What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Lexicus]

What is race if not differing ancestry? Saying "ancestry" is just another way of saying race. Second, this whole race denial argument is completely asinine. If you want, we can call them populations, if it makes you feel better. It's a distinction without a difference. Third, yes I know how genetic distance works, you're wasting your time by throwing continuum fallacies at me.

"Population" and "ancestry" are not just other way of saying race. Ironically, you are just proving my point about racists seeing what they want to see in the evidence. Meanwhile the fact that you would use the phrase "continuum fallacy" to describe the argument quoted from wikipedia (I assume that's what you are referring to anyway) only shows that you don't understand the argument, what a continuum fallacy is, or both.

So things like the shape of someone's body and brain are "superficial characteristics"?

Pretty much yeah. Physical characteristics are superficial because it's who people are, what they decide to do with their lives, that counts, not their shape or what they look like. Not understanding this doesn't even make you a racist, it makes you a garden-variety shallow jerk.

We're talking about biology here, why would I be using a sociological definition of race?

There is no biological definition of race, because race has no biological validity. The only definitions of race are sociological or cultural.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Lexicus, it seems to me at this point, you argue a normative question. Whereas Hehehe is arguing a positive one. And you are not even arguing the normative angle of what Hehehe is discussing, but more like - apparently - how to treat people or something?
Well it is nice to be nice and open-minded and try to see what is within etcetera. But when we talk cold hard statistical facts - this has no place, at all. Only, when we discuss the (normative) implications, which, for all I can see, this is not about, at this point, since you are stuck before that stage of the discussion.

 

[Hehehe]

Oh, they wanted to say "race," but they avoided doing so because of social taboos on the use of that term?

I don't know what they wanted to say, but I do know that "ancestry" is another way of saying "race", which is another way of saying "population".

"Population" and "ancestry" are not just other way of saying race. Ironically, you are just proving my point about racists seeing what they want to see in the evidence. Meanwhile the fact that you would use the phrase "continuum fallacy" to describe the argument quoted from wikipedia (I assume that's what you are referring to anyway) only shows that you don't understand the argument, what a continuum fallacy is, or both.

I know that "race" exists on a continuum to some extent. I've never denied that, nor do I care about that. Just because it exists on a continuum (to some extent) doesn't mean there can't be differences at the ends. As for the so-called "biological race", I don't care. We can talk about different human populations instead of races. All the same claims that I made before still apply. What you're arguing here is asinine and useless.

Pretty much yeah. Physical characteristics are superficial because it's who people are, what they decide to do with their lives, that counts, not their shape or what they look like. Not understanding this doesn't even make you a racist, it makes you a garden-variety shallow jerk.

There is no biological definition of race, because race has no biological validity. The only definitions of race are sociological or cultural.

If you don't care about shallow superficial traits such as brains or intelligence, then you're free to leave this thread.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What are the races as the cold, hard statistical facts of biology have established them?

Could you provide an exhaustive list?

f you don't care about shallow superficial traits such as brains or intelligence, then you're free to leave this thread.

Your article made no connection between cortical surface geometry and intelligence. It just gave another superficial aspect of human anatomy linked to genetic ancestry.

I don't know what they wanted to say, but I do know that "ancestry" is another way of saying "race", which is another way of saying "population".

But you earlier sounded willing to indulge me in saying "population of genetic ancestry" instead of race. You said you'd do that, if I liked, and I told you that I would like that.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish
The difference among individuals outweighs the difference between groups. You have repeatedly argued this, in such discussions. And you are right, of course.
Look at this picture

Spoiler Race and IQ :

The range goes from about 60 to 140. That is 80 points.
The average black and white IQ is, I will roughly estimate, about 85 and 105, respectively. That is 20 points. 20 points is a lot less than 80 points. That is your argument, really, is it not?
However, a population with the black distribution will still, as a whole, be a lot different to a population with the white distribution. Even if those distributions won't allow us to judge a person, they do, if true - factually and in their implied meaning of course - make it clear that the share of different races matters.

Can I ask what the origin of that diagram is? The url just gives "notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com", which isn't helpful.

Because IQ is not an accurate measure of genetic potential. We know this, because average IQs have increased steadily since the measure has been invented, and there's no clear mechanism by which humans would have developed a genetic tendency towards greater intelligence over that period. There is indisputably an environmental component.

So what the diagram suggests to me is that if you systematically withhold education, nutrition and healthy environments from a group of people, that people are not going to manifest their genetic potential to its fullest. The conclusion being, then, "make sure everyone is educated, fed and safe" rather than "expel the mud-races".

Yeah, but that's not how I'm using the word "race" in this context. We're talking about biology here, why would I be using a sociological definition of race?

But of course, most of what I have said so far does indeed not work with a sociological definition of race.

Then you aren't talking about race. You're talking about something other, distinct phenomenon, which you've labelled raced either because you don't understand the topic, because you're trying to rationalise racist attitudes, or because you're just being willfully difficult.

I'm not going to ascribe any one of these motivations to you, you can speak for yourself on that, but I can't think of any credible fourth option.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I assume you addressed me now

What are the races as the cold, hard statistical facts of biology have established them?

Could you provide an exhaustive list?

Nope. As Hehehe noted, that would also probably be impossible to do so in an accurate and exhaustive manner, since, as he said, biological race or ancestry is a continuum.
My point, personally, is only, there is some good or at least interesting reason to believe that race provides some relevant correlation with genetic IQ within this continuum.

 

[Hehehe]

Because IQ is not an accurate measure of genetic potential. We know this, because average IQs have increased steadily since the measure has been invented, and there's no clear mechanism by which humans would have developed a genetic tendency towards greater intelligence over that period.

What the diagram suggests to me is that if you systematically withhold education, nutrition and healthy environments from a group of people, that people are not going to manifest their genetic potential to its fullest.

Oh dear lord, it's happening, just like I said it would. I'm getting groundhog day'd. We already covered this earlier and it's coming back again. I'll start a new thread about this as soon as I hear from moderators

 

[inthesomeday]

The idea that the shape of somebody's brain has to do with intelligence is almost laughably absurd and archaic.

 

[Hehehe]

The idea that the shape of somebody's brain has to do with intelligence is almost laughably absurd and archaic.

You only asked for differences, which I provided. As for intelligence, I'll make a new thread. I'll provide a well sourced opening post, and I'll cover the basic counterarguments too, because if I don't I know I will get groundhog dayed. It will take some time, but you guys are patient people right?

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus, it seems to me at this point, you argue a normative question. Whereas Hehehe is arguing a positive one. And you are not even arguing the normative angle of what Hehehe is discussing, but more like - apparently - how to treat people or something?

I am not making an argument about how to treat people at all, I'm arguing that the concept of "race" is at best useless and at worst actively counterproductive in understanding actual human variation.

Well it is nice to be nice and open-minded and try to see what is within etcetera. But when we talk cold hard statistical facts - this has no place, at all. Only, when we discuss the (normative) implications, which, for all I can see, this is not about, at this point, since you are stuck before that stage.

Talk to me when the racists get their "cold hard statistical facts" right. They certainly have not done so to date.

I know that "race" exists on a continuum to some extent. I've never denied that, nor do I care about that. Just because it exists on a continuum (to some extent) doesn't mean there can't be differences are the ends. As for the so-called "biological race", I don't care. We can talk about different human populations instead of races. All the same claims that I made before still apply. What you're arguing here is asinine and useless.

Okay, so you didn't understand the argument quoted. It is not saying that there are no differences between people because human variation is a continuous (rather than discrete) phenomenon. If it were saying that you would have a point, but it isn't, so you might want to read it again.

The claims you made before are totally baseless, and you're now basing your argument on a dishonest conflation between terms. You know full well that "race" is not the same as "population" or "ancestry." This is fairly obvious because conceptions of race do not map well with the actual observed genetic variation between human populations. To be more specific, there are no "populations" in genetics that correspond to racial groups, not least because there is virtually no agreement on how to define "racial groups" in the first place.
If looking at actually-existing human variation, we don't see subspecies or subgroups corresponding to the "races", we see a complicated mosaic onto which various racists have projected their absurd taxonomies.

If you don't care about shallow superficial traits such as brains or intelligence, then you're free to leave this thread.

Nice movement of the goalposts; my response was about "the shape of someone's body or brain".

 

[Gori the Grey]

Nope. As Hehehe noted, that would also probably be impossible to do so in an accurate and exhaustive manner, since, as he said, biological race or ancestry is a continuum.
My point, personally, is only, there is some good or at least interesting reason to believe that race provides some relevant correlation with genetic IQ within this continuum.

So biology doesn't deliver us distinct races? But intelligence correlates interestingly with these races (that don't exist)?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Can I ask what the origin of that diagram is? The url just gives "notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com", which isn't helpful.

Sure, I found this picture in a post in this thread, where the respective website was linked.
Link to the post: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...mbest-of-them-all.622618/page-6#post-14875269
But I mainly posted this picture as an illustration to argue the abstract point why group features can matter, even if diversity between units outweighs diversity between groups.

You are of course right that there is no direct translation from genes to IQ. Many many other factors come into play. From your self-image the day you take the taste to your upbringing, which can significantly influence your biological IQ potential, of cours your education and so on and on and on.
However, it is naturally possible to try to isolate those interference factors and subtract them, using statistical means. That is, after all, how most research concerning humans has to be done. But admittedly, IQ is particularly difficult in that regard. Hence, why we still not know for absolute certainty any of the things claimed in this thread. We just have better or worse reasons to think y or x, naturally.

However, you may be surprised to learn that the effect you spoke of, the ever increasing IQ, has stopped in recent years, and even reversed. Suggesting that we maxed out what education can do to up IQs.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So biology doesn't deliver us distinct races? But intelligence correlates interestingly with these races (that don't exist)?

Okay, Gori. What do you want, I ask. A philosphical essay about the nature, meaning and role of abstractions?
Short version: Abstractions are not real in the strictest of senses. But they can be real enough. And for all likelihood, they are the realest thing you will ever, intellectually, know

 

[Hehehe]

Look, Gori the Grey and Lexicus. I could cover those objections easily. But all that will happen is that I'm bound to get groundhog dayed at some point. That's how it always goes. I hammer in one point, and when I'm done, someone will bring up another point. And then a new poster will jump in and bring up one of the points that I already addressed. I'm going to save my energy and address all of those in the opening post. I will take some time to prepare but we can continue this then.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sure, I found this picture in a post in this thread, where the respective website was linked.
Link to the post: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...mbest-of-them-all.622618/page-6#post-14875269
But I mainly posted this picture as an illustration to argue the abstract point why group features can matter, even if diversity between units outweighs diversity between groups.

You are of course right that there is no direct translation from genes to IQ. Many many other factors come into play. From your self-image the day you take the taste to your upbringing, which can significantly influence your biological IQ potential, of cours your education and so on and on and on.
However, it is naturally possible to try to isolate those interference factors and subtract them, using statistical means. That is, after all, how most research concerning humans has to be done. But admittedly, IQ is particularly difficult in that regard. Hence, why we still not know for absolute certainty any of the things claimed in this thread. We just have better or worse reasons to think y or x, naturally.

"There's no empirical reason to believe that heritable intelligence corresponds to race."

"Okay, but, hear me out, what if we pretended it did anyway?"

Repeat ad nauseam.

However, you may be surprised to learn that the effect you spoke of, the ever increasing IQ, has stopped in recent years, and even reversed. Suggesting that we maxed out what education can do to up IQs.

If you're pessimistic enough to think that we've achieved the most sophisticated and comprehensive possible version of education, I suppose.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am not making an argument about how to treat people at all, I'm arguing that the concept of "race" is at best useless and at worst actively counterproductive in understanding actual human variation.

This is about genes and their effect. Genes produce and reproduce by inheritance. Inheritance is visually expressed. Race draws on distinct forms of that expression. Hence race can be an easy marker of diverging inheritance. Hence when exploration and researching inheritance, race may be a useful tool to roughly but easily illustrate and explore the meaning of inheritance.

I think I get that you do not like that, maybe there really is no use for race in that effort, I am no biologist, but it is one way to approach this, and it does not seem to be without interesting results.

 

[warpus]

IQ is a crappy way to measure intelligence, we shouldn't be using it as a benchmark for anything important.

 

[Lexicus]

If you're pessimistic enough to think that we've achieved the most sophisticated and comprehensive possible version of education, I suppose.

I was gonna say it might prove that the neoliberal project of turning education into revenue streams has had consequences.

This is about genes and their effect. Genes produce and reproduce by inheritance. Inheritance is visually expressed. Race draws on distinct forms of that expression. Hence why when exploration and researching inheritance, race is may be a useful tool to roughly but easily illustrate and explore the meaning of inheritance.

Okay, I don't think I'm understanding you because of course we can convey what genes are and how inheritance works without invoking race (I seem to recall they used pea plants as the example in high school biology). Plus, whatever (dubious) benefit we gain by invoking race in such discussions is almost certainly going to be outweighed by the harm caused by validating (or even seeming to validate, because as we have already seen in this thread racists will dishonestly seize on anything that appears to support their nonsense) racist notions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"There's no empirical reason to believe that heritable intelligence corresponds to race."

"Okay, but, hear me out, what if we pretended it did anyway?"

Repeat ad nauseam.

I did not say the first quote, I am quite sure. So I do not know where this "response" is coming from. Okay, whatever dude.

If you're pessimistic enough to think that we've achieved the most sophisticated and comprehensive possible version of education, I suppose.

Yeah true. Just repeating what was said.

IQ is a crappy way to measure intelligence, we shouldn't be using it as a benchmark for anything important.

I agree Lord glibness. The OT post counter, on the other hand...

Sorry for row of posts but I always worry when I edit them in my sparring partner won't notice.

Moderator Action: Multi-posting is not usually the answer, though. ~ Arakhor

@Lexicus
Well it is my assumption that race correlates to a unique split of inheritance you won't find anywhere else. Human genes are so messy, so diverse and so is their inheritance.
But with races, you have some broad and drastic divides in inheritance history, concerning very large groups of humans, and who are also again in themselves diverse. You know, blacks in Asia, East-Asians in East Asia, whites in Europe, Native Americans in America. What this means is, that those large groups were as isolated and departed from each other regarding inheritance as people pretty much got on this planet. You can probably find even much more isolated groups not corresponding to those racial lines, but they will be much smaller (but we need big populations to do proper science), and by now perhaps dispersed into the larger gene pool.
So that is why I see races as not merely interesting and relevant for Racist, but gene scientists.[/mod]

 

[Lexicus]

Well it is my assumption that race correlates to a unique split of inheritance you won't find anywhere else.[...]What this means is, that those large groups were as isolated and departed from each other regarding inheritance as people pretty much got on this planet.

Okay, this is completely false. Glad we could sort that out.

So that is why I see races as not merely interesting and relevant for Racist, but gene scientists.

It may interest you to know that your position is rejected by the majority of geneticists.