Lexicus
Deity
That isn't the argument being made. If the races were significant biological categories, analogous to subspecies or "breeds", then that genetic picture would look very different.
What if your race is the dumbest of them all?
- Thread starter Ryika
- Start date
That isn't the argument being made. If the races were significant biological categories, analogous to subspecies or "breeds", then that genetic picture would look very different.
So they measure everything we think of as intelligence, but you're not convinced? Ok then.
It's interesting you should say that. I'm not saying there are subspecies within humans, but comparing heterozygosity within humans to heterozygosity within animals that have regognized subspecies yields some interesting results. Also, for those who think differences between races are smaller than differences within races, check out figure 1 on page 2.
Senethro
Overlord
What do you think that graph means? Were you able to find the original source for it?
I believe Lewontin's fallacy is considered common knowledge. But if you want to know more about it, you can read the wiki article. It contains the counter-argument to Lewontin's fallacy and the critique that the counter-argument received.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy
Senethro
Overlord
That wasn't what I was asking for. You directed us to a particular figure in the paper you linked, and that figure is used from somewhere else. I tried to follow the link but didn't find it.
I'm not inclined to trust a figure reused in this manner, especially when it has been admittedly modified. I'd like to know who made it and what modifications have been made.
Source is the study I linked. They took it from from gnxp under creative commons and then modified it in order to illustrate Lewontin's fallacy. If you want to know more, I suggest you either look up Lewontin's fallacy or contact the people who made the figure.
civver_764
Deity
Lol. Is reality even real maaaaan?
What do you mean when you say "race isn't real"? Which position are you rejecting? I'm not convinced that we even disagree on this topic.
You're not arguing in good faith carl. Try to understand the point I'm actually trying to make, rather than thinking you need to "educate" me on irrelevant details. Using a larger font size doesn't make your argument any more convincing.
I've seen this talking point brought up like a million times, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It is precisely that 6% (usually I see the figure 15%) that accounts for what are understood to be the "racial differences".
Consider that there is more genetic version within sexes than between the sexes, but it would be absurd to claim that sex differences don't exist.
Dog breeds are like this as well. There is more genetic diversity within dog breeds than between them, are you going to tell me that dog breeds are a social construct?
Senethro
Overlord
You're the one who said it linked the paper specifically for the figure and implied it would be of interest to those "who think differences between races are smaller than differences within races".
As far as I can tell the figure is for a hypothetical (i.e. made up) dataset and the use and context by the original source is unknown.
So I don't understand your original intent.
Dog breeds are absolutely a social construct.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,352
Unironic hugs, as it turns out, are my favorite kind.
Those here pushing the idea that race is a concept established by biologists have been obliging enough to cite their sources, so that in each case one can show that those biologists either scrupulously avoid using the term or explicitly repudiate it.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
yes, and despite how carefully Cavalli-Sforza tries to word his concepts, his Human Genome Diversity Project has been denounced as racist and exploitative.....
"The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) aims to collect biological samples from different population groups throughout the world, with the aim of building up a representative database of human genetic diversity. This seems a laudable aim, but the Project has been enmeshed in massive controversy since it was first proposed in 1991, with violent reactions from many of the indigenous people's groups it proposes to study. Here, David King takes an in-depth look at the issues, and draws some far-reaching conclusions about the role of science and scientists in the modern world."
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
No, it doesn't measure every single aspect of intelligence.
@Hehehe: "high statistical reliability" is nice to have in any test and tells you exactly nothing about validity regarding the thing you intent to measure - as it tells you nothing about what it is you are actually measuring merely that whatever you are measuring can be reproducibly measured. The one quote from Snyderman is paywalled as an article but the abstract is quite clear in that a lot of problems were seen but the testing was seen as worthwhile in an educational setting - again not saying anything about what exactly it measures and the last quote is utterly unsourced opinion and does not identify what type of testing would be necessary to measure whatever intelligence is supposed to be.
Showing this as an attempt to claim IQ testing is a measure of intelligence (whatever that is) is not convincing at all - that IQ is decent predictor of future income is similarly not convincing regarding whether it measure intelligence unless intelligence is defined as a predictor for future income and IQ score likely measures a host of things making sweaping declarations about intelligence based on it hard to prove to say the least.
Showing this as an attempt to claim IQ testing is a measure of intelligence (whatever that is) is not convincing at all - that IQ is decent predictor of future income is similarly not convincing regarding whether it measure intelligence unless intelligence is defined as a predictor for future income and IQ score likely measures a host of things making sweaping declarations about intelligence based on it hard to prove to say the least.
Re the black people ---> NBA thing:
a) in Europe there are many (obviously the vast majority) skilled white players
b) in the US it seems that it is a favoured career outlet for non-rich black kids, who can aspire to make loads of money that way. Of course only a few will become stars, but physical traits (not sure, but maybe black somatic type favours gaining muscle? again, i have no idea) are popular in the current form of basketball, which used to be more about insanely talented shooters, while now is mostly big bodies battling for shots/position near the basket.
Basketball has also become (imo) WAY too much about height, though it is understandable. Even in Europe, you see many teams having even the point-guard be over 2 metres tall.
And if the ref allows for very physical play, you wouldn't want a skinny guy there in the first place.
a) in Europe there are many (obviously the vast majority) skilled white players
b) in the US it seems that it is a favoured career outlet for non-rich black kids, who can aspire to make loads of money that way. Of course only a few will become stars, but physical traits (not sure, but maybe black somatic type favours gaining muscle? again, i have no idea) are popular in the current form of basketball, which used to be more about insanely talented shooters, while now is mostly big bodies battling for shots/position near the basket.
Basketball has also become (imo) WAY too much about height, though it is understandable. Even in Europe, you see many teams having even the point-guard be over 2 metres tall.
And if the ref allows for very physical play, you wouldn't want a skinny guy there in the first place.
Last edited:
The data set comes form Edwards. The paper is listed in the sources.
Ok, what are these aspects of intelligence that IQ does not measure? Do they produce some kind of measurable effects in the real world? If not, I don't particularly care about them.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps there is a lot more to intelligence than just IQ. But it doesn't change the fact that IQ is a very good metric for a variety of life outcomes. It correlates with education level, occupation level and income level better than any other conceivable factor. So please, do show me, what real world outcomes are we missing by only focusing on IQ?
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
whats your new ava, bro? reverse image search tells me nuffin
I was saying the opposite, actually. Race is real, just like god and love is real. Race is a concept that we (in human interaction) use/apply consciously and unconsciously, clearly it is real. And yes, we do agree on this part. "compassion" is also intangible, but I think most people would agree it is real.
I have already long accepted the point you are trying to make. There are real, measureable differences between "races". (Almost) Everyone ITT agrees on that as far as I've seen.
Sorry, man, but you seem to have a really profound misunderstanding about how science works. Thought experiment: If we divided all the people on earth into two groups: Pudding lovers and Icecream lovers and then made all future IQ studies based on these two "races", how valid would our results actually be? If we found out that there is a noticeable genetic difference between Pudding freaks and Icecream lovers, does that mean we should replace race?
You can choose completely arbitrary categories and still find "surprising differences!" between those two. But unless those categories actually serve a purpose that's hot garbage. "Race" as a concept for dividing humanity into subspecies has failed, it is not valid, finito. People have already mentioned many, many categories that do a much better job at categorizing humans into different groups than race does.
"Sex" is a scientifically valid concept because it is based on biological realities my man. All men are defined by their penis and their set of chromosomes. All women are defined by their vagina and their set of chromosomes.
Race is not and has never been based on biological realities. There is not one thing at all blacks have in common. Not a single one. Maybe something about sickle-cells, I don't know. But that's hardly relevant.
You had this really stupid example of "blacks" being better at Basketball. Which is junk. Statistically speaking, the best BBallers would probably be the Dutch, because they're the tallest people on earth and have very good overall health. This shows beautifully how the concept of race completely sucks. "Blacks" in Africa have some of the smallest groups of people on the entire planet my man. These people are classified as "blacks" for arbitrary reasons (phenotype) and then, in turn, lower the average height of the "black man".
If you, for example, said "the Tutsi in Rwanda" or "The Dinka people in West Bank" are genetically predisposed to be the greatest BBall players you would actually have a point. Because these are the tallest people in Africa. See how these categories like "nationality" (Dutch) or "ethnicity" (Tutsi) are actually useful, because they form coherent groups? While "black" fails completely as a indicator for anything, because people that clearly should not be grouped together are grouped together.
It's utterly useless, it's bullfeathers. I know you're smart, dude. Please stop. Be an ethno-nationalist or something. An islamophobe.
"Race-realists" are just pathetic brainlets, you ain't one of 'em.
I was saying the opposite, actually. Race is real, just like god and love is real. Race is a concept that we (in human interaction) use/apply consciously and unconsciously, clearly it is real. And yes, we do agree on this part. "compassion" is also intangible, but I think most people would agree it is real.
I have already long accepted the point you are trying to make. There are real, measureable differences between "races". (Almost) Everyone ITT agrees on that as far as I've seen.
Sorry, man, but you seem to have a really profound misunderstanding about how science works. Thought experiment: If we divided all the people on earth into two groups: Pudding lovers and Icecream lovers and then made all future IQ studies based on these two "races", how valid would our results actually be? If we found out that there is a noticeable genetic difference between Pudding freaks and Icecream lovers, does that mean we should replace race?
You can choose completely arbitrary categories and still find "surprising differences!" between those two. But unless those categories actually serve a purpose that's hot garbage. "Race" as a concept for dividing humanity into subspecies has failed, it is not valid, finito. People have already mentioned many, many categories that do a much better job at categorizing humans into different groups than race does.
"Sex" is a scientifically valid concept because it is based on biological realities my man. All men are defined by their penis and their set of chromosomes. All women are defined by their vagina and their set of chromosomes.
Race is not and has never been based on biological realities. There is not one thing at all blacks have in common. Not a single one. Maybe something about sickle-cells, I don't know. But that's hardly relevant.
You had this really stupid example of "blacks" being better at Basketball. Which is junk. Statistically speaking, the best BBallers would probably be the Dutch, because they're the tallest people on earth and have very good overall health. This shows beautifully how the concept of race completely sucks. "Blacks" in Africa have some of the smallest groups of people on the entire planet my man. These people are classified as "blacks" for arbitrary reasons (phenotype) and then, in turn, lower the average height of the "black man".
If you, for example, said "the Tutsi in Rwanda" or "The Dinka people in West Bank" are genetically predisposed to be the greatest BBall players you would actually have a point. Because these are the tallest people in Africa. See how these categories like "nationality" (Dutch) or "ethnicity" (Tutsi) are actually useful, because they form coherent groups? While "black" fails completely as a indicator for anything, because people that clearly should not be grouped together are grouped together.
It's utterly useless, it's bullfeathers. I know you're smart, dude. Please stop. Be an ethno-nationalist or something. An islamophobe.
"Race-realists" are just pathetic brainlets, you ain't one of 'em.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,633
It does, I agree. When one of them comes along let me know.
sophie
Break My Heart
The discipline of sports science is actually very decidedly settled on this point. Other than a shift in the bell curve for average height of approximately 5 inches (but otherwise still follows a normal distribution), there is and has been found zero correlation between any genetic attribute and success or likelihood of becoming a basketball player. Or indeed any other sport*. The only factors that have been found to predict likelihood of becoming a professional at any game or skill (incl. e.g. musicianship, chess, etc.) is time spent practicing that sport, and efficiency of the practice methodology.
Quite simply: there's a predominance of African-Americans in the NBA because a) basketball is an extremely popular sport among African-American communities, and b) basketball is a sport that can be practiced very cheaply, so there is a very large population of African-Americans who devote significant time to practicing the sport and so become very good at it. In the same way, there is nothing inherently genetic that would have predisposed a Hun or a Mongol to being a particularly exceptional horserider. It's simply that they spent literally their entire lives riding, from before they could walk, to the day they died. You spend that much time doing a thing, and you're going to get very good at doing that thing.
You can see this same correlation of time spent practicing to populations who are good at Thing in baseball, where domination in the sport went through ethnic waves depending on among whom the sport was popular at the time. This is particularly poignant with baseball as, a) baseball for much of its history was not a sport from which one could make very much money, and so pursuit of a career in the sport was not held as a particularly prestigious or desirable endeavor among affluent communities, and b) Baseball was esteemed as an epitome of Americanness, and so it was seen as a popular means by immigrant communities of establishing and legitimizing their newfound American identity. In the 1840s, 50s, and 60s when the game was a gentlemanly club sport, the best players were white Englishmen/Americans. In the 1890s the sport was dominated almost exclusively by urban Irishmen. In the 1900s and 1910s the sport's locus shifted to more rural locations, and so was dominated by German miners and Southern farmers. In the 1920s, 30s, and 40s it shifted back to urban minority white groups (Irish: Ruth, German: Gehrig, Italian: Dimaggio, Jewish: Greenberg, Polish: Musial). In the late 40s and early 50s the color barrier was lifted, and African-Americans, among whom the sport had been exceedingly popular for the entirety of the sport's history, dominated the sport, and would do so for the next 30 years (Robinson, Mays, McCovey, Banks, Aaron, Gibson, Jackson, Henderson, Smith, Bonds, Griffey Jr., etc.) In the 80s and 90s MLB teams started building facilities in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic to train and develop players, and so we see a concordant domination of the sport by Puerto Rican and Dominican players throughout the late 80s, 90s, and early 00s, particularly as the socio-political locus of the sport in the States shifted away from poor inner city black and minority communities to suburban middle class white communities. Currently the sport is dominated by: Venezuelans, Dominicans, Cubans, and Middle/Upper Class Suburban White People.
*There is really only one sport where there is any correlation whatsoever that has been found between a genetic trait in a geographically correlated population and a specific sport, and that sport is distance running. And that correlation is a single, relatively small valley in Kenya, where people there have evolved a type of slow-twitch muscle in their legs that is able to sustain activity longer and on less oxygen than an average human leg muscle. This follows because, unlike literally any other sport, distance running is a sport that tests an actual evolutionary factor in our historic natural selection. Populations in that region have historically hunted prey by running it down over long distances, and they have been hunting in that same way for nearly the entire history of humankind. So it stands to reason that over long periods, the population would select for individuals who have muscles that are better adapted to distance running. Even so, this genetic correlation singularly applies to that small population in Kenya. When you control for that population, you again find that the sole statistically significant factor in skill at distance running is time spent practicing distance running. And even looking just at that population, it isn't solely because they have muscles that predispose them to be better runners, but, because that population has been doing distance running for tens of thousands of years, they have honed and refined practice methodologies over the milennia, and so are the best runners, not just because they have the best muscles for the job, but also because they spend an inordinate and extremely efficiently applied amount of time just running.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
I don't. I don't accept that "race" is anything but a social construct and so I don't believe that biological variation between humans has anything whatever to do with "race"
civver_764
Deity
It's some cool looking American-style flag that I got from Twitter.
The idea of "black" vs "white" vs "yellow" vs "red" is obviously just an abstraction, but it is an abstraction based on underlying biological differences between different populations. And by observing the evolutionary history of these populations we can put them into "groups" AKA races. No these groups are not perfect or set in stone. I don't think that God literally created each group of people separately.
You keep trying to argue but I'm pretty sure we agree on all of this.
Great.
I notice that you ignored my point about dog breeds. I think that's probably the most convincing analogy here.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I do, even if we don't know how to perfectly measure intelligence, because it means that we can't use IQ to determine whether one race is more intelligent than another. And that's what my argument is, so I gotta care
Similar threads
