Thoughts on race/racism

[irreligionist]

<snip> You obviously don't understand statistics or you are so blinded by your bias that you aren't really making an attempt to understand my posts. <snip>

I'm not interested in what you think of my statistics ability or my supposed bias. You have mentioned evidence that you have provided and what you have proved and so forth, but you have actually not provided any evidence to evaluate at all.

If your core beliefs of equal intelligence are correct we could actually see avg white intelligence go down while avg black intelligence is rising.

I have stated no such core belief. My null hypothesis, if you must know, is that there are no genetic differences in intelligence between different ethnic groups, with the huge caveat that intelligence itself is a construct that is almost impossible to satisfactorily define and measure. But enough about me. I simply ask for evidence when I see a claim of racial superiority made. Any debating technique you employ to try to twist this around and have me under the spotlight is of no interest to me at all.

If you think I’m going to discuss any equating of ethnic groups with breeds of dog, you are mistaken. Find someone else for that debate.

I don't care for the tone of your response that appears to impune my motives or equate me with a racist. Let's try to keep this civil since it's already such a difficult subject. You cannot argue that there have not been controlled selection pressures in human history. And dog breeds are probably the closest analog to races we have that have been subject to selective breeding for so long based on both physical attributes and intelligence. We don't breed cows for intelligence. Arguably I could have used horses, would that make you happier?

As far as I can tell this is a civil discussion. I am making clear the things that I won't discuss.

Hopefully now that your understand and have corrected you previous ignorance of statistics you will understand that I disproved your previously incorrect assertions upon which your comments were originally directed. All you are doing is proving your politically correct bias.

Where did you do disprove anything?

And finally, again, I reiterate your mistake that avg intelligence is the one and only measure to differentiate group intelligence. You can argue about that all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

You have not added to my knowledge of statistics at all. What you have done is firstly made some vague claim about superiority of intelligence (in mathematical ability) of whites over blacks. You have been asked for the evidence to back your claim and, setting aside anecdotal evidence which is not evidence at all, you have yet to provide any. When presented with an acknowledgement that, using the flawed tests at our disposal to test this construct of intelligence, there are in fact differences between ethnic groups, but there is evidence (that I provided) that differences are environmental rather than biological, you have tried to turn this around so that I must somehow prove that 100% of the difference between IQ scores is environmental, otherwise you are correct and I am simply blinded by bias. I'm not interested in winning some debate, nor casting aspersions on your character or academic prowess, I'm asking for evidence for a claim you have made. As far as I'm aware, no one has completed a peer-reviewed study in a top-tier science journal that sufficiently establishes a biological basis for differences in intelligence between ethnic groups. I'll be fascinated to see it.

[irreligionist]

I don't follow, XC. If someone asserts that different races have different intelligences then the onus is on them to prove it. Similarly if someone claims that all races have identical intelligence then the onus is on them to prove it.

It's similar to what theists do. If someone claims there is a god then the onus is on them to prove it. If someone claims there is no god then the onus is still on them to prove it. The only position you don't have to prove is to say that you don't know if there's a god but you've seen no evidence that there is one.

*looks for "take my bat and ball and go home" smiley in smiley repository, settles for instead *

I don't pretend that I have evidence that definitively proves that observed differences, between average IQ scores for different ethnic groups, are 100% environmental. If I have made out that I did, I apologise. I presented evidence that I find the most compelling to indicate that there are no biological differences in intelligence between ethnic groups. I did not wade into this discussion to try and push my conclusions as absolute proof.

[starr]

I think you have asserted that your own theory is somehow the null hypothesis in order to shift the burden of proof.

The question is: Is there a difference between the intelligence of different racial groups? The null hypothesis to this question is that there is no difference.

Tell me why your positive and null assertion can't be reversed. Why is one better or more valid than the other? They simply aren't and when I came to this thread seeing the opposite claim being made I reacted accordingly.

The usual criteria for deciding on a null hypothesis is that it is the neutral position. Should no true neutral position be possible, and a directional NH is used, it should be the opposite of that which the experiment or evidence presented aims to prove. Otherwise, we have a situation where any ludicrous theory can be presented as the NH with the burden of proof dumped upon its opponents.

Yep

[FedUpWithFaith]

I think you have asserted that your own theory is somehow the null hypothesis in order to shift the burden of proof.

The question is: Is there a difference between the intelligence of different racial groups? The null hypothesis to this question is that there is no difference.

Tell me why your positive and null assertion can't be reversed. Why is one better or more valid than the other? They simply aren't and when I came to this thread seeing the opposite claim being made I reacted accordingly.

The usual criteria for deciding on a null hypothesis is that it is the neutral position. Should no true neutral position be possible, and a directional NH is used, it should be the opposite of that which the experiment or evidence presented aims to prove. Otherwise, we have a situation where any ludicrous theory can be presented as the NH with the burden of proof dumped upon its opponents. I think we can both think of examples of this among the creotard community!

If, as you claim, both claims have equal validity, then you should have taken the opposing view as the NH and presented arguments against it - ie. the BOP is yours. Until you come through with the peer-reviewed evidence promised, your only evidence is anecdotal and unproven and your position has no more validity than the opposing position. Therefore there is no burden of proof upon anyone else.

You're just twistng the semantics. i didn't mean that either claim was equally valid in terms of evidence for or against as the null hypothesis. I simply meant they are equally valid as null hypothesis depending on what side you're arguing on, i.e., hypothesis you pick to defend.

It really doesn't matter on the outcome or the burden if I reverse the two. The arguments are the same. I'll reverse them the way you want and you should see. Please keep in mind that I'm arguing 2 different hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: At least some different groups of people of different and persistent genetic origin have different levels of some form of testable intelligence and at least some of this difference is governed and limited by the genetic differences between those respective groups.
The null proposition is that they are all equal in terms of genetic influence.
Evidence to falsify NH:
a. All the studies to date, and there are many, show significant IQ math/spacial differences exist between certain groups. Opponent does not dispute this. Conclusion: there are differences in measurable forms of group intelligence requiring explanation
b. There are group population differences in the physical structure and sizes of brains. Conclusion: there are brain differences here that require explanation.
c. Studies on twin intelligence raised under very different environmental conditions show surprisingly small deviations in IQ and other measures of intelligence. These deviations are well below what would be expected for unrelated groups of individuals controlled for similar environmental factors regardless of race. Though not mentioned before these studies are well known and can easily be found on the web. Conclusion: Genetic factors dominate environmental factors in determining intelligence across a broad range of environments.
d. Different groups of people evolved for long periods of time under different environmental conditions and selection pressures. These selection differences have resulted in many physical characteristics and structures of lesser complexity than the brain that vary significantly or subtley between certain groups. Conclusion: it is highly improbable to expect all group-isolated brains have evolved identically.

If I was willing to spend a lot of time just on the last point, i think I could falsify the NH to a satisfactory degree just on this basis. But even if you disagree, the burden of proof clearly shifts to opponent to show all those studies results are due solely to environmental factors or fraud and that brains are somehow exempt from showing differing group intelligence effects due to differential selection pressure or that the differential selection pressure was somehow completely insufficient for brains to evolve differently despite the myriad of other definable physiological differences that are observed.

Opponent, actually many scientist, have made a case for environmental factors and fraud plausibly accounting for test differences but this is far from conclusive. I've seen no counter argument to evolutionary pressure argument at all. I think the burden still rests with opponent.

Hypothesis 2 is that Blacks have less mathematical/spatial intelligence at higher deviations from the mean than whiles and that this difference is due, at least in part, to genetic differences.

Null hypothesis: There is no difference involving genetic factors OR whites have the lesser mathematical/spatial intelligence in relation to blacks.

Evidence
a. Claim only: Scientific papers to show such particular differences exist beyond those known in 1a. above. Conclusion: If real, they would show differences exist. However, FUWF has not yet provided this evidence for corroboration and conceded this from the beginning. Result: Justifiably inconclusive and dismissable by everyone other than FUWF.
b. Claim only: Several forms of personal anecdotal experiences over many cases. Result: Justifiably inconclusive and dismissable by everyone other than FUWF.

Here the burden of proof clearly lies with me. I've never denied this.

Let me state in closing that to my knowledge, the issue of intelligence differences between races is scientifically inconclusive. That's the only statement of knowledge we can make. I've always said this and this is why I would never advocate any form of prejudice or attempt to justify any form of racism.

However, each of us is free and will naturally weigh all the evidence we read and experience including anecdotal evidence. All of us are prone to bias and misinterpretation nor is any one of us aware of all the research or facts. Anecdotal evidence is not worthless, it is simply a form of evidence that is subject to personal bias and problems due to the difficulty of corroboration. The closer you are to the source and the more you trust it, the more stock each of us will put in anecdote. No scientist, including me would ever suggest that you believe anything on account of my anecdotal evidence. However, each of us believes things about many things simply on evidence that is essentially anecdotal including scientist. The dirty little secret of science is that it almost always begins with a hunch based on anecdotal observation. Unreliable? Yes. Worthless, No.

I have been honest in sharing with you the very unpopular conclusion (at least with the types of liberal people I prefer to associate with) I have drawn on this sensitive issue. I do not believe it with much depth but it is not insignificant either. When forced, it's very difficult to say you don't believe one way or the other on a given topic even if your certainty is very low. Can all of you say you sit completely on the fence after researching all sides of the issue? No hunches no matter how guilty they feel? As i said similarly before, if the truth would be known tomorrow and I had to guess beforehand the correct answer with death to my family and myself as the penalty of an incorrect answer, I'm sorry to say I'd chose the conclusion I gave. But I'd still be crossing my fingers with doubt.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

tl:dr

Not tonight in any case. I am just off to bed. I will read it all tomorrow, promise.

[floppit]

FUWF,

Regardless of who has the burden of proof, proof must be in the first instance possible and currently you have not shown it to be so.

Secondly while your post on bell curves is statistically an interesting read - one which might inform discussion in another arena, you must surely conceded that maths remain reliant on the validity of the raw data. If you use statistics to create a bell curve for average height you must first have a reliable means to measure height, without which any discussion over such a bell curve is in no way tied to real world evidence.

For a discussion on race and intelligence to be evidenced there would be needed not just a means to measure intelligence itself but a mean to measure genetic potential for intelligence, to distinguish accurately between genotype and phenotype - do you really understand just how far off we are to having such a tool? For the love of god, there's still debate over what types of intelligence should be considered intelligence! Of course you could retort that it is only mathematical ability you wish to look at but that still leaves a gaping hole in being able to distinguish geno and phenotype - you know a maths test for newborns? All this in regarding a body organ which morphs visibly through life dependant on environment.

Now, FUWF - is there something above you dispute? If there isn't then surely you must accept that at present discussing race and intelligence is a waste of time, better to discuss one or the other, or even neuroplasticity to begin to get the building blocks for an evidence based discussion rather than one based on who you've met.

Regarding peer review evidence - I agree it is without doubt the best but in all fairness Baroness Greenfield is hardly your bog standard war by youtube, she is one of the world's leading neuroscientists with particular interests in brain development and cognitive function. If you haven't yet watched the lectures you will perhaps not grasp the fundamental basics to allow any sane discussion, your arguments so far certainly don't demonstrate that understanding.

[FedUpWithFaith]

FUWF,

Regardless of who has the burden of proof, proof must be in the first instance possible and currently you have not shown it to be so.

Agreed, albeit with some semantic concerns (back to that in a minute). I haven't "proven" anything other than the other side hasn't proven their case either. Both statements, of intelligence inequality and equality require the same proof or, actually NH falsification. My whole point of showing that it is valid to reverse them was to prove that point - which I did. Beyond that, I believe I've offered enough evidence against NH#1 above to, in the colloquial sense, shift the burden of proof to the other side. That is my only assertion.

As far as "proof" goes, science doesn't work that way. A scientist can only falsify. The only things I can arguably prove (to some degree, e.g., Godel) are logical (including math) truths, falsehoods, and incoherency.

Secondly while your post on bell curves is statistically an interesting read - one which might inform discussion in another arena, you must surely conceded that maths remain reliant on the validity of the raw data. If you use statistics to create a bell curve for average height you must first have a reliable means to measure height, without which any discussion over such a bell curve is in no way tied to real world evidence.

That is always true. This is called sampling error. Mistakes and imprecision occur in science all the time. That is why scientists have to carefully explain and show their methodology. Once a study has been published, if you disagree with the result the burden shifts to you to show there was a flaw in the methodology. It is not enough to say, "oh sampling error occurs all the time, that's enough proof for me." When we talk about various forms of intelligence testing we're not talking about a few racist frauds who concocoted some phony research 100 years ago. Many scientists recognize the problems you raise and many different procedures and perspectives have been taken to address them. All the studies I'm aware of show major differences and while many show that environmental factors are certainly a cause for the differences, they do not yet explain the whole difference. They only make the explanation plausible.

Rather than simply attacking the research you have to supply some positive evidence that group-based genetic differences cannot be the cause for any of the differences that have been observed or that environment accounts for the differences as near to completely as statistical sampling will allow. Unfortunately, such studies, like the twin studies I mentioned, don't support this conclusion either but rather that genetics governs at least a big part of the difference. Moreover, we already know there are structural brain differences too (admittedly ratheran weak evidence) and those have to be explained away as environmentally generated and/or completely irrelevant to any intelligence differences.

Be careful not to step into the hypocrisy of the Creationists who spend all their time telling you all the reasons the science is bad (reasons why dating doesn't work, etc,) and can make mistakes without offering evidence to support their own views.

For a discussion on race and intelligence to be evidenced there would be needed not just a means to measure intelligence itself but a mean to measure genetic potential for intelligence, to distinguish accurately between genotype and phenotype - do you really understand just how far off we are to having such a tool?

Yes. You're implying though that there is no evidence now and I dispute that. I just agree its weak - on both sides.

For the love of god, there's still debate over what types of intelligence should be considered intelligence! Of course you could retort that it is only mathematical ability you wish to look at but that still leaves a gaping hole in being able to distinguish geno and phenotype - you know a maths test for newborns? All this in regarding a body organ which morphs visibly through life dependEnt on environment.

This is really a red herring for this discussion. I've already agreed we don't know how to define intelligence and we may never agree on a definition because it is somewhat subjective. For the purposes of discussion, I'm perfectly happy to equate certain forms of tests with certain forms of intelligence. If somebody wants to erroneously extrapolate that to a general consensus definition of intelligence that's they're problem. I have never promoted that.

Now, FUWF - is there something above you dispute?

Apparently, yes.

If there isn't then surely you must accept that at present discussing race and intelligence is a waste of time, ....

How could discussing this issue be a waste of time when various views on the subject have influenced history and life and death since at least the beginning of recorded history? I'm entitled to at least speculate on the topic and you're entitled to show me the flaws in my speculations. Speculations always precede real science or science would never get done.

Let's not confuse science, knowledge, and belief

Before there were scientists people still made judgments about things based on evidence, much of it anecdotal or incomplete. Science tremendously enhanced our acquisition of knowledge and our ability to validate but the process of science is messy and always has loose ends that are open to each of our interpretations, together with all the other evidence we think we have.

Now perhaps you, floppit, are among an elite few people who does not invest the slightest belief in anything that has not been thoroughly vetted by science. I like most people, don't do that. i don't even see how I could maneuver through life if I did that.

I've been honest here in sharing my beliefs on the matter which I am certainly not proud of and wish that i came to a different conclusion. But my conclusion is a weakly held belief, not a proof,not science, its the side i would come down on if forced to make a choice. If I set my belief I exist at 100% , my certainty about everything else is less than that. Evolution would be well over 99.9% and that's only a guess. String theory? There I'm about 30% - 50% the main thrust is right, but less that 1% that the entire structure today is correct. Genetic differences in intelligence? It's hard to say for me depending on how you define it and how significant the difference is (which we have not discussed at all). But probably bellow 5% - 10%.

[floppit]

Now perhaps you, floppit, are among an elite few people who does not invest the slightest belief in anything that has not been thoroughly vetted by science. I like most people, don't do that. i don't even see how I could maneuver through life if I did that.

No - I just understand the difference between the two and don't start discussing non existent bell curves! (ie there's no reference to said bell curve for genetic intelligence).

I haven't "proven" anything other than the other side hasn't proven their case either.

If you're talking to me at this point I would argue that I have certainly provided greater evidence for my case that intelligence being controlled by genes is unlikely. I'm not looking for you to prove the opposite but a jot of evidence might actually fuel more interest than I'm feeling at the minute. I'm guessing you still haven't watched the boring bits - the ones about the brain? If you have great, anti up and provide a little of your own evidence to support a notion of genetically driven significant intelligence differences in humans.

My whole point of showing that it is valid to reverse them was to prove that point - which I did. Beyond that, I believe I've offered enough evidence against NH#1 above to, in the colloquial sense, shift the burden of proof to the other side. That is my only assertion.

Apologies I must have missed the references - I'll go back and look.

As far as "proof" goes, science doesn't work that way. A scientist can only falsify. The only things I can arguably prove (to some degree, e.g., Godel) are logical (including math) truths, falsehoods, and incoherency.

hey, I'd settle for an little evidence that there is consensus over the quantifiable nature of genetic intelligence potential, screw proof, I'd continue to consider just an eeeny weeeny journal article measuring the above that has received some consensus in support. Until then - well it's just a height survey with string marked how each measurer fancies.

You bring history into it and there is a lot of history - perhaps there would have been far less if people waited until we actually have the means to do a decent job of measuring intelligence, in fact it's safe to say there WOULD have been far less history regarding race and intelligence as we STILL haven't the means to do a decent job.

In the mean time.... I have a strong hunch your anecdotal evidence is compelling to you, you agree it isn't worth being compelling to anyone else so fair enough. I'm not returning to repeat the first post I made as to why anecdote in this case is hopelessly flawed.

Edit - I still cannot find the evidence you refer to. I can't find a single reference to real world measurement or means of measurement.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Floppit,

Almost all the points you make above, many if not most correct, are quite tangential to both the context and main intent of most of my arguments. I hope you are not intentionally engaging in obfuscation and the creation of strawmen just to win an argument or derail something incompatible with your ideology.

But until you are prepared to deal with the context and argument directly than simply insist you're right and I have to agree with your framework on the right starting place and end point I see no constructive reason to argue with you further.

As to published peer-reviewed evidence you seek, it is simply not required to support the main claims I'm trying to get you to understand, it would merely be more helpful.. I've already conceded that they are needed to support other claims I've made and I have not suggested that anyone take my word they exist on faith. But frankly, I'm not willing to make the effort to dig them up if you can't argue properly in the first place. I was heavily invested in a personal quest to understand this topic over 4 years ago. I had many references on all sides of the argument, including published evidence against my hypothesis more powerful than anything I've seen referenced here, that were lost when the computer they were on crashed and i discovered I never properly backed them up. It would take me weeks to find them all again and my guess, from your posts and Irreligionists, is that you may lack the the knowledge of statistical methods sufficiently to properly interpret and critique them anyway. If I had time to spare I'd do it but I see no evidence its worth the trouble. Try searching through all the research yourself rather than those that support your views. You'll come across it if you want to.

[floppit]

I'll leave you to claim your claims then.

Edit - readers are able to decide for themselves and those who appreciate an appeal to authority via lost peer review references no doubt will now be heartily in agreement with you.

I'm doing this in edit so I hope you will forgive paraphrasing, you infer my lack of having been persuaded is at least in part due to my feeling discomfort because we do not share ideology (and we do not), however until this point my argument was based purely on process rather than conclusion. It's a sort of rigour thing I'm unwilling to give up on a variety of subjects; care. Mind you on that score to I feel our ideologies also differ somewhat.

If you ever find your lost references or remember any of the names to google and dig even a scrap up I'd be more than willing to re-engage. Until then you it is certainly fair to say we do not share the same concept of solid argument.

[gooseboy]

Sorry - I'm only skimming this thread so I may have missed something...

Floppit - you seem to be arguing that intelligence is not controlled by genes. I was under the impression that identical twin / non-identical twin / virtual twin studies gave a lot of weight to genes (but genes weren't the sole factor). Just wondering if you know something that disputes such studies.

[Hermit]

in the highest echelon of brilliance (perhaps the 80-100 smartest people I know) I'm not aware of any black person (though I'm not attempting to deny they exist). The cream of the crop generally will rise regardless of poverty or prejudice.

Pending further information regarding that study you have made vague references to, that seems to me the sum total of your argument
in support of a racially based difference in intelligence. The most laughable part of it is the patently untrue assertion that "the cream of the crop generally will rise regardless of poverty or prejudice". The single, anecdotal data point you cite in support for that flies in the face of almost every study and survey ever made. Poverty and prejudice have always been a very real and significant obstacle for any individual's chances of reaching a niche in their lives where their standing as rightfully belonging to the highest echelon of brilliance becomes a reality.

Your opinion reveals more about you than the issue you address. I am not implying that you are a racist. "The cream of the crop generally will rise regardless of poverty or prejudice" smacks of a naive individualism that is particularly pronounced and prevalent among North Americans in general, and white, middle class North Americans in particular.

[charlou]

I have never written this in any other forum. I knew it would likely get me banned at Dawkins and I can anticipate the reaction I'll get even here in this relative oasis of free speech. I'm just being honest, even if I'm dead wrong (and all the forces of my liberal being hope I am).

I appreciate honesty and the opportunity to discuss and debate ideas, so thank you for posting yours.

At the extremes I've found people, even with minimal resources and encouragement, will find a way, at least much more than the average person will.

Since we're speaking anecdotally, I'll tell you from experience that this is not so. Poverty and prejudice stifle excellence, and nurture and perpetuate ignorance and mediocrity. There are layers of this from under which people must erupt to overcome their particular circumstances. In western and westernised society, as I see it, the very outer layers are 'white' and male, the very inner layers 'black' and female. Easier for those in the outer layers to emerge than those in the inner layers. In other cultures the layering may be different ... but the point is the same.

[Rum]

I think much of this thread misses the point completely. Trying to establish if there is a racial basis for intelligence is, in this day and age, a redundant activity in my view, whatever the reality may be at the end of the day. What could the outcome possibly be if final and conclusive evidence one way or the other was produced? Scientifically justified and verifiable prejudice? I don't think so.

Rationality really is not everything. Better to focus on the reasons for socially based racial inequality and try to do something about it. Sometimes the social and emotional domain really does trump empiricism.

[charlou]

I think much of this thread misses the point completely. Trying to establish if there is a racial basis for intelligence is, in this day and age, a redundant activity in my view, whatever the reality may be at the end of the day. What could the outcome possibly be if final and conclusive evidence one way or the other was produced? Scientifically justified and verifiable prejudice? I don't think so.

Rationality really is not everything. Better to focus on the reasons for socially based racial inequality and try to do something about it. Sometimes the social and emotional domain really does trump empiricism.

In Australia, the government has made the provision of adequate housing for the indigenous communities in 'outback' Norther Territory contingent upon their children attending western style schooling. Apart from that, in itself, being disgraceful IMO, it's never been established that western style schooling is always appropriate for the aboriginal people of Australia. The result of such a forced and inappropriate approach to education in general in Australia is that indigenous children are often failing to be engaged and to learn, and being regarded as failures because of that, not just as students, but throughout their lives. I, like irreligionist and others, believe this is environmental, and I think this is something the government must take into account when making decisions about the best way to extend an education to anyone.