Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

[Adam]

1) "Discredited" is not the same as "wrong". It just means unpopular. People often claim eugenics has been discredited, and this is of course pure idiocy.

2) It is not racist to say there are physiological differences among humans, and that trends in such can be identified with where one's ancestors come from. Nor is it racist to say, based on such differences, that one is better than another. For example, Australian aborigines can handle direct sunshine a little better than I can, specifically because of their darker skin. Of course most white people also handle direct sunshine better than I do. Horses for courses. Some are better for one thing, some for others. These are general physiological trends which do not really place restrictions upon the capabilities of individuals. The obvious physical differences are employed by coroners every day, all around the world, to identify corpses when bodies are decomposed and such.

3) It is racist to say, based on whatever: "My entire ethnic group is superior to yours, or to all others". Personally I don't have a problem with people saying "My culture is better than yours." It's based entirely on one's subjective ethics and such anyway, and naturally a culture one is comfortable with will be preferable. For example, I find my own culture vastly superior, for me, to the culture in Pakstian in which men marry and rape 8 year old girls, and mutilate them with acid if they complain too much. Screw it. My culture IS better.

 

[Adam]

IQ tests are entirely valid, for what they do. They measure the mental faculties. Real IQ tests are nothing like the ones you see on the internet. They are not the alpha and omega of personality; they do not define every damn thing about a person. However, they do measure the mental capabilities, the capacities. For example, in part of it they test the functioning of short term memory and data management.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
IQ tests are entirely valid, for what they do. They measure the mental faculties. Real IQ tests are nothing like the ones you see on the internet. They are not the alpha and omega of personality; they do not define every damn thing about a person. However, they do measure the mental capabilities, the capacities. For example, in part of it they test the functioning of short term memory and data management.

Sure, but is it ok to manipulate the data derived from an IQ test(which I don't buy into completely anyways, but that's neither here nor there) in order to support unfounded assumptions?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
1) "Discredited" is not the same as "wrong". It just means unpopular. People often claim eugenics has been discredited, and this is of course pure idiocy.

2) It is not racist to say there are physiological differences among humans, and that trends in such can be identified with where one's ancestors come from. Nor is it racist to say, based on such differences, that one is better than another. For example, Australian aborigines can handle direct sunshine a little better than I can, specifically because of their darker skin. Of course most white people also handle direct sunshine better than I do. Horses for courses. Some are better for one thing, some for others. These are general physiological trends which do not really place restrictions upon the capabilities of individuals. The obvious physical differences are employed by coroners every day, all around the world, to identify corpses when bodies are decomposed and such.

3) It is racist to say, based on whatever: "My entire ethnic group is superior to yours, or to all others". Personally I don't have a problem with people saying "My culture is better than yours." It's based entirely on one's subjective ethics and such anyway, and naturally a culture one is comfortable with will be preferable. For example, I find my own culture vastly superior, for me, to the culture in Pakstian in which men marry and rape 8 year old girls, and mutilate them with acid if they complain too much. Screw it. My culture IS better.

1)"Discredited" meaning wrong, Adam. Really.

2) Why is it important for you to have racial data? What good do those differences(real or percieved) do for you?

3)Everything about this eugenics stuff is about subjectivity. So what good does it serve?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure, but is it ok to manipulate the data derived from an IQ test(which I don't buy into completely anyways, but that's neither here nor there) in order to support unfounded assumptions?

If the conclusion is "unsupported", then obviously the data does not support the assumptions. Kinda obvious.

 

[Adam]

1)"Discredited" meaning wrong, Adam. Really.

No, it's really not. Unless you can somehow justify your assertion than "Eugenics is wrong".

2) Why is it important for you to have racial data?

It isn't.

What good do those differences(real or percieved) do for you?

See, there's this thing called anthropology...

There's this other thing called medicine...

There's this other thing called palaeontology...

3)Everything about this eugenics stuff is about subjectivity. So what good does it serve?

No, it's not. I see now reason for this whacky suggestion of yours. It is about functionality. Once again, a good example is Osteo Genesis Imperfecta. It serves no identified positive purpose. It reduces the survivability, physical capability, and breeding potential of anyone afflicted.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Zero
Deep breaths, chum...no one is saying that IQ tests are completely invalid, except maybe Nereid, and I'm not sure why. I'd agree with you that IQ tests can be valid, in the right context.

[b(] Nereid did not say that; in fact, in several posts - including at least one in reply to SelfAdjoint - Nereid stated that the g-construct may be relatively unremarkable, but that there seemed to be big problems with extending it down (e.g. genes) and up (e.g. national wealth).

Why is it a scientific dead end?
Because1, to oversimplify, theories and their falsification are the heart of science; an operational construct may play a temporary, helpful role, but it must be replaced by a decent theory for the field to progress (of course, it may take a century or two to get there!)

Because2, if IQ/g is something to do with the brain, and is so powerful (look at the list of correlations!), it's odd that our neuroscientist colleagues haven't found anything yet. My goodness, even 'consciousness' is slowly yielding its secrets! Of course, this is not to say that one day something will turn up.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Adam
Once again, a good example is Osteo Genesis Imperfecta. It serves no identified positive purpose. It reduces the survivability, physical capability, and breeding potential of anyone afflicted.

Adam, Osteo Genesis Imperfecta (Brittle Bones) is not a completely inherited disease. While some minor cases are inherited, most severe cases are not. Eugenics would not prevent it.

"In some cases, mostly milder ones, the disorder passes from one generation to another. In most severe cases it comes `out of the blue' with no signs in either parent."

http://www.brittlebone.org/html/overview.htm

Apparantly your reasons for eugenics differ greatly from Nachtwolf's, you want to alleviate suffering while he is afraid of some non-existant threat of being overrun by low IQ people and having the world destroyed.

Adam, stop and think about it, where do you draw the line? Ok, let's say no one with a family history of disease that can be passed on can have children. Ok, anyone who has a family member that has had cancer, heart disease, leukemia, diabetes, etc, etc, etc... There will not be a single person left on Earth allowed to have a child. Or, Nachtwolf's worse nightmare, only a handful of low IQ people in Africa will be allowed to breed!

Eugenics is ridiculous because no two people will ever agree on who the "right" people are that should breed.

If you "personally" have a family history that holds a great risk of passing a dibilitating disease to a child, I agree that you have the right to decide not to have children, if that is your choice. That is not eugenics.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
No, it's really not. Unless you can somehow justify your assertion than "Eugenics is wrong".[re:discredited=wrong]

Allow me to clarify: Discredited means accepted(decided) to be wrong by the scientific community. Just like no good theory can ever be shown to be 100% correct, no bad theory can ever be shown to be 100% wrong. But when the general scientific community comes to such a strong consensus of opinion, you'd be wise to consider it: IQ vs. race research is flawed and the conclusions are wrong.

If you wish to question the open-mindedness or bias of the scientific community, consider cold fusion. THOUSANDS of scientists dropped everything to attempt to duplicate an experiment released to a newspaper instead of through the usual scientific process. In retrospect, its a little surprising, nevertheless its a good illustration of how willing the scientific community really is to consider revolutionary ideas.

Sure, but is it ok to manipulate the data derived from an IQ test(which I don't buy into completely anyways, but that's neither here nor there) in order to support unfounded assumptions?

I wish I had saved the quote, but I'm pretty sure it was Adam who said precisely that in the politics forum: it is ok to lie to support your opinion.

 

[hitssquad]

Originally posted by Nereid

Originally posted by hitssquad quoting from a CB publication:
How are the race categories used in Census 2000 defined?

“White” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa... etc

Actually, that's only how the OMB/CB wrote it; how each of the >250 million people who put multiple "X" in squares

It was 6.8 million people who put multiple "X" in squares in Question 6 (Q6).


--
The overwhelming majority of
the U.S. population reported
only one race.

In Census 2000, nearly 98 percent
of all respondents reported only
one race (see Table 1). The largest
group reported White alone, accounting
for 75 percent of all
people living in the United States.
The Black or African American
alone population represented
12 percent of the total.
--
(p3 of 11)
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf



--
Only 2.4 percent of all
respondents reported two or
more races.

The Two or more races category
represents all respondents who reported
more than one race. The six
race categories of Census 2000 can
be put together in 57 possible combinations
of two, three, four, five, or
six races (see Table 2). Less than
3 percent of the total population reported
more than one race. Of the
6.8 million respondents who reported
two or more races, 93 percent
reported exactly two.
--
(p5 of 11)
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

is known only to those folk; they could be lying, ignorant of their "origins", feeling that "it's none of your *** business", etc

This lack of discrete access to quantum force vector datum was acknowledged https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=150837&highlight=answer#post150837 (02-22-2004) by the present author who noted in the same instance that what is important from a statistical worldview is statistical assessment of consistency, not discrete knowledge:


--
Nereid wrote:
with 'race' ... self-identification hardly constitutes a reliable basis,

As far as a statistical viewpoint is concerned, statistical methods quantify reliability. Statistical methods applied to instances of self-identification of racial categories return quantifications of reliability in those instances.

Unreliability in an instance of racial self-identification would imply, over the lifetimes of a substantial portion of individuals in the populations under study, systematic inconsistency in the answering of the institutionally-posed race-category question. E.g., a given unreliably-self-identifying individual may claim to be black one year, white the next, then asian, then American Indian, etc.
--
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=150837&highlight=answer#post150837

In fact, from studies which Jensen himself cites, we know that almost all those who put an "X" in the "Black" square should (if they only knew) have also put an "X" in the "White" square,

"Black" does not necessarily mean 100% sub-Saharan negroid African. For whatever reason, or reasons, there seems to be a population in the United States that relatively consistently self-identifies as black. This population has been found to possesses largely African genetic markers mixed with a smaller portion of European genetic markers, both within the population as a whole and within individual members of the population.

A recent estimate puts the average percetage of Europeans markers in individual self-identified blacks at 17%:


--
Shriver's project is not complete, but with data from 25 sites already in, he is coming up with 17-18 percent white ancestry among African-Americans. That's the equivalent of 106 of those 128 of your ancestors from seven generations ago having been Africans and 22 Europeans.

According to Shriver, only about 10 percent of African-Americans are over 50 percent white.

This genetic database is restricted to adults. Black-white married couples quadrupled in number between the 1960 Census and 1990 Census, so the admixture rates among children are no doubt higher than among adults.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/message/9213

Originally posted by Nereid

hitssquad again, quoting Jensen
There is considerable variation within these broad groups, of course, and there are many other derivative or blended groups that could be called races...
...the criteria for all of the classifications are genetically based.

Translation: because there's a lot of variation, there's no clear, consistent means to define a 'human race', and (modern extension) studies of human genetic variation support the conclusion that 'race' is, biologically, for humans, a largely arbitrary choice.

--
The important point is that the average difference between individuals within a group is less than the average difference between groups on the relevant physical characteristics, whether at the molecular level or the gross physical level of measurement.
--
Intelligence, Race, and Genetics. p117.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081334008X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

we have a test-based construct

All constructs require tests and statistical analyses of those tests to be revealed. The tests themselves do not constitute bases of constructs.


--
Spearman argued that a collection of items as found in Binet's test "works" only because g enters into any and every mental task... In Spearman's words:

• This means that, for the purpose of indicating the amount of g possessed by a person, any test will do just as well as any other, provided only that its correlation with g is equally high. With this proviso, the most ridiculous "stunts" will measure the self-same g as will the highest exploits of logic or flights of imagination... And here, it should be noticed, we come at last upon the secret of why all the current tests of "general intelligence" show high correlations with one another, as also with g itself. The reason lies, not in the theories inspiring these tests (which theories have been most confused), nor in any uniformity of construction (for this has often been wildly heterogeneous), but wholly and solely in the above shown "indifference of the indicator." (1927, pp. 197-198)

--
The g Factor. (p33)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

with no theoretical

--
Factor. The word "factor" has a number of dictionary definitions, but the term as used here has a very restricted, specialized meaning. A factor is a hypothetical variable that "underlies" an observed or measured variable. Thus a factor is also referred to as a latent variable. It is best thought of initially in terms of the mathematical operations by which we identify and measure it.

Although a factor is identifiable and quantifiable, it is not directly observable. It is not a tangible "thing" or an observable event. So we have to be especially careful in talking about factors, lest someone think we believe that we are talking about "things" rather than hypothetical and mathematical constructs. But one can say the very same thing about the many constructs used in the physical sciences (gravitation, magnetism, heat, valence, and potential energy, to name a few). They are all constructs. This does not imply, however, that scientists cannot inquire about the relationship of a clearly defined construct to other phenomena or try to fathom its causal nature. Nor is a construct "unreal" or "chimerical" or less important than some directly observable action or tangible object. Certainly the force of gravity (a hypothetical construct) has more widespread importance than the particular chair I am sitting in at the moment, and is every bit as real. A lot of pointless arguments can be avoided by consistently maintaining a clear distinction between the purely mathematical definition, identification, or measurement of factors, on the one hand, and theories about their causal nature, on the other.
--
The g Factor. (pp55-56)
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

or biological basis

Discrete knowledge of the origins of statistical data is not necessary for that data to be used to produce consistently effective technology. Discrete knowledge of any possible biological origins of g is not necessary for the g construct to be effectively used to produce consistently effective technology.

- correlated with a social construct (with well-known political and social baggage)

Americans self-identify with racial groups with measurable and quantifiable consistency.

being used to draw 'scientific' conclusions

What they are used for is the production of consistently effective technology. Whether or not it reaches some arbitrary person's standard of scientific is irrelevant to the effectiveness of the technology produced.

about the innate, biological capabilities of those social groups.

In a statistical worldview (field-independent; process oriented), things do not have innate characteristics; rather, any characteristics which might be observed or recorded are necessarily situation specific.

The reverse is true of a discrete worldview (field-dependent; outcome oriented).



[Edit: formatting adjusted]

-Chris

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Allow me to clarify: Discredited means accepted(decided) to be wrong by the scientific community. Just like no good theory can ever be shown to be 100% correct, no bad theory can ever be shown to be 100% wrong. But when the general scientific community comes to such a strong consensus of opinion, you'd be wise to consider it: IQ vs. race research is flawed and the conclusions are wrong.

There are deep flaws in the IQ vs. race research, but people cling to the faulty research anyways. We know for a fact that the studies have been done improperly, or the data has been manipulated, and yet some people want to claim that the research is somehow not flawed. That's where I feel that a person's motives come into question. This is, IMO, worse than the "flat-earth" people, because there is actual research being actively done incorrectly to support racial discrimination.

What it most reminds me of is creationism. Creationists already know what they believe, then they selectively choose data that will back up their beliefs, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence against them. But, creationism and Nazi-style breeding programs have nothing to do with science, even when it is disguised under names like "intelligent design" and "eugenics". It is all about the political and social movement, and any "facts" presented aren't their to convince fellow scientists. All teh work is done as propaganda, to convince gullible laypersons that their pre-existing biases have some sort of scientific basis.

If you wish to question the open-mindedness or bias of the scientific community, consider cold fusion. THOUSANDS of scientists dropped everything to attempt to duplicate an experiment released to a newspaper instead of through the usual scientific process. In retrospect, its a little surprising, nevertheless its a good illustration of how willing the scientific community really is to consider revolutionary ideas. I wish I had saved the quote, but I'm pretty sure it was Adam who said precisely that in the politics forum: it is ok to lie to support your opinion.

Cold fusion is a good case in point for another reason, Russ, one that you or others may not be familiar with. As with The Bell Curve and other propaganda, the cold fusion supporters bypassed peer review and publication in scientific journals, and went straight to the public. Other scientists are usually willing to go over each and every page of a study and point out flaws in the experimental set-up, possible math errors, ways to eliminate researcher bias, etc. When someone avoids peer review, it is very often a sign of trouble.

And, of course, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about Pygmies and African brain-size studies...its a good one, and shows the inherent lack of science in racism-supporting science.

*edited to add* Russ, you know it is ok to lie to support your beliefs...it says so in the Bible!

 

[Nereid]

Nereid: the lack of a theoretical or biological basis to the g-construct means that it's a dead-end, scientifically - there's nowhere you can go with this, and every time you want to establish another correlation, you are forced (if you're honest) to repeat the entire set of studies in the new context

SelfAdjoint: This is just not true, and only shows the predjudice of the "hard" scientist against the social sciences generally. *SNIP

I trust that I have adequately clarified the 'dead-end scientifically' comment?

To clarify 'context'. Nachtwolf, Apollo, Carlos and (to some extent) hitssquad (not to mention Lynn and Vanhanen!) have generalised Jensen (and others') work on the 'race-IQ' connection ('the g-nexus') way beyond the US. Hitssquad has told us that Jensen himself has always been careful not to claim that his work can necessarily be applied beyond the US. This is wise; if the construct has no theoretical or biological underpinning, its use beyond the context in which the correlations were observed can always be challenged.

re predjudice: let's compare Economics with the 'scientific' study of the 'racial basis of IQ/g'?

There are how many thousand studies into the 'self-interested, rational decision makers'? Into 'markets'? Where constructs are used in economics, how often is 'a statistical worldview' regarded as wholly satisfactory? Examples of non-Gaussianity being recognised as grounds for falsifying hypotheses?

 

[Nereid]

Hitssquad and Nereid have been over much of the content in hitssquad's recent post in this thread, in other Social Sciences threads. Rather than repeat, I'll just address one point.

hitssquad: "Black" does not necessarily mean 100% sub-Saharan negroid African. For whatever reason, or reasons, there seems to be a population in the United States that relatively consistently self-identifies as black. This population has been found to possesses largely African genetic markers mixed with a smaller portion of European genetic markers, both within the population as a whole and within individual members of the population.

and, quoting the Census Bureau:

“White” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples
of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa...

“Black or African American” refers to people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa...

Ergo, almost all "blacks" should have put an "X" in both the "White" box and the "Black or African American" box, to be consistent with the CB's definitions, assuming they knew. And a goodly number of "whites" should have also make at least two "X"s

Ergo, "Black" and "White" (as the term are used in the US Census) are not biological races.

hitssquad: As far as a statistical viewpoint is concerned, statistical methods quantify reliability. Statistical methods applied to instances of self-identification of racial categories return quantifications of reliability in those instances.

Maybe, but without better characterisations of the data than hitssquad or Nachtwolf have given so far, assertions of 'reliability' are unsubstantiated. What sorts of characterisation are missing? Examples:
- both mean and median measures of the distributions
- the distributions of the data about the means
- measures of non-Gaussianity, and their significance

To be clear:

If there is a g-genes connection, then the distribution of g among groups* of (US) 'blacks' (and (US) 'whites', but perhaps less pronounced) is highly unlikely to be Gaussian.

If the distribution is non-Gaussian, then none of the g-correlations have the strength quoted in the literature (they'll all be weaker, and many disappear altogether).

*it may be possible to find a group whose IQ/g distribution should be Gaussian, according to some g-nexus idea; however these groups would likely be highly unusual, if hitssquad has been reporting accurately.

 

[hitssquad]

Sabrina, paste, and Plato

Originally posted by Nereid
Ergo, almost all "blacks" should have put an "X" in both the "White" box and the "Black or African American" box, to be consistent with the CB's definitions, assuming they knew.

Identification on the 2000 U.S. Census form as multiracial was voluntary. A respondent of 99.99% european and 0.01% sub-Saharan negroid African stock could have selected only black and been in full compliance with the instructions. The same respondent could have selected only white or mixed white and black and similarly been in full compliance with the instructions. The crucial criteria were limited to only some Afroid stock and self-identification.


--
The question on race asked
respondents to report the race or races
they considered themselves to be. [The
question is] based on self-identification.
...respondents were given the option of
selecting one or more race categories
to indicate their racial identities.
--
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf


The multi-race option was entirely optional. And the point, from a statistical worldview, is the consistency of the responses, not whatever degree of conformity there might be to discrete Platonic sets. American blacks happen to self-identify with a certain quantifiable amount of consistency. They self-identify however they happen to self-identify, and their racial admixture ratio is whatever it is.

Ergo, "Black" and "White" (as the term are used in the US Census) are not biological races.

A race made from a mixture of races can be a new race, as long as the resulting population inbreeds and breeds true. This has been going on for 10,000 years in the field of animal husbandry, and it apparently happened in the case of a group of 35 some-odd million Americans who -- with some degree of consistency -- self-identify today as blacks.

If there is a g-genes connection, then the distribution of g among groups* of (US) 'blacks' (and (US) 'whites', but perhaps less pronounced) is highly unlikely to be Gaussian.

The two distributions superimposed might look like this. The positive skew noticable in the black distribution might be the result of progressively both greater and rarer caucasian admixtures in the American black gene pool.




-Chris

 

[Adam]

Evo

Adam, Osteo Genesis Imperfecta (Brittle Bones) is not a completely inherited disease. While some minor cases are inherited, most severe cases are not. Eugenics would not prevent it.

"In some cases, mostly milder ones, the disorder passes from one generation to another. In most severe cases it comes `out of the blue' with no signs in either parent."

http://www.brittlebone.org/html/overview.htm

I'm quite well informed when it comes to this condition. While not all cases are passed from parent to child, many are. For example, my aunt passed it to her one of her daughters, and her grandchildren. Every member of that family is eagerly anticipating the day when the condition can be removed from the human gene pool. They all have very severe versions of the problem. Before you ask "How could the daughter have kids then?", well, the daughter who produced the grandchildren was not afflicted, she just passed it on.

Apparantly your reasons for eugenics differ greatly from Nachtwolf's, you want to alleviate suffering while he is afraid of some non-existant threat of being overrun by low IQ people and having the world destroyed.

Too late. www.bushorchimp.com

Adam, stop and think about it, where do you draw the line? Ok, let's say no one with a family history of disease that can be passed on can have children.

Who ever said anything about limiting who can have kids? I know I didn't. If something is listed as a hereditary defect or disease or such, wipe it out with a little genetic fiddling. Let everyone have kids. (Actually that is a problem, and we need to shift people off to other worlds or something. But that's another thread.) The only problem then is if people start listing "blonde" or "blue-eyed" as a defect or disease. So I suggest that before such a programme could ever be employed, we would first need a set of standards, carved in stone, which determine what is and isn't a defect or such. Something along the lines of "Conditions linked to genes, and which can be relieved by genetic therapy, which cause pain and a lack of basic human physical capabilities." Also include the necessary "Such alterations can only occur with the knowing consent of the patient, and no law may force them into it."

Eugenics is ridiculous because no two people will ever agree on who the "right" people are that should breed.

I think I've covered that. What other reasons do you have for calling it ridiculous?

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

Allow me to clarify: Discredited means accepted(decided) to be wrong by the scientific community. Just like no good theory can ever be shown to be 100% correct, no bad theory can ever be shown to be 100% wrong. But when the general scientific community comes to such a strong consensus of opinion, you'd be wise to consider it: IQ vs. race research is flawed and the conclusions are wrong.

Well, that's nice, but it's also a Straw Man argument. I also think it's a bit whacky to draw conclusions about populations IQs and ethnicity. However, that's got nothing to do with Eugenics. The IQ-race thing is dodgy as hell, but Eugenics has not in any way been discredited by anyone. Eugenics is not the theory "Let's kill all the Somethingians because they're stupid". That whacky theory is something entirely different, often called "Complete raving nutter ideas", which, unfortunately, dragged the word "Eugenics" into its crapulence about sixty-odd years ago.

In short, yes, the IQ-race thing is dodgy. But that says nothing about Eugenics.

 

[Adam]

russ_waters

I wish I had saved the quote, but I'm pretty sure it was Adam who said precisely that in the politics forum: it is ok to lie to support your opinion.

That's awfully close to an ad hominem, russ_waters.

 

[Adam]

Heck, if the most popular theory about the rise of Humans is true, and we all came from Africa (or base stock from Africa and maybe some interbreeding with other varieties here and there), then the entire "race" section of this discussion is irrelevant anyway. So we can forget about that and concentrate on more important things, like actual problems, such as the disease I mentioned earlier.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Heck, if the most popular theory about the rise of Humans is true, and we all came from Africa (or base stock from Africa and maybe some interbreeding with other varieties here and there), then the entire "race" section of this discussion is irrelevant anyway. So we can forget about that and concentrate on more important things, like actual problems, such as the disease I mentioned earlier.

Adam, why is it that your perception of Eugenics isn't labeled as such in most of the writings I've seen? What you are talking about is something completely different from what we have seen is the more common usage, even if yours is technically correct. I understand you wanting to remove yourself from the racist elements, and I think you have done so pretty well.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Adam I'm quite well informed when it comes to this condition. While not all cases are passed from parent to child, many are. For example, my aunt passed it to her one of her daughters, and her grandchildren.

That's very sad, I know how tragic this disease is.

Who ever said anything about limiting who can have kids? I know I didn't.

Didn't you say that you were for eugenics? Eugenics is a controlled breeding program for humans. Eugenics is not genetic engineering. See the dictionary definitions below.

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: eu•gen•ics
Pronunciation: yu-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction

: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Dictionary.com
eu•gen•ics P Pronunciation Key (y -j n ks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding

This is why I call eugenics ridiculous.

If something is listed as a hereditary defect or disease or such, wipe it out with a little genetic fiddling.

I am all for genetic engineering, I think the positive results can be very beneficial. Which is why I am all for stem cell research. I am against eugenics, the two are not the same.

So it sounds like you are not for eugenics, you are for genetic engineering to help wipe out disease?

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Zero
There are deep flaws in the IQ vs. race research, but people cling to the faulty research anyways. We know for a fact that the studies have been done improperly, or the data has been manipulated, and yet some people want to claim that the research is somehow not flawed.

Mr. Pot, I see you're calling Mr. Kettle black again. You're clinging to the idea that this research is flawed without any evidence to the contrary.

Can actually identify these 'deep flaws' in race vs. IQ research, or do you have a cogent argument that reseach of this type is intrinsically flawed?
I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but the way that you 'defend' it is so dogmatic, and so flawed that I can only describe it as a straw man.

Originally posted by Zero What it most reminds me of is creationism. Creationists already know what they believe, then they selectively choose data that will back up their beliefs, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence against them.

Without granting unwarrented credence to the notion that there is some correlation between IQ and race, it seems like you're more intersted in spouting your dogmatic position about some poorly defined notion of racial equality.

Originally posted by Zero But, creationism and Nazi-style breeding programs have nothing to do with science, even when it is disguised under names like "intelligent design" and "eugenics". It is all about the political and social movement, and any "facts" presented aren't their to convince fellow scientists. All teh work is done as propaganda, to convince gullible laypersons that their pre-existing biases have some sort of scientific basis.

Just because you do not agree with the results of research does not automatically make it propaganda.

Originally posted by Zero
Cold fusion is a good case in point for another reason, Russ, one that you or others may not be familiar with. As with The Bell Curve and other propaganda, the cold fusion supporters bypassed peer review and publication in scientific journals, and went straight to the public.

Because, of course, we all know that the cold fusion was propaganda designed to support the political cause of ... hmm, exactly what politics would be interested in having cold fusion work?

As with The Bell Curve Other scientists are usually willing to go over each and every page of a study and point out flaws in the experimental set-up, possible math errors, ways to eliminate researcher bias, etc. When someone avoids peer review, it is very often a sign of trouble.

There are problems with the peer review process, because the reviewers have political and selfish motivations -- I've heard more than one story about people whose reviews invariably include 'cite paper ***** that I published'. So although I agree that avoiding peer review indicates a problem, it's not necessarily the case that the problem is with the research or the paper.

As with The Bell Curve
And, of course, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about Pygmies and African brain-size studies...its a good one, and shows the inherent lack of science in racism-supporting science.

Probably for similar motivations to the ones that lead you elect innuendo over substance.

So, in response to your original question:

Why do people cling so tightly to racism?

Many of the characteristics associated with race - for example skin color - are easily observable, and have significant predictive value in many situations. That is, that in some situations 'racism' is a reasonable behavior. For example, in areas which are primarily populated by one 'racial group' people from outside that racial group are much more likely to be outsiders. This applies equally well to people who dress differently, or speak differently than the locals. The treatment of ousiders varies depending on the society and situation, but it's easy to document that they are generally treated differently than locals.

There are, of course, unreasonable racist behaviors. There are supposedly people, who, for example, believe that all or most jews are part of an international banking cabal which controls the world.

 

[Zero]

Nate, I'll give you one last chance to take a wild stab at why I would possibly feel that any inclusion of Pygmies in a brain-size study would almost certainly show inherently poor methodology...I swear its a groovy reason, and I was hoping that Nachtwolf character would go for it, since he just LOVES brain-size studies.

*edited to add*Wait...you didn't just defend creationism, did you?

 

[Zero]

BTW...isn't almost a law of science that people who complain the most about discrimination against their work are the ones who also deserve it the most? Claims of pressure against research from "mainstream science" and "political correctness" appear most often from pseudoscientific sources, after all.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Cold fusion is a good case in point for another reason, Russ, one that you or others may not be familiar with. As with The Bell Curve and other propaganda, the cold fusion supporters bypassed peer review and publication in scientific journals, and went straight to the public. Other scientists are usually willing to go over each and every page of a study and point out flaws in the experimental set-up, possible math errors, ways to eliminate researcher bias, etc. When someone avoids peer review, it is very often a sign of trouble.

I alluded to that, but yeah, the fact that they subverted the scientific process is a big flashing red light that for some reason most scientists didn't pick up on. They should have simply ignored it, yet for some reason (the credentials of P&F maybe?) they dropped everything to research it. And in doing so, they lended unwarranted (and really, unintended) credibility to the claims.

And, of course, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question about Pygmies and African brain-size studies...its a good one, and shows the inherent lack of science in racism-supporting science.

The pygmies thing is a funny joke until you realize its for real. Then it becomes pathetic and disturbing. I'm at a loss to explain how people can look at such a clear and obvious flaw and disregard it. Its like telling someone they have a headlight out on their car and having them disagree. Its tough to know what to say next.

That's awfully close to an ad hominem, russ_waters.

I'll see if I can find the quote. It was quite explicit.

I am all for genetic engineering, I think the positive results can be very beneficial. Which is why I am all for stem cell research. I am against eugenics, the two are not the same.

Yeah, I seem to be missing this one too, Evo. Adam, care to clarify? You say you are for eugenics, but what you describe sounds like genetic engineering. Not the same thing.

Can actually identify these 'deep flaws' in race vs. IQ research, or do you have a cogent argument that reseach of this type is intrinsically flawed?

Again, I'm not following. There have been literally dozens of examples given by Nereid of flaws in this type of resarch and these flaws are for the most part common to all research on the subject (given by the fact that most papers cite the same studies over and over).

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated.

Just because you do not agree with the results of research does not automatically make it propaganda.

Him, me, Nereid, virtually the entire scientific community... How many people does it take before you will consider the possibility that you are wrong? (this applies to everyone here who lends credence to these studies)

Ergo...

...concordantly, vis-a-vis. [/matrix] (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[Zero]

Here's an interesting layman's background article on the specific racist political and social aspirations behind the Eugenics movement(sorry Adam, I don't mean you genetic engineering supporters...):http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There have been literally dozens of examples given by Nereid of flaws in this type of resarch and these flaws are for the most part common to all research on the subject (given by the fact that most papers cite the same studies over and over).

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated. Him, me, Nereid, virtually the entire scientific community... How many people does it take before you will consider the possibility that you are wrong? (this applies to everyone here who lends credence to these studies) ...concordantly, vis-a-vis. [/matrix] (sorry, couldn't resist).

You'll probably enjoy the link I just posted then, Russ, which shows that the financial backers of the seminal eugenics work were staunch supporters of racism, who most likely sent people out with the express goal of getting results to back up their racism in the first place.(it is a "liberal" link, try not to be too alarmed, ok? )

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Zero
Nate, I'll give you one last chance to take a wild stab at why I would possibly feel that any inclusion of Pygmies in a brain-size study would almost certainly show inherently poor methodology.

It's roughly the same reason that your claim that research about race and IQ correlations is flawed because of excessive pygmy sample use in a skull size survey: poor sampling.
I may have misunderstood the paragraph that I quoted, but the claim it makes, at least without context, is that all research regarding race and IQ is flawed.

My personal experience with this type of research is that it is generally post hoc -- it seems to invariably be a survey of some other research or surveys, so that selective sampling (of research) is readily possible, and my position on the issue is probably close to Russ's:

It may be possible to do some real research on the subject, but as yet it appears no one has attempted to. Part of the reason for that, no doubt, is such a thing would be extrordinarily complicated.

Originally posted by Zero
*edited to add*Wait...you didn't just defend creationism, did you?

Only in the sense that I don't agree with the argument you're making. You're conflating creationism with IQ correlation is a form of a straw man argument. Essentially what you said is
"Creationism is like eugenics. Creationism and eugenics are unscientific and wrong. Anything that indicates that either of them is correct is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to further a political agenda or provide people with excuses." You did spice things up by thowing in other emotionally loaded or controversial terms like 'nazi', "intelligent design', and 'propaganda', but it's not exactly a well formed argument. (OT: Since nazi was used appropriately, Goodwin's law does not apply)

In a more general sense, the problem with your posts is that they are not persuasive. They generally follow the format of "foo is wrong/unscientific/bad", and while expessing your position is fine, it doesn't really make for a usefull discussion to just endlessly repeat statements of that form.

Some of the other posters - Evo, Russ, and Adam who posted in this thread for example - back up their claims with reason, or at least identify how they reached the position that they have.

Here are paraphasings:

Adam - I think people should reproduce selectively because it can prevent problem x.
Evo - Study foo is flawed because there were too many pygmys and bushmen in the sample.
Russ - Race and IQ correlation research appears to be flawed in general because all of the studies that we've seen have had flaws.
Zero - Eugenics is wrong.

The part after the because is important not only because it makes the arguments more persuasive, but also because it identifies misunderstandings and/or fundamental differences. Consider, for example the distinction between eugenics as 'state controlled human breeding program' and 'selective reproduction' that came up in this thread.

By the bye, describing the use of amniocentesis combined with elective abortion as genetic engineering is questionable because genetic engineering typically refers to recombinant DNA. Similarly, testing for recessive genes to reduce the risk of inhereted disorders in progency is also probably not genetic engineering.

 

[Zero]

Nate...if you don't like my posting style...ummm...tough. Ya big goofball!

Eugenics is flawed BECAUSE it is a bunch of Nazi propaganda...happy?

 

[Nachtwolf]

NateTG says:My personal experience with this type of research is that it is generally post hoc -- it seems to invariably be a survey of some other research or surveys, so that selective sampling (of research) is readily possible

Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains. I know I was using this as a means of ridiculing Zero, but I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could even show me one such study. Right now - and I'm just being honest, here - I don't think they exist.

Zero says:
Eugenics is flawed BECAUSE it is a bunch of Nazi propaganda...happy?

No, eugenics was around before the Nazis, having been created in Britain by a relative of Charles Darwin named Francis Galton, and implemented throughout a variety of Western societies, including my home state of California. The Germans came somewhat late to the game. To conflate eugenics with Nazism because the Nazis believed in it just like everyone else did, and to then shout "it's discredited because of the Nazis!" is like saying that the Nazis believed in a round Earth so "the world must be flat!" This is of course utterly absurd, and it only further demonstrates what I've said before about you having a fundamental inability to understand what this whole thing is about, Zero.

The most amusing thing here is that even after I've just explained this to you, you still won't get it. You'll continue to believe on faith that eugenics is bad and continue to make an utter fool of yourself.


--Mark

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf Nate, haven't you been paying attention to where I repeatedly asked Zero to provide a single study contradicting what I've said? If you think there's selective sampling going on, find me one study where blacks have higher IQs than whites or East Asians, or where they have larger brains. I know I was using this as a means of ridiculing Zero, but I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could even show me one such study. Right now - and I'm just being honest, here - I don't think they exist.

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

 

[Nereid]

hitssquad: A race made from a mixture of races can be a new race, as long as the resulting population inbreeds and breeds true. This has been going on for 10,000 years in the field of animal husbandry, and it apparently happened in the case of a group of 35 some-odd million Americans who -- with some degree of consistency -- self-identify today as blacks.

Hitssquad and Nereid have discussed this point too, elsewhere in Social Sciences.

Nereid observed that, since the US Supreme Court ruled, in 1967, that laws against 'inter-racial marriage' are unconstitutional, the rate of 'white-black' marriage (expressed as a % of 'black-black' marriages) has been increasing (according to Census Bureau data); at first it grew very quickly, then the rate of increase slowed down (but it continued its remorseless increase), and today is ~1 in 10. Of course, 'marriage' is not the same as 'breeding'. Perhaps someone steeped in population dynamics can tell us whether an 'out-breeding rate' of 1:10 meets hitssquad's criteria ("the resulting population inbreeds and breeds true"), especially as - according to hitssquad - the offspring overwhelmingly self-identify as 'blacks'.

hitssquad: The two distributions superimposed might look like this. The positive skew noticable in the black distribution might be the result of progressively both greater and rarer caucasian admixtures in the American black gene pool.

Thank you hitssquad, if the author of the webpage you provided the link to has drawn the curve accurately, it's confirmation that much of the g-nexus rests on rather shaky statistical grounds. Why was it so difficult to bring this manifest non-Gaussianity to light?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

1. Good job; that's interesting, thanks. I'll remember that.

2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison. I hope you won't fault me if I say:

I rest my case.


--Mark

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison. I hope you won't fault me if I say:

I rest my case.

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. Nice to meet you.

 

[Evo]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf
2. You've shown me a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison.

It happens to be in one of the 6 studies sited by Rushton (although he didn't use this bit of information) along with the HO et al reference "you" posted without a URL. You don't have it? I'm surprised.

You did say "any study". I gave you what you asked for.

 

[hitssquad]

Ricklan Tobias Zulu

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late
19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc. Ricklan and Tobias 1986

a study, with no URL, title, or any other information I'd need to look it up, which is over 100 years old, that finds a 1450cc mean for Zulu males, with no data on whites or East Asians for comparison.

Google returns http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/anthro-l/archive/november-1994/0088.html of Ricklan Tobias Zulu:


--
Rushton cited several papers on brain size and IQ differences and I have now had a chance to carefully read them...

BRAIN SIZE- Rushton submitted 6 references to support the conclusion that brain size is largest among Asians, intermediate among Euros and smallest among Afros. I will summarize the main results of each and then discuss the overall pattern...

Ricklan and Tobias 1986. This paper reports a mean endocranial volume for 50 male and 50 female Zulu of South Africa. The sample came from cadavers which the authors point out come mainly from the lower socioeconomic strata of society. Male cranial volume was 1373.3cc and female volume was 1251.2. This gives a combined sex mean of 1312.3cc. The main point of the paper is to emphasize the low level of sexual dimorphism in this population. The authors review a good deal of material on cranial volume in African populations and report means for 1) American Negros; 2) other African Negros; and 3) South African Negros. Their data (p.289) show largest cranial volumes for South Africans Negros (1310cc mixed sex mean), followed by other African Negros (1285 cc mixed sex mean), and then American Negros (1282cc mixed sex mean). The authors also present some data that suggest a negative secular trend in cranial capacity among the Zulus during the past 100 years (ie. volumes may have been decreasing in time). It is known that Zulus have shown a negative secular trend in stature during the past century and also that stature correlates with cranial volume. Thus a negative secular trend in cranial volume might be expected. Cranial volume measurements of the Zulu in the late 19th century show males with a mean of 1450cc (or a 6% larger volume) at that time.
--




Here's the abstract of the Ricklan and Tobias study as indexed on medline:


--
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1986 Nov;71(3):285-93.

Unusually low sexual dimorphism of endocranial capacity in a Zulu cranial series.

Ricklan DE, Tobias PV.

The mean cranial capacities of 50 male and 50 female Zulu crania were found to be 1373.3 +/- 107.4 ml for males and 1251.2 +/- 101.1 ml for females (means +/- SD). The male value resembles that of other Negro groups, while the female value is somewhat higher than the value for Negro crania as a whole. The index of sexual dimorphism is 8.9%, which is low when compared with those of other Negroid series and other populations. The possible causes for this form of a low sexual dimorphism are as follows: A negative secular trend, with the assumption that the Zulu crania were larger than those of the reference populations of African Negroids before the start of the secular trend change. This would seem to be the most likely possibility, with some supporting evidence for both parts of the explanation. An absence of secular trend, with a demographic sampling aberration, in which large females and small males of the population are sampled. This possibility cannot be totally excluded. An absence of secular trend, with a genetic difference in sexual dimorphism for cranial capacity between the Zulu and the reference populations. While this possibility cannot be excluded, it would be the least preferable explanation.

PMID: 3812650
--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3812650&dopt=Abstract




-Chris