Thoughts on race/racism

[Hermit]

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.

Spot on. I intended to say something along those lines at a later stage. The reason for wanting to delay it escapes me now.

[FedUpWithFaith]

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.

That's precisely the type of argument I'd make against me. But it is actually overly simplistic and assumes my backyard is limited to the good 'ol USA. You also have to remind yourself that I don't hold this belief with a high level of certainty. It's more like a hunch. If you had to choose between B>W, W>B, or W=B at the risk of life for the type of intelligence I specified, the truth being revealed tomorrow, are you honestly telling me you'd just flip a coin?

There are roughly about 1 billion black people in the world, roughly 40 million in the US alone, albeit most may be of mixed racial heritage. But for purposes of argument I'll just refer to them all as black which is ironic in that the are more genetic differences between particular groups of blacks originating in Africa than between blacks and all other races combined. Depending on how race is defined, one could consider that there are actually separate black races. I mention this because it should be acknowledged. I have already argued that environment is a huge factor in determining intelligence and I would be the first to concede, and have normally always argued, that prejudice and poverty and cultural forces all work against blacks meeting their full genetic potential for intelligence, as they would work against any person or race.

However, not all 1 billion blacks live in terrible poverty, face terrible local discrimination, or listen to a sub-culture that derides being smart and educated as acting "too white". America has an enormous black middle class, many affluent blacks, many poor blacks who value education, and there are many blacks smarter than me who raise their kids to aspire to intelligent endeavors. And the US is not the only country where blacks have the means to become great mathematicians if they want to bad enough. At least several Indian untouchables can be counted among the greatest mathematicians I've met or are aware of for their work in the last 50 years. Poverty and discrimination alone simply can't explain the discrepancy in my view. If it's not genetics I have to assume that it's some form of cultural predilection. Blacks simply don't want to be mathematicians or physicists.

This is where "the calling" comes in. For all the best mathematicians (and math-oriented physicists) I've known they all had a mathematical brain and spacial puzzle-solving skills from a very early age. This includes the best black mathematicians I know. If you've ever met people like this, you'd know they're almost like a separate breed far more easily distinguishable than any race is. They go into the field even despite enduring the scorn of their peers and their own observation that math can be an obsessive occupation with mental casualties higher than other sciences (yes, i know, I'm not supporting any of this with references - I'm too lazy - tough shit).

Anyway, over my years now in academic and corporate science as well as my own studies I have known, met, read the work of, engaged, or hired about 10-15 of what i deem outstanding mathematicians who were black out of the 300-500 best mathematicians/physicists of any race I've similarly engaged. And none I'm aware of would qualify for the top 100 and frankly, that's very conservative. The disparity based on race adjusted for population is enormous and I believe is difficult to account for purely by environment alone, though I hope I'm wrong. I admit this is all opinion and anecdotal and definitely biased by my experience. I'm also willing to acknwledge that as much as i hope otherwise, a significant amount of that bias could be subconscious and self-selecting. That's why I don't give my belief here anything more than hunch status.

As I pondered this question further it occurred to me that black pride had probably addressed this issue too so with a brief Google I found this site on the greatest black mathematicians: the site gave me hope that I may be wrong (there are a number of people on the list I wasn't aware of who at least had impressive credentials even if I'm not familiar with their work). At the same time it gave me additional cause for despair. The list is way too short and heavy with engineers rather than the top theoretical forms of math. Given the rapid rise in black affluence, education, and IQ in the US and other Western Countries over the last 50 years I also would have expected a much more dramatic increase in black mathematicians mentioned. That doesn't seem to be the case.

[charlou]

At the same time it gave me additional cause for despair. The list is way too short and heavy with engineers rather than the top theoretical forms of math. Given the rapid rise in black affluence, education, and IQ in the US and other Western Countries over the last 50 years I also would have expected a much more dramatic increase in black mathematicians mentioned. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Does a person have to be interested in a particular field of intellectual pursuit in order to excel in it? I'd assume so, and if so, why would a lack of interest in a particular field of intellectual pursuit indicate lack of or diminished intelligence?

If there's a correlation between one's background (genetic and/or environmental) and interest in particular intellectual (or other) pursuits ... now, that would be fascinating to explore.

[FedUpWithFaith]

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.

I'm sorry Charlou, but we almost agree but not quite. I'd simply make this change: Poverty and prejudice [TENDS TO ]stifle excellence, and nurture and perpetuate ignorance and mediocrity. I know you haven't been to the US Charlou and perhaps from American TV you've come away with the impression that most US blacks live in terrible poverty in ghettos riddled with drugs and go to prison-like schools where whites dressed in conified bedsheets occasionally drive by and shoot them - but it ain't so. OK, I was being facetious. But the fact is, in the US and worldwide you have to argue that millions of the most affluent and "free" blacks are somehow under far more stultifying suppression than untouchables in India, impoverished and oppressed people in Pakistan, native Americans on impoverished reservations, and other groups which have somehow yielded brilliant mathematical minds in much higher proportions, though not in equal proportion to "whites" either.

My hunch arises simply because it strains credulity to use your explanation as accounting for the enormous discrepancies I see. Would you not agree that your immediate family environment is stronger and more difficult to overcome than the outside environment? Speaking again anecdotally, I and I think most of us know or know of families of terrible abuse, poverty, etc. lost in the system, where somehow the kids become amazing achievers. Certainly environment either isn't destiny or it contains too much variation, e.g., it only takes a few positive catalysts to enable success. Likewise we all know wonderful families and environments that produce some great kids and others that are seemingly inexplicable anomalous black sheep, i.e., it probably only took a few bad triggers to create a bad outcome.

Finally, and again you may dismiss this as anecdote, how many amazingly brilliant mathematical minds have you known? I'm talking about a person that probably arises in 1 in 300,000 - 500,000 people so its not easy to come across one. All the ones I've known either became mathematicians of a form (could be in physics or computer science or cryptography), they killed themselves, or burned their minds out on drugs. Charlou, I'm telling you these people are different from you and me. They have to do math once they know what math is and can seek the slightest avenue to pursue it - even if they can't afford university. Now I'm sure there are many people of all races who never get exposure to math, or who have to farm or something to support their families, etc. etc.. and must suppress this deep desire if they ever even get a chance to recognize it However, I find it hard to believe that at least 1/100 of the most brilliant potential black mathematicians could not have pursued math no matter what. But even if i assume this number we should have, conservatively (using 1:500,000), at least 20 or so briiliant mathematicians of the highest caliber who are black alive today. But i have little evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that they exist at all, or have existed in the last 100 years.

[FedUpWithFaith]

At the same time it gave me additional cause for despair. The list is way too short and heavy with engineers rather than the top theoretical forms of math. Given the rapid rise in black affluence, education, and IQ in the US and other Western Countries over the last 50 years I also would have expected a much more dramatic increase in black mathematicians mentioned. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Does a person have to be interested in a particular field of intellectual pursuit in order to excel in it? I'd assume so, and if so, why would a lack of interest in a particular field of intellectual pursuit indicate lack of or diminished intelligence?

If there's a correlation between one's background (genetic and/or environmental) and interest in particular intellectual (or other) pursuits ... now, that would be fascinating to explore.

I'm not sure where you got that conclusion from what you quoted. i can see how you might have concluded it from other stuff i said but that would be missing the point and not a proper interpretation. I think I addressed the core of your question in my post above. if not, I'll add below...

Lack of interest in a particular area of pursuit does not indicate lower intelligence. In an ideal world where everyone can truly pursue their passions I've little doubt we'd see much higher IQ score I was suggesting some cultural effect that caused a lack of interest could well explain why there are so few black mathematicians at all regardless of ability. In America, it may well be a larger inhibitor of this pursuit than poverty or prejudice. it is, in effect, an effect of black prejudice which can arguably be blamed on historical whtie prejudice but is now probably something the black community must primarly deal with to improve.

Suggesting that some races may be more genetically motivated to certain occupations seems to me to be not too different than suggesting different levels of intelligence. Maybe its a little less politically incorrect but its also plausible. I'm aware of no published evidence on that at all nor do i see any compelling anecdotal evidence that i think racism and prejudice would be more likely to explain. It's even harder to codify than intelligence in many ways. Go ahead and indulge such speculation if you like, I doubt you'd make many more friends than I have here though.

..Reminds me of a well-known neuroscientist friend of mine who was part of a team that showed a correlation between certain synapse density conformations and intelligence. It was around the time of publication of the Bell-Curve and so i jokingly asked him if he'd differentiated his sample by race. He laughed and said, "I'd rather not lose tenure." Sad commentary on the state of things actually. The irony, given floppit's previous posts, is that some of these synapse conformations have been tied to specific gene forms which could, theoretically, be applied to studying racially based genetic differences. But nobody who wants to keep getting funded is going to touch such research with a ten foot pole unless a race-correlated disease is involved. Eventually, somebody will be bold enough or stupid enough to do it and after the shitstorm we'll have yet one more line of evidence to help us see if there is any validity to any of these arguments.

[charlou]

Suggesting that some races may be more genetically motivated to certain occupations seems to me to be not too different than suggesting different levels of intelligence. Maybe its a little less politically incorrect but its also plausible. I'm aware of no published evidence on that at all nor do i see any compelling anecdotal evidence that i think racism and prejudice would be more likely to explain. It's even harder to codify than intelligence in many ways. Go ahead and indulge such speculation if you like, I doubt you'd make many more friends than I have here though.

I was suggesting genes, not race. This, to me, is an important distinction.

The progeny of parents from two very similar or from two very different genetic backgrounds may demonstrate an affinity for one, the other or both, the interests of his or her parents. The correlation may be genetic, or it may be environmental, or a mix of both. I do find the whole thing interesting.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Suggesting that some races may be more genetically motivated to certain occupations seems to me to be not too different than suggesting different levels of intelligence. Maybe its a little less politically incorrect but its also plausible. I'm aware of no published evidence on that at all nor do i see any compelling anecdotal evidence that i think racism and prejudice would be more likely to explain. It's even harder to codify than intelligence in many ways. Go ahead and indulge such speculation if you like, I doubt you'd make many more friends than I have here though.

I was suggesting genes, not race. This, to me, is an important distinction.

The progeny of parents from two very similar or from two very different genetic backgrounds may demonstrate an affinity for one, the other or both, the interests of his or her parents. The correlation may be genetic, or it may be environmental, or a mix of both. I do find the whole thing interesting.

Sorry, somehow I missed that with race on the brain right now.

I have little doubt that such genetic predispositions probably exist to broad classifications of occupations. I have no clue how correlated this is likely to be but in most cases i expect it to be small. Mathematics and math-related occupations and music (which involve similar neural pathways) will be one of the big exceptions, if my anecdote- based (and partially research based) hunches are correct. Mathematics-based occupations and music form more easily codified realms (mathematicians, physicists, economists, accountants, etc.). Language-based competencies cover a much broader spectrum from poet to secretary. if we include athletic-prowess as a form of intelligence i think some brains are more tuned to that also by genetics.

[floppit]

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.

Actually what I was arguing is that we don't know the extent to which genes influence intelligence, that while there are strong opposing views there is no consensus and considerable debate. The 'Youtube' clips provided actually include reference to peer reviewed studies and are anything but the usual war by youtube fodder, for a start they are lectures given by one of the world's leading neuro scientists (not to mention Director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain - the guys that produce the Christmas Lectures). The reason I used them was because they contain a vivid way on picturing the interplay between genotype an phenotype, in other words the way a gene is expressed. In fact there's a cartoon presentation dealing with the word control in respect to genes and function of the brain - it's a little dryer than twin studies but unmissable for anyone with a genuine interest.

[floppit]

..Reminds me of a well-known neuroscientist friend of mine who was part of a team that showed a correlation between certain synapse density conformations and intelligence. It was around the time of publication of the Bell-Curve and so i jokingly asked him if he'd differentiated his sample by race. He laughed and said, "I'd rather not lose tenure." Sad commentary on the state of things actually. The irony, given floppit's previous posts, is that some of these synapse conformations have been tied to specific gene forms which could, theoretically, be applied to studying racially based genetic differences.

I'm unsure whether response to this is wise - you really have utterly missed my point! Reading it leaves me feeling - here we go again, anecdote, allusion to mysterious and unseen research, appeal to authority (in this case you're 'friends') and a dose of crystal ball itis. My posts are about taking a disciplined approach, progressing step by step, declaring and showing where information comes from, allowing myself and other readers to critically evaluate it (you may conclude mine and Irreligionist's maths are so poor as to make it casting pearls before swine but there are other readers - surely we aren't all so dumb as to not be worth producing ANY of this wealth of evidence?). If you're REALLY sat there on a pile of ACTUAL evidence that the synapse confirmations correlate adequately with intelligence AND are shown to be determined by specific gene forms - stump up, let's all have a look.

FWIW - I will happily concede you are likely to be a better mathematician than me, I am not a mathematician at all but the number will only ever be as good as the measurement tool and while you concede this you utterly fail to deal with it. I have never, and I really do mean never seen so many hypothetical mathematical processes produced to support any argument without a single number or source - surely you must accept this strips your argument of substance?

[FedUpWithFaith]

..Reminds me of a well-known neuroscientist friend of mine who was part of a team that showed a correlation between certain synapse density conformations and intelligence. It was around the time of publication of the Bell-Curve and so i jokingly asked him if he'd differentiated his sample by race. He laughed and said, "I'd rather not lose tenure." Sad commentary on the state of things actually. The irony, given floppit's previous posts, is that some of these synapse conformations have been tied to specific gene forms which could, theoretically, be applied to studying racially based genetic differences.

I'm unsure whether response to this is wise - you really have utterly missed my point! Reading it leaves me feeling - here we go again, anecdote, allusion to mysterious and unseen research, appeal to authority (in this case you're 'friends') and a dose of crystal ball itis. My posts are about taking a disciplined approach, progressing step by step, declaring and showing where information comes from, allowing myself and other readers to critically evaluate it (you may conclude mine and Irreligionist's maths are so poor as to make it casting pearls before swine but there are other readers - surely we aren't all so dumb as to not be worth producing ANY of this wealth of evidence?). If you're REALLY sat there on a pile of ACTUAL evidence that the synapse confirmations correlate adequately with intelligence AND are shown to be determined by specific gene forms - stump up, let's all have a look.

Again floppit you somehow misread my post. It's not a crime. I did it with Charlou. However, my anecdote you quoted above makes absolutely no claims whatsoever about there being any evidence to support that races have genetically-tied differences. I was simply making the point that this is a stigmatized area of research. There are things we could research right now that could help support or falsify the hypotheses thrown around by all sides of the debate. But it's such minefield that few researchers want to risk it.

I don't wish to tie my friend's research in any way to my posts here for what should be obvious reasons. However, I'm confident I can find some similar studies though it may have to be from rats or primates instead (I hope you would take such studies as illustrating the same principle). Give me a few days, I have relatives coming tomorrow and a project next week.

I don't see why you should be so adamant in denying that genes play a significant role in brain function and performance likely to correlate with intelligence . Twin studies already demonstrate that. Even the youtube videos you posted don't contradict that. Huntington's Chorea, used as an example in the second video, which depresses IQ after expression, is not equally distributed among different ethnic groups either. Population intelligence, if it is tied to genetics must also be manifested in the population genetics. If, hypothetically (just to illustrate a point - not a real observation), 1 in 5 whites had and expressed HC and 1:1000000 of all the other groups expressed HC the depression in IQ in whites as a group would be very noticeable. Yes, HC is a disease, but it a gene that leads to a specific phenotypic expression. Why is it so unreasonable to expect that other gene varieties with other differential effects on phenotypic intelligence expression (though not as dramatic as HC), would have different frequencies by population? I don't deny that environment affects brain structure and function but our brains are still generated by a large variety of genes that are not likely to be equally distributed over populations that evolved under different selection pressures. I suppose you could suggest with plausibility that the melange of gene mixtures pertinent to each delineated population are all equally capable of producing equal phenotypic distributions of intelligence but frankly, that's counter-intuitive and I think statistically highly unlikely. One should expect there to be differences, figuring out what they are and their direction is the real challenge.

Chimpanzees share over 98% of their genes with us. Their brains have very similar structure to ours. Nobody is or will ever suggest that they can approach human intelligence by significantly "improving" their environment in some way. Those tiny gene differences are responsible for most of the cognitive differences between our two species. Yet chimps (or perhaps it was bonobos) were recently shown to beat humans in remembering and calculating certain forms of sequence presentations (by average behavior). In that sense, they're "smarter" than us.

FWIW - I will happily concede you are likely to be a better mathematician than me, I am not a mathematician at all but the number will only ever be as good as the measurement tool and while you concede this you utterly fail to deal with it. I have never, and I really do mean never seen so many hypothetical mathematical processes produced to support any argument without a single number or source - surely you must accept this strips your argument of substance?

Yes, reread my posts. Beginning with the first one I made in this thread I noted the weaknesses in my own position and have continued to reiterate it. I see no reason for you to rub it in. My lazyness in not wanting to re-research my sources and cite them here has seriously blunted the force of some points I know I could make and reinforce better. However, you still seem to miss that for some of my arguments, no evidence from me was required, all I was arguing was the perspective of making, assuming, and arguing for certain scientific propositions for which you had already cited or conceded evidence. part of it was simply on the way we form tentative hunches and beliefs.

Finally, pretend I died. (Yeah!) If you really care about this topic and wish to be regarded as well informed by yourself and others do a comprehensive literature search yourself and don't wait on me or simply glom onto sites that take a particular stance to find your sources. You don't need me to prove you right or wrong. The information is out there. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. There may be many new studies available since the last time I got involved in this area including some that could undermine my arguments even more than the ones I'm aware of. To best support your position you want to find the cross-correlational studies involving varying intelligence measures (along an ordinal scale) whose population variance in subsumed in the additive extrapolations from various forms of environmental correction/normalization in those same populations. In other simpler words, you need to show that a properly extrapolated environmental intelligence variance (ANOVA) fully explains raw intelligence test difference. Studies that use residual meta-analysis could also do this for a properly constructed experiment and sample. I've never read a study that claimed to do this but maybe someone pulled it off. I'd be happy just to see they got a lot closer. I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES FLOPPIT.

Though I can tell your ignorant of certain things you need to know about stats that doesn't mean i don't think you're smart enough to understand it. Few of these studies really require very advanced stat. Maybe you should take a course. You might find it comes in handy in many other ways. It has for me.

[Hermit]

my anecdote you quoted above makes absolutely no claims whatsoever about there being any evidence to support that races have genetically-tied differences.

Nevertheless, isn't it about time you begin to furnish some scientific support to your assertions regarding genetic inferiority along racial lines? All I can recall you backing the claim up with is a study you are too lazy to provide links for, a conclusion that is manifestly no more than a subjective opinion on account of its being based on anecdotal stuff, and an equally subjective evaluation on the odds of blacks being genetically inferior.

In short, so far support for your contributions to the debate is no better than I expect to hear from some boozed up bogan in a pub. Where it differs is that you profess to have no certainty about your beliefs. Phew! What a fucking relief. It makes me curious, though, why you spend so much time on generating hot air.

[charlou]

FUWF's generating discussion and being courteous towards others about it.

[Hermit]

FUWF's generating discussion

Agreed

and being courteous towards others about it.

Yes again.

Sorry, FedUpWithFaith. In my eagerness to tell you what I think of your actual 'argument' I inadvertently forgot to mention those points.

[floppit]

I don't see why you should be so adamant in denying that genes play a significant role in brain function and performance likely to correlate with intelligence .

Find a quote of me saying that and I'll happily apologise for it. However I think it is a strawman as all I have done is to say the extent to which genes determine intelligence is still debated. You have managed an amazing piece of confirmation bias to watch those videos - including the graphic description of likely gene potential and pull out only what you went in looking for. Moreover, one would expect you to understand that in order to compare populations according to genetic type one would still have to control for environment where there was ANY let alone significant influence.

I would be interested in seeing the twin studies you mention - twin study quality does tend to vary wildly and while they remain very popular in the media, and while there are excellent ones out there, there are also many that are ripped and slated academically for good reason. I've also come across other topics where people believe they are 'many' good twin studies in the absence of any at all. I would like to see them, if that's at all possible - an abstract or just a ref is fine.

[floppit]

To best support your position you want to find the cross-correlational studies involving varying intelligence measures (along an ordinal scale) whose population variance in subsumed in the additive extrapolations from various forms of environmental correction/normalization in those same populations. In other simpler words, you need to show that a properly extrapolated environmental intelligence variance (ANOVA) fully explains raw intelligence test difference.

No - I believe my point was that until we can accurately define and measure genetic potential intelligence all of that is a waste of time - where, no honestly, where did you see me say anything like that?

Look, answer or not - I may answer or not. We've bordered on rudeness to each other in this thread, I think primarily out of frustration. I think it is the nature of debate that when two people hold from the start different paths to their reasoning they are unable to meet at a later point and frustration is a common outcome.

I don't mind readers just making up their own minds - as invariably folk do. It doesn't matter greatly to me how I look, more how I think which is a work in progress, I just haven't found things in what you've written informative, others may well have done, another thread, another day it'll be me that learns something new.

That's life!