in the Bell Curve?
Last edited:
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
mixed_biscuits said:
Which, the barbie one or the action-man one?
nomadologist said:
Regretably, I think we well know the answer to that by now. Vim and others still have an ideologically naive faith in scientific empiricist dogma, oblivious to how such 'facts' are structural effects, are mediated by political, social, and economic antagonisms and inequalities.
Wiki on race:
"The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species".
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As Stephan Palmie has recently summarized, race "is not a thing but a social relation"; or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will. For example, the fact that in many parts of the United States, categories such as Hispanic or Latino are viewed to constitute a race, while others view "Hispanic" as referring to an ethnic group, has more to do with the changing position of Hispanics in U.S. society, especially in the context of the civil rights movement and the debate over immigration."
N
nomadologist
Guest
Who said anything about being "colorblind"? The political discourse surrounding issues of "blackness" or "whiteness" are not to be ignored; they're simply not to be compounded by making reference to a "biological" cateogory called "race"--race should not be mentioned as anything other than a social construct.
Last edited:
Guybrush
Dittohead
Whatever we want to call the findings, does this not seem to buttress Mr Tea’s argument?
I. Genetic variation in humans forms clusters that correspond to geography
The fact that one can cluster humans together by geography based solely on their genetic information was most convincingly demonstrated in two papers (the second one is open access) by a group out of Stanford. These studies looked at several hundred variable places in the genome in 52 populations scattered across the globe. The hypothesis was as follows-- on applying a clustering algorithm to these data, individuals from similar geographic regions would end up together. I've put a representation on the right [actually reproduced below], where colors represent poplations-- on top is a pattern of variation that would lead to no clustering (the colors all blend one into the next) while on the bottom is a pattern of variation that would lead to clustering (there are subtle but noticable jumps from yellow to green, for example, though there is much variation within each color). Note that the lack of clustering would not mean that all populations are genetically the same (in the top figure, yellow and orange are not "the same" even though you couldn't find a fixed boundry between them). But indeed, the researchers found the situation corresponding to the bottom figure-- the individuals formed five clusters which represented, in the authors' words, "Africa, Eurasia (Europe, Middle East, and Central/South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas". Some populations were exceptions, of course (there are always exceptions in biology)-- they seemed to be a mix between two clusters, or could even form their own cluster in certain models.
But in general, the second model in the figure is a good fit for human variation based on the spots in the genome used by these researchers-- continents correspond to clusters, and geographic barriers like the Himalayas or an ocean correspond to those areas where a "jump" from one cluster to the next occurrs.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
French politics did, and does. They're so wedded to their histroical ideal of egalité that, as far as the French establishment is concerned, to live in France is to live in a perfectly equal, racism-free society by definition. For this reason there is no racial profiling in any census taken, which conveniently allows them to ignore the quite massive levels of inequlality and non-integration that are such big problems for the country's immigrant communities.
N
nomadologist
Guest
What kind of scientific headway would referring to similarities so general and widespread make? What would this do for research? None. Nothing.
N
nomadologist
Guest
Yeah, well, that's obviously not a very intelligent way to handle difference either.
Guybrush
Dittohead
From what I can tell, and I’m going to look more closely into it, the study indicates that there is indeed genetic variations between people living on different continents. Perhaps so slight as to be negligible, but still clear and present. Do remember that nobody in this thread has suggested that these variations are striking, only that they are quite clearly a reality.