Race, Ethnicity Intelligence, and Genetics

[Hermit]

Proposition: There are genuine differences between at least some different races or ethnicities of generally localizable evolutionary origin in terms of at least one form or aspect of intelligence (e.g. analytical spatial reasoning) that cannot be completely explained by environment (including culture) or, in other terms, are dependent upon genetic population differences to some degree. True or false?

Let me see how close I can get.

On the surface of it there appears some plausibility to expect it to be true. After all, there patently are genetic differences between races and ethnicities. Even within what might loosely be regarded as blacks nobody is likely to confuse a Maasai with a Kung, and none of them will be mistaken for an Australian Aborigine. The physical - genetic - differences are undeniable. Can we go from physical genetic differences between races to mental ones? It does not seem to be a long hop. Disregarding the racial dimension for a moment we commonly assume that intelligence is ultimately (though by no means solely) based on something very biological - that is to say - physical: the brain, and some individuals are patently more adept at, say, puzzle solving than others. So far so good.

The concept of intelligence is vague and problematic. The only definition I can accept was given in the other thread. It goes something like this: Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Now, FedUpWithFaith, recalling that you focused on mathematic ability and used the words 'inferior', 'race' and 'genetic', what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the mathematics gene? I suggest they are much the same as discovering the sense of humour gene. At any rate, the plasticity of the brain does not require either at all to explain differences of any of them between individuals, let alone between races.

I acknowledge that your hypothetical stipulates that tomorrow the above proposition will be proved to be either true or false. Nevertheless, I cannot get past the barrier that in my opinion either proof is even possible in principle. So I must ask you: Where is the "Proof (neither for nor against) cannot be forthcoming" option, you insensitive clod?

[FedUpWithFaith]

When you say science proves it, I am assuming that you are referring to a peer-reviewed, repeatable study. The kind of thing that you have repeatedly promised and failed to deliver in the other thread.

I'm saying it is proven by whatever criteria you would need. It is a given. I'm not aiming to prove any science here about race or genetics, only examine how we believe.

Do we really need two threads on such a provocative topic? Why do you care so much about it? Or would anything that poked at the sensibilities of the politically correct do just as well?

Please, XC, this is unbecoming on a freethought forum. I see no need to try to impune my motives. But even if my motives are terrible, what difference does it make? People poke at various sensibilities here all the time. Are any out of bounds? Oh, just the ones you subscribe to I guess....

I never said you were out of bounds, did I? I was just curious as to why you keep pushing the same button.

Why do you think I am? And why do you care? What difference does it make to the truth or falsehood of my arguments?

Listen, if you think I'm a racist and want to justify it, lay it on the line and say so. I'm not going to be offended if you define what a racist is and then back up your argument (preferably in the other racism thread). We've been dancing around this topic for days - well before I added my two cents. Part of my objective in posting in the first place was to get to what racism really is and what is really immoral about it. The topic is important bacause several philosophers, such as Peter Singer, use our prejudices and false assumptions about racism to support second-order arguments like animal rights. And please, before anyone attacks me on this, I'm not arguing for or against animal rights here but simply the nature of false arguments.

You think I'm just doing this because I like taboo subjects and drama? So what if that's true? I don't criticize the people here for having an overabundance of threads dedicated to whether they're drinking coffee or tea or the like and about 30 threads dedicated just to being drunk. I don't bother going into those threads because they bore me to death. If you have a self-righteous streak and fear you can't help but lose your temper in this thread don't come here if you don't want to risk drama. For my part, I've been one of the most civil people here and have done nothing unjustified to inflame anybody other than to have the courage to say things I really believe.

Mankind has now suffered for eons with racism. Surely, two threads on the topic in this forum won't break Pappa's server. It's almost impossible to discuss this topic openly in any other forum or get people to honestly say what they think and that only hides and compounds the problem. We need to learn from that fact too rather than, as supposedly skeptical rationalists, hypocritically reflexing our self-righteousness.

I argue fairly and logically. Where I lack evidence or complete argument I say so upfront if I know it or concede it after the fact when pointed out to me. I don't project certainty where I have none, create strawmen, or obfuscate through misdirection, unacknowledged avoidance, or changing the subject. I appear to be the only one or one of the few capable of doing all these things here. I can do all these things because I feel secure in the integrity of my thinking and the honesty of my arguments even when I don't know all the facts and can prove nothing with certainty. One has to extricate themselves from the mindset Robert Anton Wilson calls, "that which the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

I also happen to enjoy the order and process of logical argument for its own sake, far more even than the titilation of taboo or drama. The seeming appearance that many of you see logical argument as a necessary chore or obstacle to overcome to get people to care what you think is your problem, not mine. If so, go back to the coffee and tea thread if you haven't the stomach for it.

By all means carry on winding up those that find this subject taboo, if that floats your boat, just as long as you do it within forum rules.

I'd been gone awhile. Have the forums rules expanded since last I checked to censor speech the mods might interpret as racist?

I think you have taken me entirely the wrong way here. You have actually gone a long way towards answering my question - although by way of accusing me of ulterior motives.

Pure innuendo and non-responsive to my questions. You have a lot of nerve accusing me of accusing you of ulterior motives. Look at your questions and comments that prompted mine

I wondered why you started the last thread, as it was bound to stir up a little heated discussion and possibly some animosity. That it didn't is a credit to those involved in it. Unfortunately, I had other things to do and couldn't give it anywhere near the time it deserved in order to respond further - even though I wanted to.

I didn't start that thread nor do I recall ever starting such a thread on any forum until this one.

I felt you were being a little manipulative and deliberately provocative in the other thread (although not to the extent that any censure, or even any consideration of censure, was required) and I probably forgot that my admin status makes my comments come across as being official rebukes when in fact they are merely idle queries.

Opinion. Evidence? Look at the context and who said what first. Why do the members here need your babysitting to guard them from my manipulation or provocation if indeed your correct? I think the members here are smart enough to see right through such tactics and mature enough to control themselves. i think its this pre-emptive "get them before they get me" thinking that's taking these threads right down the shitter - not mine.

You have confessed (for want of a better word) that you are seeking to assess attitudes to racism / racialism / discussion of race in this forum, rather than (or at least as much as) seek any answers to the actual questions posed in your posts - pretty much what I always suspected was your motive - and I do wish you had been a little more open about that.

"Confessed"? Who is the manipulative one here XC? I've never "confessed" though I have "conceded" points. Confessing implies or connotes I was guilty of something and probably knew better. I don't know whether this was a deliberately misleading use of language on your part, a Freudian slip, or just an accident. But I'm no longer inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've been more open and honest here about my motives and interests than perhaps anyone here and certainly more than you it would seem. Not everything I do is premeditated either. Sometimes I just go with the flow.

I am happy that we have been able to have this discussion here without drama. I am not in favour of any taboos - never have been - as long as civility between individuals during discussion is maintained.

Well than stop looking like you're trying to put out fires nobody is setting then.

I do have one point to make about 'African-Americans' however. How many AAs are of purely black, African origin?

I don't know, it has nothing to do with this thread anyway.

If we assume (for the sake of this argument alone) that AAs actually are lower in some measurable quality of intelligence, can we be sure that this is due to their black, African genes, or could it be due to the fact that those genes have been diluted by white, redneck, slaveowner genes?

It could be. That would be a harder question to answer. Are you assuming that native "undiluted" black Africans have equal intelligence to Caucasions by the same tests? Can you devise a reasonable sample group of caucasians that you believe are representative of "white, redneck, slaveowner genes" and show they have lower intelligence than either group? You would also need to devise tests for what could be the reverse of "hybrid vigor" i.e., that when 2 gene pools are mixed you somehow actually get a worse outcome than for either gene pool separately. That is also plausible.

Noticeably black heritage can lead to a person being classed as African-American, even if their genotype may be 90% white European. I am not making any claims in either direction, merely pointing out an aspect of studying racial traits that you may have overlooked and certainly haven't mentioned - the fact that physical characteristics rather than genetic characteristics are generally used to determine the 'race' to which a person belongs.

You are absolutely correct. But I am not unaware of this issue. In fact I mentioned the mixing in a much earlier post in the other thread. I have avoided this issue because I believe it could just make the tensions worse and the argument can work against you too. Did you happen to look at the "greatest black mathematicians" link I gave in the other thread? Many of the men pictured look more Caucasian than African don't they? If I had wanted to take the tack of the opposite logic you are inferring, I could have inferred that the white component of those people is what gives them their mathematical advantage. I am making no such claim, but let's try to avoid this particular minefield for now. I think it adds nothing to the argument and will only inflame passions.

[FedUpWithFaith]

The concept of intelligence is vague and problematic. The only definition I can accept was given in the other thread. It goes something like this: Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Now, FedUpWithFaith, recalling that you focused on mathematic ability and used the words 'inferior', 'race' and 'genetic', what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the mathematics gene?

Very low, it is probably due to multiple alleles and/or gene groups, potentially across several chromosomes. But that would be true about many phenotypes partially or completely deterministically driven by genes such as hair color. However, I would not be surprised at all to find there was one gene highly responsible for a particular type of spatial reasoning.

You seem to think you've found the magic bullet to falsify my arguments or validate yours. I see nothing of significance at all here. Am I missing something?

I suggest they are much the same as discovering the sense of humour gene.

Likewise, I wouldn't bet my life if I were you that aspects of humor (e.g., dry, crude/slapstick, pun, visual vs non-visual, etc. ) are not potentially governed in part by multiple alleles and gene groups.

At any rate, the plasticity of the brain does not require either at all to explain differences of any of them between individuals, let alone between races.

Potentially true but essentially a degenerate argument since the plasticity of the brain is ultimately governed by genes.

I acknowledge that your hypothetical stipulates that tomorrow the above proposition will be proved to be either true or false. Nevertheless, I cannot get past the barrier that in my opinion either proof is even possible in principle. So I must ask you: Where is the "Proof (neither for nor against) cannot be forthcoming" option, you insensitive clod?

I don't think you're arguing in good faith here. I'm asking people to be honest about their gut assuming they don't, as I don't, have a conclusive scientific position on the subject. The purpose of this thread was not to pass judgement on the science or possibility or lack of same but how we think. I think I made that clear earlier. I've learned a great deal from everyone here on that score, including you.

The option you want (no proof for or against) is essentially represented by two options already listed: "Yes - I flipped a coin" and "No - I flipped a coin". All you had to do was flip a coin you ignorant stubborn &^%*. You're just afraid you'd have to identify with the coin. There was a method to my madness of structuring the question this way but it is unlikely to see fruition because so few people are voting. However, if a statistically greater number of people (with sufficient sample size) had voted for "Yes - I flipped a coin" or "No - I flipped a coin", I could have inferred that some voters here are not being honest with us or themselves. That is the sort of thing I seek to understand in this thread, not whether one race or ethnic group is superior or inferior by some measure. How many times must I repeat myself?

[floppit]

The option you want (no proof for or against) is essentially represented by two options already listed: "Yes - I flipped a coin" and "No - I flipped a coin". All you had to do was flip a coin you ignorant stubborn &^%*. You're just afraid you'd have to identify with the coin. There was a method to my madness of structuring the question this way but it is unlikely to see fruition because so few people are voting. However, if a statistically greater number of people (with sufficient sample size) had voted for "Yes - I flipped a coin" or "No - I flipped a coin", I could have inferred that some voters here are not being honest with us or themselves. That is the sort of thing I seek to understand in this thread, not whether one race or ethnic group is superior or inferior by some measure. How many times must I repeat myself?

(My bold)

You're logic is clearly circling the drain! Start with the first statement in bold. You assume what the other person wants and ignore the perfectly reasonable position of 'We don't know yet and it is unwise (or even stupid and harmful) to decide by means of chance.' To decide such things from personal experience is only mildly better, the amount of 'chance' involved in which people any individual meets is high, perhaps only matched by the human tendency to meet who we wish to meet!

Now to the second bolded statement.
Had you ACTUALLY added the option 'Threats will not make me abandon reason and say stupid things' or 'Other - please explain' you could plausibly learn something from it, however, to be trying to learn something from it at all is a demonstration of ignorance for reasons I stated above. It is similar to 'Do you believe in God?' polls in that those with more extreme views are more likely to vote making it unrepresentative of all those who decline. Secondly, how in the world would deciding by chance in the absence of reliable data make someone dishonest?

I could have inferred that some voters here are not being honest with us or themselves.

I can't criticise the logic of your position because (getting used to this) you don't actually show or state it, you don't say by what means one could possibly infer dishonesty. What I can say is that I see absolutely no logical path to the same inference of dishonesty - please, if I have missed something explain it.

Oh and BTW, if you want to declare a fallacy in the above can you please use quotes as I have done to actually show where/what it is? Being accused of vague strawmen etc is getting a little tiresome without any evidence where such fallacies exist.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Floppit,

I should probably let somebody else like Frenulum explain my stuff to you because you and I can't seem to communicate. I'll take another stab at it but I fear it will be another waste of time.

First let me say I started this thread so I can define my options the way I like. I have introduced no major biases. You want me to add some sort of self-righteous language to add value judgments about everything. All I care is examining people's certainty in their beliefs they hold right now subject to all the scientific evidence, anecdote, prejudice, or just pure bullshit they take into consideration right now nd they're willingness to be open and honest on this sensitive subject. I'm not trying to get people to vote on science as if their belief has any relevance to what is really true. You can't vote to make things true or false.

I want to force people to indicate their belief, even if they only believe it with 0.01% certainty and not leave them the easy out so many would undoubtedly choose whether they sincerely believe it or to avoid having to confront themselves on this difficult topic. All the options anyone needs are already listed. If you want to flip the coin under protest, fine, register your protest. But flipping a coin is your only option right now if you are truly and completely unsure of the truth of the proposition.

As far as inferring the honesty or subconscious beliefs implicit in my coin flip options let me try to explain to you by example. Everybody like you who believes the proposition is undecidable should flip the coin. If everybody is really making a random choice by really flipping a coin or other random means then roughly equal numbers of people like you should vote for "Yes - I flipped a coin" AND "No - I flipped a coin". However, if I saw that 100 people voted, "No - I flipped a coin" and 3 people voted "Yes - I flipped a coin" I would have to conclude that many people probably did not truly vote on these options randomly and voted more for "No" because of one or more of the following reasons:
- They are truly biased to the "No" answer because they believe it's "No" deep down.
- They are truly biased to the "No" answer because they want to be identified by that answer for reasons other than belief, e.g., political correctness, etc.
- They were biased by placement or presentation, i.e., there is something about the placement or presentation of the poll itself that biased them to the "No" answer (if we really had to be rigorous this could be easily corrected by using multiple polls with random presentation parameters)

Now that I've explained the objective this very explanation would now likely bias the results of the coin toss answers. My objective is destroyed. I doubt the types of people answering with the coin toss would want to enable me to infer any non-presentation biases so I'd predict that those who did not flip a coin would tend to vote for Yes or No in a manner geared to even them out artificially.

[floppit]

Everybody like you who believes the proposition is undecidable should flip the coin.

Why?

[FedUpWithFaith]

Everybody like you who believes the proposition is undecidable should flip the coin.

Why?

Because this is the only option I'm giving you to express your complete lack of choice or certainty in accepting or rejecting the proposition. It satisfies all the necessary and sufficient requirements to express your complete uncertainty without implying any value judgments which you are free to express in this thread - and have. I'm sure everyone here understands your scientific values on this matter and they are perfectly valid.

If you want to remain obstinate for no logical reason I can discern other than to protest my poll I can't force you to vote Floppit. Don't vote then. I don't care anymore.

[Hermit]

The option you want (no proof for or against) is essentially represented by two options already listed: "Yes - I flipped a coin" and "No - I flipped a coin".

The 'yes' and 'no' parts of the options make it unacceptable to me. A "Proof (neither for nor against) cannot be forthcoming" option would have been. And guess what? In answer to "The purpose of this thread was not to pass judgement on the science or possibility or lack of same but how we think", that is how I think. Deal with it.

The concept of intelligence is vague and problematic. The only definition I can accept was given in the other thread. It goes something like this: Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Now, FedUpWithFaith, recalling that you focused on mathematic ability and used the words 'inferior', 'race' and 'genetic', what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the mathematics gene?

Very low, it is probably due to multiple alleles and/or gene groups, potentially across several chromosomes.

Very well. Let me rephrase the question: what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the constellation of multiple alleles and/or gene groups, potentially across several chromosomes that differs from race to race?

you ignorant stubborn &^%*.

How dare you!


Herumph.












I quite like those posts of yours that are not of the borish variety, by the way.

[FedUpWithFaith]

The option you want (no proof for or against) is essentially represented by two options already listed: "Yes - I flipped a coin" and "No - I flipped a coin".

The 'yes' and 'no' parts of the options make it unacceptable to me. A "Proof (neither for nor against) cannot be forthcoming" option would have been. And guess what? In answer to "The purpose of this thread was not to pass judgement on the science or possibility or lack of same but how we think", that is how I think. Deal with it.

What i said for Floppit goes for you. I defined the problem such that there is no excluded middle as a pure hypothetical question not intended to mirror scientific reality or any reality at all. It doesn't matter that your point is correct in terms of "truth" or not. This is about belief and forcing to make a limited choice, in this case the closest choice to what you believe. If you just want to be obstinate go ahead. It doesn't matter. You're not frustrating me, you're just making yourself look like somebody who has to dictate the questions and avoid looking wrong. So be it, start you own thread and create your own poll your way. Unlike you, I'll even answer as best I can in the spirit in which it was intended.

The concept of intelligence is vague and problematic. The only definition I can accept was given in the other thread. It goes something like this: Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Now, FedUpWithFaith, recalling that you focused on mathematic ability and used the words 'inferior', 'race' and 'genetic', what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the mathematics gene?

Very low, it is probably due to multiple alleles and/or gene groups, potentially across several chromosomes.

Very well. Let me rephrase the question: what do you think are the chances of someone coming up with the constellation of multiple alleles and/or gene groups, potentially across several chromosomes that differs from race to race?

You've changed your definition substantially and I suspect carelessly so I need clarification from you. Before it was about finding a math gene, period, and now its about racial spectral gene differences - with respect to math still?

I quite like those posts of yours that are not of the borish variety, by the way.[/size]

Which are those?

[Feck]

Find the gene or genes responsible for intelligence,measure them across the different races . Shame that it does not work like that.

You are going to have a fun time measuring IQ on any level because so much is learned, good luck with your definitions of race, good luck with finding enough samples of pure unmixed race people to test .

Then you can do a mountain of statistics which will probably tell you that the variations between individuals are greater than between races .

Has it been proved that intelligent parents have more intelligent children by (genetic) nature rather than by nurture yet ? Because if it has not then there is little point worrying about race.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Find the gene or genes responsible for intelligence,measure them across the different races . Shame that it does not work like that.

You are going to have a fun time measuring IQ on any level because so much is learned, good luck with your definitions of race, good luck with finding enough samples of pure unmixed race people to test .

Then you can do a mountain of statistics which will probably tell you that the variations between individuals are greater than between races .

Has it been proved that intelligent parents have more intelligent children by (genetic) nature rather than by nurture yet ? Because if it has not then there is little point worrying about race.

All excellent points when it comes to science and knowledge and its pursuit. Not very relevant to the entire regime of belief.

I could pose analogous points on String Theory, Multiverses, the nature of consciousness, etc. etc.. I'll bet each of us has opinions and beliefs about these things even though the science is still far from complete. How many have you have used "plausible" but unproven scientific theories and reasoning to help shoot down the arguments of the religious who believe their explanations are more plausible? How many times have they said to you in response that your science is very incomplete and hasn't proven it so the entire belief can be disregarded as no more valid than theirs? The same reasoning applies here - don't be hypocritical. It all comes down to how we form belief and certainty.

Belief, not knowledge, is what my poll is intended to measure. If people would accept this in good faith we might all learn something new. But the subject is so touchy that people don't want to be frank and honest with themselves or each other out of fear of inflaming or giving cover to some racist agenda or out of knee-jerk political correctness, or out of sheer self-righteous. People continuing to slam the poll claiming its bad science are just creating a smoke screen. It's not really about science at all. I could have asked a similar proposition without using the word "genes" and posed it to people before "science" was even a word and I'll bet they would have had opinions too for different reasons.

I fully hoped people would explain why they voted a certain way. That might have been enlightening. Instead, people appear to be too scared or indignant to vote in the first place. I am learning a lot reading their explanations for this fear or indignancy though. The thread isn't completely wasted, at least for me.

[Rum]

You are making the same mistake you are accusing the membership of FUWF. i.e. interpreting action - or lack of it in this case in a way that suits you and your conclusions.

I 'flipped a coin' - the reason being not that I am shy of engaging with the issue or frightened of the implications if it should turn out that genes and ethnicity have an impact on intelligence, but because it is a futile and unfruitful road to go down. Suppose evidence does emerge that white people are smarter in some way and on some agreed scale that is in some way 'objective'? What then?

Do we then look at the scientific evidence for black men having bigger penises than white men? And what then?

[FedUpWithFaith]

You are making the same mistake you are accusing the membership of FUWF. i.e. interpreting action - or lack of it in this case in a way that suits you and your conclusions.

I 'flipped a coin' - the reason being not that I am shy of engaging with the issue or frightened of the implications if it should turn out that genes and ethnicity have an impact on intelligence, but because it is a futile and unfruitful road to go down. Suppose evidence does emerge that white people are smarter in some way and on some agreed scale that is in some way 'objective'? What then?

Do we then look at the scientific evidence for black men having bigger penises than white men? And what then?

I'm sorry Rum, I understand why you feel this way but you really contradicted yourself in your explanation and supported my interpetations precisely. Your belief that this is "is a futile and unfruitful road to go down" is tangential to your direct answer to the question, i.e, your belief or lack thereof.

I would very much like to hear you argue this further and in fact, i recently responded to a similar post from you in the Racism thread where I believe is more suitable for that part of the discussion. I hope you will answer my post to you there.

[Rum]

You are making the same mistake you are accusing the membership of FUWF. i.e. interpreting action - or lack of it in this case in a way that suits you and your conclusions.

I 'flipped a coin' - the reason being not that I am shy of engaging with the issue or frightened of the implications if it should turn out that genes and ethnicity have an impact on intelligence, but because it is a futile and unfruitful road to go down. Suppose evidence does emerge that white people are smarter in some way and on some agreed scale that is in some way 'objective'? What then?

Do we then look at the scientific evidence for black men having bigger penises than white men? And what then?

I'm sorry Rum, I understand why you feel this way but you really contradicted yourself in your explanation and supported my interpetations precisely. Your belief that this is "is a futile and unfruitful road to go down" is tangential to your direct answer to the question, i.e, your belief or lack thereof.

I would very much like to hear you argue this further and in fact, i recently responded to a similar post from you in the Racism thread where I believe is more suitable for that part of the discussion. I hope you will answer my post to you there.

It seems to me that you are trying to force a socio/political issue into a purely scientific/empirical frame. There is nothing stopping you doing that if you are so inclined, however I would suggest that the context of the issue is broader and that the outcome of such an investigation is pretty worthless in terms of practical value. As I have said a couple of times - suppose you prove something pretty conclusively along these lines; what then?

I am not suggesting that the exercise cannot be done. It probably can but is has no social utility - the reverse in all likelihood.

[FedUpWithFaith]

It seems to me that you are trying to force a socio/political issue into a purely scientific/empirical frame. There is nothing stopping you doing that if you are so inclined, however I would suggest that the context of the issue is broader and that the outcome of such an investigation is pretty worthless in terms of practical value. As I have said a couple of times - suppose you prove something pretty conclusively along these lines; what then?

I am not suggesting that the exercise cannot be done. It probably can but is has no social utility - the reverse in all likelihood.

I'm not trying to "force" anything. I'm simply trying to persuade people to honestly answer a basic question of belief without overthinking, second-guessing motive, or feeling guilty that their answer may seem to conflict with their politics or other ideological means by how we tend to define ourselves. You seem to fear that polls like this themselves given to supposedly rational freethinkers like us (rather than redneck racists where I would have expected a different form of response) will have some corrupting result and that it must be evaded.

You didn't address my other questions or analogies (e.g., to believing in String Theory) directly with argument for me to conclude otherwise yet. if you haven't already, I hope you will answer my post to you in the racism thread, it directly addresses what seems to be the wider implications of your posts above.