Slashdot Mirror
Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution
sciencehabit writes "A best-seller by former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade about recent human evolution and its potential effects on human cultures has drawn critical reviews since its spring publication. Now, nearly 140 senior human population geneticists around the world, many of whose work was cited in the book, have signed a letter to The New York Times Book Review stating that Wade has misinterpreted their work. The letter criticizes "Wade's misappropriation of research from our field to support arguments about differences among human societies."
I hadn't even heard about this book before now. Sales will probably triple each time they fuss about it.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?
In other words, if white people exclusively possess blond hair and blue eyes, and Asians possess epicanthal folds and very dark hair, why is it so hard to believe that IQ, a physical aspect of the mental organ we call the brain, might vary as well?
Seems very bizarre to me. And irrational.
http://twitchy.com/2014/08/11/loot-and-rob-them-not-your-own-twitter-users-advise-black-people-to-loot-white-neighborhoods/
"‘Loot and rob them, not your own'; Twitter users advise black people to loot white neighborhoods"
"ya I can't get down with niggas ripping up their own neighborhoods"
"And gotdammit do it in the white neighborhoods or a heavily populated area or something, but you look stupid tearing up your own damn hood."
"i can't stand the fact that black folks have riots in our own neighborhood. you wanna make a statement? go riot in the white neighborhoods!"
"Them niggas in STL better burn the White Neighborhoods if they want to get the point across.— "
---
Who said racism is dead?
Read the TFA. People aren't getting upset about skin color: Quote: "In the book, Wade suggests that such genetic differences may help explain why some people live in tribal societies and some in advanced civilizations, why African-Americans are allegedly more violent than whites, and why the Chinese may be good at business."
Ideally it wouldn't matter. If one racial group had a greater number of more intelligent people than another then - so what? After all we have the same situation with things like height, strength, and so on. You might find that Chinese are under-represented in basketball, but a Chinese basketball player who could make the grade would be given exactly the same encouragement and opportunity as anyone else. Same should go for IQ.
I'm willing to bet that the light skin adaption was acquired from Neanderthals, not evolved by Homo Sapian. We know that the first humans remains found in Europe were dark skinned. All the human groups that encountered Neaderthals and the Denisovans have light skin (Europeans, Russians, Northern Asian). The gene that causes white skin is highly dominant, even with only 5% neanderthal DNA we still carry it.
Political Correctness has no place in discussions that are scientific in nature.
Skewing other people's research to fit your agenda is not scientific.
Or alternatively - not having reviewed all the claims in question (just like you) - it could be another case of scientific racism
And if we do ever scientifically prove that people of some etnicity are on-average superior or inferior in some way, the ethically correct thing to do with that information would be basically to ignore it in our everyday lives, to leave it as an academic issue.
So bad news for any racists out there, science will never legitimize your hatred.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The people who did the actual research are saying that it's NOT correct.
It's an extremely sensitive topic, for obvious historical reasons. Despite the mountains of hard scientific evidence to the contrary, the political dogma, at least where I live, is that we are all born as blank slates and any measurable difference between individuals is due to environment. We would all be as good as Tiger Woods at golf if we lived his life. This includes differences between the sexes, and isn't hyperbole or an exaggeration.
It's a nice thought, and if it were true governments could mold the behavior of its citizens to be exactly what they wanted.
It's easy to accept physical differences, like skin tone, height, and facial features are genetically determined, but to suggest that there might also be differences across individuals and races in the brain, and therefore behavior, is so politically incorrect most scientists will not touch it with a ten foot pole. I'm not suggesting that any particular race is "better" than any other, but I don't see how you can claim that there are no genetic differences between races that effect behavior if you accept the current model of evolution. I mean, why wouldn't there be? How do you justify that claim?
Genetics affects your mental attributes, but isn't the whole story. Environment affects your mental attributes, but isn't the whole story. Culture and self-determination facets of the environment affect your mental attributes, but aren't the whole story. People of different cultures have statistical differences in mental attributes. There's a bunch of people who get upset by these facts, and a different bunch of people who like to exaggerate them. And anyone who was named as being involved in any of this is going to end up at the center of a political shitstorm, so it's no surprise they want out.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
While I don't agree with this guy's conclusions myself, this type of hyper-PC bullshit storm is why being in academia is so obnoxious. Science should be determined by the evidence available and the best interpretation of it at the time, not by people's feelings or politics.
Secondly, someone citing your work doesn't mean you agree with their conclusions (or especially their politics). The correct response, if you care enough, is to follow up by pointing out where their interpretation falls short. The incorrect response is to write some whiny letter crying about how seemingly racist conclusions were drawn from your publications and it deeply offends you.
I mean, come on: "We are in full agreement that there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures." What a pathetic retort. But I bet they feel better now, and that's all that really matters.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Hahaha holy hell if he said something about Jews and money he would have got a BINGO!
Would any of the people crying "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD!" like to defend any such arguments?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Some areas of science are off limits in academia at this point. This is one of them. If the conclusion were that IQ is basically not heritable but that differences in racial groups are all caused by racism or such, all well and good. But any other conclusion risks torches and pitchforks and, worse, lack of grants. Mind you, widely publicizing a conclusion that race X has a lower average IQ than race Y can lead to damaging stereotyping, but fact is many people already have such stereotypes to some degree anyway...
Global warming/climate change has gone the same way. Anything that chips at the edge of the "consensus" has become largely beyond the pale, and risks ostracism. Not how science should be, research should go where it goes... And no, I'm not a "denier", just like people to be able to carry our research that challenges the orthodox view, particularly in politicized areas.
Indeed, it's not as though cultures of European stock have been uniformly ahead of the curve. There's just so much that can randomly happen, for example a strong case could be made that if the social changes wrought by the black death hadn't taken place, Europe might still be languishing at a near medieval level of technology. Or say the Minoans, they had indoor plumbing, air and light control, aqueducts and sophisticated codes of law what, four thousand years ago, then their island exploded.
Is he seriously taking a snapshot of modern US culture and trying to explain it mostly by genetics?
Because the suggestion that race is something that exists at the biological level is a falsehood. Every genetic trait you can think of exists in more than one population group. From your perspective, it might be easy to note that Norther Europeans are more closely related, on average, to Zulu tribesmen than Australian Aborigines are. There is no genetic trait or group of traits you can check for and use to make a determination of race.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Oh, come on. Political Correctness has no place in discussions that are scientific in nature.
On the other hand, science does, and this book is not science, but opinion, if you want to be polite about it. Racist opinion, to be precise, which have been around in some guise or other since who knows when? This kind of racism-disguised-as-science was common throughout 18th and 19th centuries and generally went along the lines of 'Us White (North-) Europeans Are Better Than The Rest' and was used to justify why we had a moral duty to go out and 'civilize' the inferior races.
Science is not made by taking a hand-picked assortment of data, twist it a few times and going 'Look, I can make the data match my opinon' - for anything to be science, you must have a hypothesis, which suggests a logically coherent explanation of all observed facts, makes testable predictions - and which survives experimental testing. It takes only 1 failed prediction to kill a theory.
Northern Europeans clearly evolved to have fair skin and hair, and they evolved from ancestors who did not have fair skin and hair.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is hardly the main point of this book, is it? To quote from the article:
In the book, Wade suggests that such genetic differences may help explain why some people live in tribal societies and some in advanced civilizations, why African-Americans are allegedly more violent than whites, and why the Chinese may be good at business.
So, black people are violent (meaning 'primitive'?), Chinese are cunning ('good at business') and The White Man is the epitome of civilisation? And this is not racism - how? This is just a worthless rehash of junk from the days of the colonialism.
I can't tell from your post what agenda you think these PC-police have, or what science you think they are suppressing. Could you make an actual refutable claim rather than merely implying that your unexpressed viewpoint is supported by science?
How is that controversial? All you need to do is look at average testosterone levels to begin to see why different races have different percentages in the ranges of cultural expression, and health, etc.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039128X92900325
what is globally accepted in animal breeding, that certain behavioral tendencies accompany accompany genetics right along with certain physical characteristics, is the worst taboo to apply to people.
which is ridiculous. populations living in specific social environments will SELECT FOR and AGAINST various physical and behavioral traits... and those traits which are successful in a specific society will then go on to build the society that those traits are best adapted to. like a feedback loop.
is there something totally crazy here?
THL phish sticks
Which has essentially nothing to do with the way most people -- scientist and layman alike -- define and delineate race. Which is the objection the scientists are raising.
The great thing about science is it's still correct even if you don't want to believe it.
Well, I wouldn't be too surprised if there is some yet to be discovered law in quantum mechanics that disproves exactly this.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
According to the article, that is not the case. It's pointed out that people objecting to the book have no read it.
Each of the people whose research the book used came up with their own interpretation of the data they collected. In each case, their conclusions are based upon what data they collected, and not what others collected.
An interesting comparison would be for those same people to review the SUM of the data Wade used (since they have access to it), and publish THEIR conclusions. Don't just say, "My research does not support that!", because you might not have been looking at N factors that other researchers looked at.
So you're taking exception to an unexpressed viewpoint? How nonintellectual.
Everyone knows that evolution is limited to effects from the neck down.
Sounds like scientists complaining that they're research has been misused.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You might want to take some time to actually read the criticisms. Jerry Coyne has a good write-up on his blog that delves deeper. You see, the researchers aren't saying the conclusions in the book are wrong they are saying, as the originators of said research, you cannot draw these conclusions from their work.
But please, don't let the nuanced comments of 140 published researchers dissuade you from shrieking "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" like a poop-flinging howler monkey.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
*RING* *RING*
Callee: Hello?
Caller: Hello, Dr. X, this is Dr. Y from [insert watchdog group name]. How are you today?
Callee: Uh, ok.
Caller: We're doing a survey. Your paper "[insert name of paper]" is cited in a NYT Best Seller that justifies taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies. Do you oppose taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies or not?
Callee: (Thinking to himself: "This guy is obviously nuts but then half of academia is nuts and they can cut off mine as well as all my future government grants for looking at them crosseyeed.") Why, NO! I absolutely oppose the use of my work to in any way shape or form to justify taking babies of some races and putting them into blenders for smoothies! Where is the bastard that so abused my inherently anti-racist work so I can consider suing him!?!?"
Caller: Thank you Dr. X. That will be all.
Seastead this.
Because everything is racist these days. Saying Asians are short is racist. Saying blue-eyed people can distinguish between colors and see UV light better is racist. Whether or not it's true is completely irrelevant.
And no matter how much the science would upset people without blue eyes, it would still be science.
Wrong. The Author says he thing they haven't read it, when in fact it's pretty damn clear they would have HAD to of read it to make the statements they make.
The Scientist making t make SPECIFIC points the author does not address and simple states
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's a losing tactic to accuse someone of racism while hiding behind AC.
Wrong. You should hire based on reaction times alone. If that results in only blue-eyed people being hired, that would obviously create some problems but a hiring practice that overtly discriminates by eye color would not be one of them.
Also, unless all blue-eyed people were proven to have faster reactions than all brown-eyed people, it would likely not result in the fastest-reacting set of employees.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You might want to re-read the quotations from the article: “Our findings do not even provide a hint of support in favor of Wade’s guesswork.”
That is not the same as saying "I didn't publish those conclusions" -- it's a rebuttal that the conclusions he makes are supported by the evidence he provides, from one of the foremost authorities on that evidence. You can claim that the original authors are lying if you want, but they aren't making the sort of wishy-washy statements you describe.
So which differences in skin tone, height, and facial features uniquely define the races? If you start with the assumption that race is a physical, heritable trait this work might make sense. But if you want to be take seriously you first have to establish that claim, and thus far no one has done so (nor is anyone honestly trying, as definitions of race are not stable across cultures or time, which almost certainly means they aren't physical in the first place).
How about you provide some cites instead of a bland assertion? I can find absolutely no references to Neanderthal skin color and haven't heard of such. I would be truly interested.
Perhaps you could also come up with an explanation for North American skin color, Asian skin color and others.
Guys, he can "misinterpret" your works as much has he likes, that's the whole point of "original research" and "original opinion". He takes your works and forms is own conclusions. It's him, not you. As long as he cites you.
Hell, you don't have to agree with him. Obviously.
Because the suggestion that race is something that exists at the biological level is a falsehood.
So it is just one hell of a co-incidence then that white parents generally have white children and black parents generally have black children ? I'm learning all the time.
The gene that causes white skin is highly dominant, even with only 5% neanderthal DNA we still carry it.
Would you reference that? As far as I know, this assertion is false because there several genes involved and dominancy is partial at best.
The correct thing to do would be to test reaction times, because there's going to be people of all eye colors that can do it, and others of all eye colors that can't.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Unless you can prove that all blue-eyed people have faster reaction times than all brown-eyed people, you'd still be better off just using a reaction time test. Which is what all of this boils down to - these proposed differences are merely that, and they overlap, can't be easily quantified, and require testing to ascertain on a person-to-person basis, which is the exact same outcome as we have now without this half-baked racist nonsense.
No, they're saying that you can't just take their research and make claims that it doesn't substantiate and then appeal to their authority to support your claims.
To give a computer science analogy (I'm out of stock of car analogies), imagine that you worked on Hadoop and you'd made sorting large data sets go 50% faster. Then someone publishes a book arguing that P=NP and uses your result (which doesn't even do comparison-based sorting) as the basis for their claim. You'd be in pretty much the same position as the researchers in TFA. Would you say that the author is an idiot, or would you keep quiet?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That's true only for the scientific pedant. In other species, races are recognized despite certain genes occurring across the boundaries. It's the collection of traits and you full well know it.
That will help set you straight
Skin color is genetically determined. Skin color does not, however, define race.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Still a losing tactic to accuse someone of racism while hiding behind AC.
The same scientists publish things such as proof that testosterone levels vary by race ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... ) then create a politically correct shitstorm when someone dares note that this has behavioral implications. How ridiculous can this get?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
So you don't know if they're read it, yet you categorically state that someone is wrong in assuming they haven't read it since it's not stated that they have?
I think everyone needs to step back and find out, first, what is being claimed, and second, what the scientific basis for those claims are. Without knowing that much, we can't begin to talk about whether those claims are convincing, let alone whether the people who are disagreeing are somehow biased.
Because there are plenty of people who would say, "Behavior is influenced by genes, and a large percentage of people in prison are black, therefore black people are genetically disposed to be criminals." That sort of thing is horribly racist and really bad science.
But is that the sort of thing that Nicholas Wade has done? I haven't read the book, and frankly I might not know the science well enough to judge how well founded his claims are. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has at least read the book.
Oh, come on. Political Correctness has no place in discussions that are scientific in nature.
Northern Europeans clearly evolved to have fair skin and hair, and they evolved from ancestors who did not have fair skin and hair.
How the *BLEEP* is this racist?
In order for a Northern European to evolve fair skin and hair, there has to be something that will kill a human of dark skin and hair. Since people with dark skin can survive in Northern Europe, it is not through evolution.
It is through something called genetic drift. When a small breakway population goes to a new geographic location that is isolated from the previous location, there is limited genetic depth because of the small number of the population. However, because of abundant resources, the small population quickly grows. The genes that spread by determined completely by the small group of individuals who broke away from the main population. Here, random chance plays a huge factor to what the new population gets and not evolution.
So, it is not clearly that evolution gave Northern Europeans fair skin and hair. Genetic drift could very well have been the cause.
You do have actual evidence of this, right? I mean, you wouldn't simply be lying to bolster *your* agenda.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So which differences in skin tone, height, and facial features uniquely define the races
Who says it has to be distinct, unique enough perfect compartmentalization enough to put people entirely, precisely in one box of the next?
But are you REALLY pretending that you can't immediately spot some people as being obviously of Mongolian, or Russian, or Ethiopian extraction? I can spot people of Scandinavian heritage a mile away, and can readily see the differences between people carrying DNA from the Andes vs. DNA from the jungles of Central America. Why are you trying so hard to pretend those differences are plainly obvious? What do you gain, other than street cred with the willfully obtuse politically correct set?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So something exists at the biological level. Call it what you like.
True, but you can't tell that the person you've spotted as Mongolian isn't carrying Scandinavian genes, or which ones, or how many (leaving aside what a "Scandinavian" gene is"), making the visual determination you have made essentially useless.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
As you say, the European lead in politics and technology could have happened "randomly". There are other strategies to explain it, like Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel". And then there's this evolutionary story. Any one of these could be true, or a combination, or some other story that we just haven't worked out yet. Along the way, science proposes - and then eventually (hopefully) rejects - false theories. Some of the ideas about population genetics that are in circulation now will be consigned to the dustbin. It's the same story in chemistry, neurology, etc. Science is full of false theories that teach us something valuable when we find enough evidence to reject them.
But something very different is happening here. There is a lot of scorn and finger-wagging for simply proposing that an evolutionary story might have produced geographically inhomogeneous distributions of human character traits. This is not how real scientists react to the proposal of a false theory. You don't submit an angry mass NYT condemnation of the physicist that proposes the variability of the speed of light, or the doctor who proposes a novel and improbable metabolic pathway of leukemia cells. The book is available. If scientists think some of its claims are shown to be false by evidence we already have, they should say which those claims are, and reference the invalidating evidence.
Rickets.
"Unfortunately many social scientists have long denied that there is a biological basis to race."
This is not my field, but clearly, people from different parts of the world look very obviously different. I've never understood how that could not be biologically, or genetically, based. It just seems logical that there might be other differences. This is true of every other animal, when populations become separated. It is unfortunate that people immediately start ranking traits as superior or inferior.
I haven't read the book, but the author's statement that, "opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on the anti-evolutionary myth that there is no biological basis to race," seems eminently sensible. It's always disappointing when politics influence research, but it happens far more often than many people think.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Everyone knows that evolution is limited to effects from the neck down.
You're being a prat and trying to see conspiracies about ignoring genetics where none exists. In the real world, the state of knowledge of genetics and cultures is far far too poor to attribute nebulous concepts to genetics.
There is no gene which makes you "good at business". This is not the XMen world where you have a mutant gene which gives you some superpower. The real world is far more complex and far messier.
The geneticsts know this. Now you do.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's an extremely sensitive topic, for obvious historical reasons. Despite the mountains of hard scientific evidence to the contrary, the political dogma, at least where I live, is that we are all born as blank slates and any measurable difference between individuals is due to environment. We would all be as good as Tiger Woods at golf if we lived his life. This includes differences between the sexes, and isn't hyperbole or an exaggeration.
It's a nice thought, and if it were true governments could mold the behavior of its citizens to be exactly what they wanted.
It's easy to accept physical differences, like skin tone, height, and facial features are genetically determined, but to suggest that there might also be differences across individuals and races in the brain, and therefore behavior, is so politically incorrect most scientists will not touch it with a ten foot pole. I'm not suggesting that any particular race is "better" than any other, but I don't see how you can claim that there are no genetic differences between races that effect behavior if you accept the current model of evolution. I mean, why wouldn't there be? How do you justify that claim?
If you read the scientific consensus in the beginning of the 20th century, they had the exact same view as you are saying. They had journals which listed what characteristics what races and sub-races had, and had intricate rankings of races - with uber-mechen and under-mechen. It is the basis of eugenics and was the root of the philosophy of Nazi justifying killing of the inferior races.
Their failing was that they considered every little difference in societies to be genetic.
Perhaps you could be or could not be Tiger Woods but so far, there hasn't been an obvious genetic test to determine that. However, there is no getting around the fact that Tiger Woods is a successful professional golfer because his dad is a golf instructor and he had training when he was young as well as access to professional network that his dad had established to be successful.
The counterexample to that comes from Gladwell's example of the Canadian hockey team and the birthday phenomenon. There are almost no professional hockey players born at the end of the year. Most of them are born in the beginning of the year. The reason is that coaching is done by age and the kids who are born later in the year have 6-12 month disadvantage over kids born earlier in the year. So, in this case, access to training and coaching was more vital than the genetic component. If genetic was important, then there would be a more even distribution of birthdays.
Uh, no. The point is that the people objecting to the book in this case are scientists who say that their research is being misrepresented by this fuckwit.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Just an anecdote: I was raised in a poor white trash family where emotional and physical abuse was common. We were poor, and sometimes embarrassingly so, especially to the neighbors.
Education wasn't much of a concern, nor was it ever glorified, and the only time our grades mattered was when we poorly performed with respect to "conduct" in school, to which we received a whipping, or as they really were, a beating. Grades were simply not important so long as we weren't garnering Fs.
My father was nonreligious, but my mother was a Southern Baptist who sneered at science, especially evolution. But she was intelligent, as was my father, up to a point, although my mother was the reader and possessed the verbal acuity.
Strangely enough, though our home life was that of near-poverty and deprivation, I somehow came out with an IQ that is/was near the genius level, or so I was told, although I couldn't have cared less about school. In fact I hated it. Still do.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that my home life wasn't much better than many poor, deprived minorities, and yet though I dropped out of high school I managed to teach myself calculus, trigonometry and algebra, not in that order. I'm even familiar with topology and abstract algebra.
Why then, given my terrible childhood experiences and my dislike of schooling, do I have a better than average (or mean) IQ, if not for genetics? Certainly it wasn't because I enjoyed studying (I didn't), and certainly not because I was compelled to earn high grades (I was not), and certainly not because I was popular in school (just the opposite).
So if not genetics, then WHAT?
It's clear from the article that they didn't begin "speaking out" until they were contacted for the letter.
Political Correctness has no place in discussions that are scientific in nature.
Skewing other people's research to fit your agenda is not scientific.
Neither is skewing your own research to fit your agenda. PC has no place in science.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Why are you trying so hard to pretend those differences are plainly obvious?
Sure, you can see a lot of people who clearly come from some place... but you can also see a lot more people who don't clearly fall into any bucket, especially in the US where everyone is so mixed up. You might see a redhead with curly hair and freckles, and that person may have a bunch of African ancestry despite those traits being so traditionally "Irish". Even if you were right about that person being "Irish" - so what? Irish people didn't always look like that - there has been quite a bit of genetic exchange over the millennia, and it is doubtful that your idea of what an Irish person looks like would be true when Christians were being fed to lions. So now your idea of "race" is frozen at some point in time. Scientifically, it is OK to say that race is meaningless as a classification system while still accepting that traits are heritable.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...then you'd be doing the only sane thing. If you need people with quick reaction times, measure their fscking reaction times, not their eye color, even if there is some statistical relationship between eye color and reaction times.
If you need someone to be able to lift 100 pounds for some job, test their ability to lift 100 pounds, not their gender or their skin tone or anything else that may or may not have a statistical relationship to their ability to lift heavy loads.
The only sane and ethical path would be to ignore any such statistical relationships and test the relevant characteristics in each individual person.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Those aren't the only reasons Tiger Woods was (yes, was) good at golf. Not only was his dad a golf instructor but Tiger Woods also had the genetic potential to be a top golfer. The base assumption that everyone could be Tiger Woods if only their dads were golf instructors is such a load of twaddle.
Now on the point in question it seems to me that if genetic traits such as skin pigmentation, height and so on are selected for or against in various different Human populations, that the most important organ from a survival point of view, the brain, MUST have similar pressures put upon it and that therefore gene frequencies would differ between populations with respect to it. From here it's not much of a stretch to propose that some behaviour differences might result.
In today's world where we're not restricted by geographical boundaries and genes are free-flowing around the world, I expect these frequencies would by and large regress to the mean, in the absence of strong environmental or parasitic pressures of course.
Why are you trying so hard to pretend those differences are plainly obvious?
Especially in the US where everyone is so mixed up.
One of the neat things genetics shows is that everyone is mixed up, whether it is visually noticeable to you or not.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I have never heard race ascribed to any species other than human.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
I'm not seeing any evidence that the researches here are skewing anything.
I think you may have confused "evolution" with "natural selection". Genetic drift and natural selection are both mechanisms, among others, of evolution.
oh, also... what part of there is no group of genes which can be usefully used to identify race did you miss?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
No actually, they are not necessarily comparable with each other "from a reproductive point of view". And some different species are compatible with eachother.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Being the same species doesn't mean there can't be substantial genetic differences - it just means that you will produce viable offspring.
How is that controversial? All you need to do is look at average testosterone levels to begin to see why different races have different percentages in the ranges of cultural expression, and health, etc.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039128X92900325 [sciencedirect.com]
Age-adjusted testosterone from their Table 2:
white 637
black 657
Asian 688
How big a differences does it take to affect "cultural expression?"
Of course there have been and will be attacks on this book done out of sheer 'political correctness' by those whose prejudices it rankles---but there have been similarly headless defences of it by those whose biases it pleasantly tickles. Some of these population geneticists might some be writing in fear of having their funding cut, but the better-known and -trusted the scientist, the lower the chance of it. some of them might in fact be depending on biassed [sic] summaries of the book, as Wade claims, but he uses this and the charge of political motivation as a way of dodging the actual issues raised. (In addition, a researcher might only read the sections of the book in which their [sic] work were cited and then weigh in fairly on the particular issues so involved.)
When applied to other animals, the term is "breed". Do you agree that different breeds of dogs have different physical characteristics, right? Remember that dogs of different breeds can mate and produce fertile offspring, so they are not different species.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Has there been any research that has proven that there are no "unfair" differences, or is it just assumed? What is the current stance of the scientific community - is it "We don't know" or is it "We are certain there are no differences in intelligence and behavior caused by genetics"?
And all of this would go away if we mentioned that "ability" doesn't mean "rights". The ability to do something does not (or at least, should not) imbue more or less "rights". The problem, with typical PC thinking, is that modern liberalism equates equal outcome with equal rights. Outcomes are both ability (talent, skill) and effort (practice, dedication), but rights are self evident, and do not rely upon either.
I don't have a problem with people having different abilities/skills based on inherited traits. And inherited traits are NOT racist if they primarily fall along skin color or ethnic lines.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There are certain things in science that, in a world in which politics arrogantly claims to the right to invade every facet of culture, you just can't say. Just try being skeptical about anthropogenic climate change.
The reason these geneticists are decrying this study is not because of the results, but what people have done with them. Last century, we had a pretty big blowup because of "scientific" correlations between genetics ethnicity and behavior. And it's not like these correlations are well understood.
And look at how many of these studies regarding ethnicity and behavior later turned out to be bogus as hell, but not before providing racists with cover.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Good thing we're talking about groups of people, not individuals. You understand how statistics on populations work?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah. White _parent_. Mama's baby, daddy's maybe.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You have to be very careful attributing things to genes rather than environment. Testosterone level, since you mentioned it, rises and drop in response to winning or losing in competitions, and increases in response to exercise. The nature of our encounters with others (dominance) and exercise (which depends on job function) are both clearly culturally influenced.
Wolves got here by natural selection. Domestic dogs are the result of intelligent design.
You process will be measured/judged based on outcomes. If you end up hiring disproportionately more blue eyed people you will still be tarred a racist.
See also gender disparity in tech.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Like make them darker, faster, smarter, more or less emotional, create differences in how well they handle differing types of stress or how adaptable they are?
Sounds impossible to me.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I do not believe you did this on purpose, but you switched contexts during your argument. First, you stated that race does not exist at the "biological" level; and then you went on to say, presumably as an explanation, that there is "no genetic trait" behind race. Those two statements are not the same thing. I recall that when the human genome project was completed, scientists stated that one of the things they determined is that genes, by themselves, cannot account for all of the variability among human beings; and, thus, the field of epigenetics took off.
What goes on at what you call the "genetic" level is not the last word on biology. If at the genetic level race is not distinct, that does not mean there is no biological cause behind race.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
The problem is, people are suggesting there are differences across races but then cannot really show compelling, conclusive scientific evidence to support their claim.
For instance, scientific research (something that is not widely reported in public venues for obvious reasons of political sensitivity) clearly shows a huge IQ gap between blacks and whites, consisting of 10-20 points and persisting across the Americas, Europe, and Africa.
Some have argued that this gap is genetic (and we certainly cannot rule it out); however, there is no conclusive evidence to support their claim that the IQ gap is genetic.
Similar IQ gaps (such as between whites and Native Americans) have disappeared over time in the past, so anyone should be very skeptical of a claim that blacks have a lower IQ because it is a genetic population trait and not an environmental trait.
Like with the IQ gap, many people (most of them not actual research scientists like this author) are making these nature over nurture arguments on a wide variety of topics without sufficient research to back them up but rather to fit into their own world-view about cultures and population groups being genetically inferior or superior, an antediluvian throwback to the pseudoscience of anthropology at the turn of the 19th century.
That is a misuse of science and the actual researchers are right to call-out the author on his misinterpretation of their work.
Europe might still be languishing at a near medieval level of technology
Which was the best in the world at the time and far ahead that of many peoples during the age of conquest.
How do you claim to know what people are thinking? There is a vast difference between feeling that people are (in whatever sense) identical, vs. believing they should be treated equally, especially in the political sphere. When you advocate discrimination, you not only assert that there is a difference, but that you, or society (will be a just arbiter) in assigning people to differential treatment. And that differential treatment will not cause even further divergence over time.
If history has shown anything, it's that those assumptions are absolutely false.
Well let's ignore the fact that Mongolia, Russia, and Ethiopia are places, not races. The underlying issue is:
Race is a social term used to generalize the ancestry of a person. It's to vague to make a prediction about the genes, and their expression, in a particular person.
There is a lot of genetic diversity even in, what can be considered, a genetically homogeneous population. Genes that have been unexpressed for generations can suddenly appear again if the right couple have offspring. Even the genetic expression within offspring from a single couple can vary wildly. I think most of know cases similar to the family with 3 brown hair and eyed kids, and 1 with blonde hair and blue eyes.
You throw genetic diversification increases from a few 100 years of globalization into the mix and the whole notion of scientifically defining a race, let alone predicting actual gene expressions in a individual, becomes ridiculous.
Predictions of gene expression can only be done on a case by case basis within a specific heredity context. This is the reason the doctor's form asks for your parent's, grandparent's, and siblings medical history, not what race you are.
This reminds me of a fiasco a few years ago when a colleague of mine published a paper reporting his objective discovery that male-female sexual intercourse has some health benefits that did not result from any other form of sex such as masturbation or homosexual sex. The vitriol of the truth-phobic PC backlash that ensued almost made him wish he had never published.
Sent from my Tianhe-2 (MilkyWay-2).
Design, but looking at a dachshund, I wouldn't use the term "intelligent".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I highly recommend this quick read the 90's: http://www.amazon.com/Biology-...
It's written by a geneticist Richard Lewontin and very effectively shows the many flaws in biological determinism.
Skin color certainly does not define race. It is part of it though, which you're admitting is genetically determined.
So the question how do you define race, and which parts are not genetically determined?
Exactly. See here for some ideas as to what factors could influence or have definitely influenced prosperity and culture:
http://www.nybooks.com/article...
Well enough to understand that it precludes any useful biological definition of race.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
In order for a Northern European to evolve fair skin and hair, there has to be something that will kill a human of dark skin and hair. Since people with dark skin can survive in Northern Europe, it is not through evolution.
The "something" doesn't have to kill, just reduce the probability of reproductive success. Vitamin D deficiency fills the bill.
So your argument is "It offends me, so it's wrong"? It wouldn't surprise me at all if many aspects of behavior were influenced to some small degree by genetics. Individuals vary, but statistical averages across populations that correlate somewhat in both behavior and genetic similarity? Does that really sound so far-fetched?
I think culture is the dominant factor in how we behave (if you're talking statistical trends of large groups), but not the only factor. Environmental and genetic factors seem likely to influence behavior as well - why wouldn't they?
In any case, we should go with the data, not with the least offensive hypothesis.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well let's ignore the fact that Mongolia, Russia, and Ethiopia are places, not races.
Why ignore that? I chose those specifically because - despite the serious melting-pot stuff of the last 100+ years or so - those PLACES have also been home to readily identifiable large groups of people who share very obvious genetic traits.
Race is a social term used to generalize the ancestry of a person. It's to vague to make a prediction about the genes, and their expression, in a particular person.
But, inconveniently, it's also a perfectly reasonable way to look at a large group and say, "Wow, that group of several million people sure do have a LOT in common, genetically."
I think most of know cases similar to the family with 3 brown hair and eyed kids, and 1 with blonde hair and blue eyes.
Yes, just like most know cases similar to the family with 3 smart kids and 1 much less smart one.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sure, and if there are other traits linked to those visible traits, they'd be just as mixed. It would all show up as statistical correlations in populations. Is anyone talking about predicting the behavior of individuals?
"Race" may be a bit of nonsense, especially these days when travel is so easy and so diffusion is fast, but I wouldn't find correlation between behavior and genetic factors that happen to produce visible distinctions unlikely. I'd be shocked if it weren't a minor factor compared to culture, behavior-wise, but that doesn't mean it's not measurable.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined" - wikipedia
There's simply no scientific basis or definition of "race" as Nicolas Wade uses the term. People in the bookstore will presume he's talking about melanin. Three hundred years ago Spaniards were considered a different "race" than Anglo Saxons or Greeks. To suggest that the "learning gene" is somehow incompatible or cannot be passed on in combination with a certain skin color / melanin gene seems obnoxious if that's not what the data show. Most "races" as defined by book-buying public are hetero-genetic, it may indeed seem to some either reckless or cynical of Wade to work "melanin and intelligence" into the book title. If I inherit dark melanin from my father and intelligence from my mother, I'd be more than just "politically correct" to be pissed off at Wade for implying that my dad's skin color negates mom's smarts.
It is controversial enough that tendency for intelligence can be inherited. The fact that skin color can also be inherited is true. Height can also be inherited, and hairlines. To insinuate, through the title of the book, that "race" is more correlated than height/hairline may be true (or not, I don't know), but if it's not determinative of intelligence, it doesn't belong it the title. Some people objecting may indeed object out of so-called "political correctness", but unless the skin color gene is somehow genetically incompatible with intelligence, it's just creating a non-useful stereotype.
Since there is no link to the letter of objection, those /.ers whining about "political correctness" are merely guessing at the motive of behind the letter of objection. My personal guess is, "don't take years of our scientific data and pick two traits - melanin and learning - and imply that those two traits, out of thousands of other traits, are tied together in some way just to promote your book sales."
Gently reply
There is no gene which makes you "good at business".
And how do you know that? Studies of identical twins separated at birth and raised apart have found remarkable things: I remember an account of one case where as adults, both men had (among other similarities) chosen identical belt buckles, smoked the same brand of cigarettes, and held the packs in rolled up sleeves of their T-shirts in the same way. Of course, nobody says that proves there's a "belt-buckle choice gene," but it seems to indicate that genes can influence behavior in complex ways we do not understand. The idea that some genetic patterns might make you (on average) better at business is not outlandish at all.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Without regard to the merits of either side of the argument -- would the scientists have much choice in deciding whether or not to sign this letter? I would imagine not signing the letter could lead to you being ostracized, labeled as a racist, possibly losing grants and so on. The path of least resistance for any individual geneticist would be to sign the letter.
Again, I'm not arguing that they're wrong. Just that there could be a lot of pressure for them to be 'right'.
Sauer
No, my argument is that he made a generalization about an entire population based on averages, so those generalizations are wrong - and racist.
We do have to avoid making generalizations even if they are based on sound averages. That's an ethics issue, not a scientific one. We shouldn't let any individuals be profiled in one way or another because of the stats on their ethnicity.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In order for a Northern European to evolve fair skin and hair, there has to be something that will kill a human of dark skin and hair. Since people with dark skin can survive in Northern Europe, it is not through evolution.
Doesn't it hurt your brain to write that?
Last post!
This kind of racism-disguised-as-science was common throughout 18th and 19th centuries
Scientific discussion of racial differences is not the same as racism. It's amazing how afraid some people are of frank discussion about race. They want to shut it down as soon as it begins, typically by denying the question ("there's no such thing as race!!") or personal attacks like you're doing ("you're racist for even suggesting that!!!").
for anything to be science, you must have a hypothesis, which suggests a logically coherent explanation of all observed facts, makes testable predictions
You typically start with data gathering and classification before hypotheses are even formed. But that step of the process is still "science." So no.
So, black people are violent (meaning 'primitive'?), Chinese are cunning ('good at business') and The White Man is the epitome of civilisation? And this is not racism - how? This is just a worthless rehash of junk from the days of the colonialism.
So, you're making your own ridiculous assumptions (good at business = cunning? really? how so?) and ascribing them to the book and then labeling it racist.
You may overestimate your own mental capacity. I only say this because you are casting population statistics onto an individual in a way which ignores the variation of the population.
"Hahaha holy hell if he said something about Jews and money he would have got a BINGO!"
Ok, here we go:
In a former iron curtain country, there was a rumor that a shop would have some shoes in stock later that day.
So naturally a long line formed as soon as the rumor got around.
A Party official immediately showed up and said. 'There are nor enough shoes for everybody, so the Jews should go home, there will be no shoes for them anyway.'
The Jews went home.
Still more people joined the line.
The Party official made another announcement: 'There will not be enough shoes for everybody, so only veterans should stay in line.'
Lots of people went home.
After a while the Party official came back to tell the remaining people: 'Only veterans who fought in the great war can stay in line for the shoes.'
Lots of people went home again.
After some time the Party official announced: 'Only veterans of the great war who got the Lenin medal can stay in line for the shoes.'
Almost everybody went home, only 2 elderly men stayed in line.
When everybody was away, the Party official said to the 2 veterans: 'There are no shoes!'
So the first grandpa turned around to the second one and said: 'The Jews always get the best deal!'
That's... spot on AC! From the very little I read (TFS, a few comments above, skimmed the scimag recap), the fourth-hand recounts of this guy's theories sound wrong (and rather 1920's eugenics-y) to me. But then I'm not a geneticist or any sort of biologist, and almost everything in modern science would sound wrong to a neophyte in that field. I move faster and time moves slower?? Really cold helium exhibits "anti-gravity" properties?? We have 10x more bacterial cells than human cells in our bodies???
/. poster), but if their response was "We're uncomfortable with this" and not "Here's why your analysis is flawed" then it isn't science. The author does contend that the NYT letter misquotes and mischaracterizes specific portions of his work, and that there's yet to be any actual science refuting his central arguments. So if they want to debunk the guy, Step 1 is to establish exactly what he's arguing. Step 2 is to provide Stuff(TM) that is the product of the Scientific Method to counter his arguments, or logically establish that his arguments do not follow from such Stuff.
Assuming this author proposed a testable and falsifiable theory (e.g. "These traits statistically correlate with these genes, and I have controlled for all non-genetic factors like environment, diet, etc"; contra "This race is better because $deity says so"), the proper rebuttal is "We went over your analysis, and you failed to control for X" or "What you're suggesting is a plausible idea but it's wholly unsupported by the data and studies you cite" or "Here's where your use of these statistics is inapt because it means X and not Y like you think."
Now, I didn't read the NYT letter either (making me the quintessential
Nothing posted to
The base assumption that everyone could be Tiger Woods if only their dads were golf instructors is such a load of twaddle.
And yet it explains the phenomena of Drew Barrymore, Tori Spelling, Miley Cyrus, Emelio Estevez, Charlie Sheen, and a host of other "famous" actors whose names you know only because their parents were famous actors or producers. I would have included Jamie Lee Curtis in that list, but her performance in A Fish Called Wanda was pretty good so maybe she has some innate skill.
In today's world where we're not restricted by geographical boundaries and genes are free-flowing around the world,
That's a very privileged and first-worldish view of the planet. Most of the planet still has huge restrictions on the free-flow of genes, and much of it is based on the economics of travel.
No, my argument is that he made a generalization about an entire population based on averages, so those generalizations are wrong - and racist.
Wait, what? Generalizations about a population can be quite accurate - as statistical measures of the population. That says little enough about any given individual, of course. E.g., you might be able to predict pretty accurately the number of children-per-woman in a given population over the next decade, but of course that tells you next to nothing about how big your neighbor's family will be. You can scream "urraysis" all day, but it's not really an argument.
We do have to avoid making generalizations even if they are based on sound averages. That's an ethics issue, not a scientific one.
I prefer to see good science be done. As a culture, we should focus on educating ourselves on the difference between individuals and groups, not on pretending obviously-true things are false. And we certainly shouldn't punish scientists for publishing true things (not that TFA was about scientific work, of course).
We shouldn't let any individuals be profiled in one way or another because of the stats on their ethnicity.
"Profiling" is one of those words that appeals to emotion to overcome logical flaws in one's argument, just like screaming urraysis at people, but still I agree - you can't reason from statistical trends to individuals, it just doesn't work that way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I think the Caliphates would contest that.
Or it indicates that you or the source of that information is utterly full of shit. Sounds like an urban myth, to me.
Hell, geneticists won't even accept that a FLOOD of hormones throughout our development from blastocyst onward that spur dimorphism, change the development of significant parts of the human anatomy, the voice, musculature, hell even the very skeletal structure itself has *any* impact on mental abilities, strengths, weaknesses etc in any way.
If they won't admit something so fundamental because it's taboo, how could they possibly admit that ethnicities have different strengths and weaknesses?
-Styopa
Yes it is because that "false theory" is being published as a book AND because it claims to cite those scientists.
Thus it is implying that those scientists support that "false theory".
And since the "false theory" is racist, it is implying that those scientists who are implied as supporting that "false theory" are also racist.
So a public condemnation of the "false theory" and the author and the work is entirely reasonable.
so... people are mad that someone has the balls to call it like we all see it???
political correctness my freinds, making the truth bad since it started
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
not that story, but similar.
http://www.people.com/people/a...
sounds more like one of those law of huge fucking numbers things. preference and all might be heredity, which can lead to blah blah.
The claim of the book is that economic differences may be attributed to genetics, and you don't need any political correctness to see how much bullshit that idea contains.
IN dogs, cats, horses, and cows, we call them "breeds". Means the same thing - a collection of common traits....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And that is (excuse the capitalization) because VISIBLE PHYSICAL TRAITS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR DEFINING "RACE".
Yet everyone who wants to talk about "race" usually resorts to visible physical characteristics.
Race X has visible physical characteristic A.
Race Y has visible physical characteristic B.
What happens when those races mix? What race is the baby?
He IS, and for precisely the reason you say. His IQ is probably more affected by him being an introverted autodidact than genetics. Very intelligent people can bomb IQ tests, and some people who would largely be regarded as "dumb" can ace them. It's not unheard of for introverted autodidacts to emerge from impoverished families, of all "races".
Of course, given his lack of any form of deductive reasoning past step 1, I'm going to conclude that he simply isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
The early eugenics supporters also had clear biases, such as attributing positive values to their own racial features and negative values to racial features of others. Even within social groups such ideas held; murderers were said to have certain physical characteristics such as heavy brows, lower classes had a degraded breeding stock, and so forth.
Conclusion wrapped in your argument. What's your definition of 'useful'?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Scientific discussion of racial differences is not the same as racism. It's amazing how afraid some people are of frank discussion about race. They want to shut it down as soon as it begins, typically by denying the question ("there's no such thing as race!!") or personal attacks like you're doing ("you're racist for even suggesting that!!!").
And writing a book to be published to the masses on your "scientific" theory rather than submitting it for peer review and publishing it via the normal process isn't a scientific discussion. To me, that raises a red flag as big as all of the "cold fusion" and other physics discoveries that call press conferences rather than publishing papers and letting other scientists analyze their results before the press sees it.
So your argument is "It offends me, so it's wrong"?
That's how things work here on Slashdot. Facts be damned, it's all about gut feelings.
Required reading for internet skeptics
The scientists who work he based his premise on are saying their research does not support this conclusions. The scientists are showing you with their research. You would know that if you read the article.
Or it indicates that you or the source of that information is utterly full of shit. Sounds like an urban myth, to me.
Here you go.
Jerry Levey, a 6-foot-6, balding, mustachioed New Jersey volunteer fireman who wears his keys jingling on his belt, drinks Budweiser and crushes the cans when he finishes, stared dumbstruck at Mark Newman.
Mark Newman, a 6-foot-6, balding, mustachioed New Jersey volunteer fireman who wears his keys jingling on his belt, drinks Budweiser and crushes the cans when he finishes, stared dumbstruck at Jerry Levey.
The men were identical in almost every visible respect. [...]
For example, why do Newman and Levey have similar styles of dress, opinions and IQs? Is their shared taste for Budweiser inborn, the result of upbringing or mere coincidence? Was their passion for 3 a.m. takeout Chinese food determined in their childhood homes, or by chromosomes? [...]
Both men remember that, growing up in different households, in towns 65 miles apart, they were fascinated by fire trucks and firefighters.
Both became volunteer firemen but say they still yearn to be full-time firefighters.
When they met, Levey made his living installing fire-suppression equipment, such as sprinklers.
Newman made his living installing fire alarms.
Previously, Levey had worked for a lawn-chemical company; Newman installed lawn sprinklers.
"Before that," Newman said, "we both worked for supermarkets, both worked at gas stations, and he went to college for forestry, and I worked directly in the field, as a tree surgeon." [...]
People are often astonished to hear about the New Jersey twins' almost eerie similarities - and more astonished to learn that such striking similarities are the rule, not the exception, among the 100 sets of twins in the Minnesota study.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Somebody failed high school biology.
Which would mean they are genetically the same and thus there is no genetic basis for race. Something simple minded people fail to understand.
Sounds like someone did not read the article. The outrage is among scientists who's research was used in a BOOK that made erroneous claims about their research. There does that help.
Kind if like the guy who wrote the book had to make outrages claims in order to gin up press....
Because what we see is always accurate and never coloured by our own beliefs.
Fine you're a racist. How's that.
In modern terms, race would effectively be a haplogroup, or sub- or superset thereof.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Are you a fucking moron. The research DOES NOT support what the guy says. Any clearer for you moron...
Very true. Mostly because they were wearing loincloths while the older empires were playing with siege weaponry.
Great civilizations are not a white invention, we were simply the last to enter the game, and won out against our ailing competitors.
The next age won't be ours though, that much is certain. I wonder if in the future, people will argue that white people are an inferior race since all the great civilizations will likely exist in Asia
Wow, so you are really really stupid aren't you.
Even a few examples like this would be considered falsification in any harder science. But race theory - social-vs-genes - is not so vulnerable that.
I could not agree more. Eugenics is a short cut to the abyss and some very unsavoury people have played this card before. It ended up with Concentration camps.
That there is no genetic test you can perform which will allow you to classify an individual as belonging to a particular "race". I'm not sure how you translate a similar test to large groups or populations, in any meaningful way.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
It would, if black people living in northern latitudes didn't get enough sunlight to generate the requisite amount of Vitamin D. That is however nowhere near the case.
Unless of course those black ancestors of the europeans invented the office job and couldn't get their asses outside for a few minutes a few days a week, or slathered themselves in sunscreen, or hid behind UV-filtering glass.
That must be it- it completely explains why Northern/Southern native Americans and siberian tribes have such pale skin!
Or... genetic drift.
Wouldn't it be great if we could recognize that every person is different, and that shouldn't give any of them fewer rights? Sadly that's not how the human mind works. Sure, you might be smarter than that, but hey, think about the guy next to you. That driver who won't stop riding your bumper and doesn't seem to know what a turn signal is. Hell, we have a divided government and I'll bet you wouldn't trust both Republicans and Democrats to have this figured out. Political correctness is the set of taboos we inherit from our ancestors who, in the absence of those taboos, did things like slavery and the holocaust. There may be more to it than that, but do you trust all of those other people to understand anything more complicated?
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Wrong. They're saying the conclusions drawn from the research are incorrect. That it's non-sequitur.
Do you suffer from a reading comprehension problem, or is cognitive dissonance compelling you to throw yourself upon the saber of false assertions to prevent your world-view from imploding?
What you are ignoring is that identical twins don't just share single genes, they share identical arrangements of every gene. They also share most epigenetic markers. There isn't a single gene that is for, say, preferring a particular brand of cigarettes. But with a large enough number of identical genes you get things like "preferring the shape of a circle surrounded by grene" and "lack of concern over a bitter taste", etc. until you do get a large number of "unexpected correlations above chance". This doesn't mean they have a gene for preferring Taryton cigaretts.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Or it's a rebuttal that his conclusions are non-sequitur with regard to the evidence he (they) provided.
Someone displays evidence of a statistical correlation between serum lead levels, and violence.
I then postulate that they have proven that GM is responsible for the high violence rates during the time tetraethyllead was in use in gasoline.
Am I right? Maybe. But the evidence certainly can't be used to reach that conclusion.
Have you actually kept statistics to back that assertion, or is it just a gut feeling ?-)
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'd like to think the merit of the argument stands on its own legs, regardless of the name or anonymity of the poster. Unless of course you're attempt to debunk his argument by virtue of that facet.. In which case, +1 Ironic. I like your sense of humor.
Until they became aware of someone making non-sequitur conclusions from/and using their work as "proof"?
Shocking.
common sense? no no cant be. that HAS to be racist what you just said.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Lack of counterpoint is not a point.
I thought I made it quite clear that I was not ignoring that.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
See "Genomic Views of Human History", by Mary-Claire King ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... ) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Basically, from examining in excruciating detail the DNA of groups and subgroups, human beings throughout prehistory were considerable more mobile than previously assumed. Essentially, there is more genetic diversity between individuals from the same village than there is between any given 'racial' groups taken as wholes. Because of human mobility ( refugees, war brides, immigration, guest labor, etc.) the genetic distinctions of 'race' become even more indistinct.
not important to the point i was making at all.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
In a sense, it's almost unfair (DISCRIMINATION!) to pretend everyone is equal and the same....to expect them all to sit in a classroom or office and get along when some people are at a drastic chemical disadvantage in such environments.
Only on Slashdot can someone be brazen enough to equate egalitarianism with 'DISCRIMINATION' (there I fixed the spelling for you).
Must be OPPOSITE DAY and I missed the memo or something.
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Godwin's law revised: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a claim of racism approaches 1"
And "“if you cry racism within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in"
akma
It could be as simple as:
X got there earlier. When Y came, X typically killed them because they looked different.
It's not as if the world were particularly civilized back then... (or now, in many cases).
You don't need a dna sample or a computer program to get the point of origin of any persons ancestors. The answer is always the same: Africa.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
ABSTRACT
In this paper we we compare the number of legs on humans (homo sapiens) and cats (felis catus). We rely heavily on previous work done on employment classifications and average height done in 1998[1] and 2005[2]. None of the previous work in either employment or height recorded leg quantity, so it was not possible to draw any conclusions. In this study, we generated a matrix associating leg quantity, employment, and average height, and we used an ad hoc method devised by the authors to describe cause and effect. Finally, we threw out all of the results and destroyed the data because to make generalizations on an entire population based on averages would be wrong and racist.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
The dachshund (my family used to gave one) was bred for digging. Specifically, for rooting out badgers.
In Europe, being smart enough to survive long, cold winters was valued. This took brains.
In Africa, hunting wild animals allowed you to survive. This took moves and brawn.
In China, politicking allowed you to survive. This takes careful study and business sense.
It's not surprising that people survived according to their environments.
(And...I'll probably get crucified for this...)
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I'm willing to bet that the light skin adaption was acquired from Neanderthals, not evolved by Homo Sapian.
You'd lose that bet. The map at the bottom of this page shows a good correlation between skin colour and distance from the equator, both amongst those groups with Neanderthal genes _and_ those without.
Yes, emotions are physical. They are chemical responses in your brain to specific sensory inputs. They are all optimized for our survival and reproduction.
Try to think of an emotion that isn't. There isn't one.
Race is a social term used to generalize the ancestry of a person. It's to vague to make a prediction about the genes, and their expression, in a particular person.
No it's not. If you are black, you're more likely to have sickle cell anemia than if you're white, by a large margin. If you smoke, you're more likely to get lung cancer, by a large margin. Both of these facts are useful for deciding upon health policy and treatment.
Pure awesome. :)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I see so many posts here using IQ and intelligence as if they were interchangeable synonyms. They are not.
IQ tests have no basis in science. IQ tests have never been benchmarked against anything except earlier IQ tests.
IQ tests cannot be proven to exclude cultural bias.
IQ tests cannot be said to measure intelligence in any precise way, unless you define intelligence as the ability to do IQ tests.
If you demonstrate that different races perform differently in IQ tests, you haven't proven anything about race and intelligence. You have only proven something about race an IQ tests.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
In the book, Wade suggests that such genetic differences may help explain why some people live in tribal societies and some in advanced civilizations, why African-Americans are allegedly more violent than whites, and why the Chinese may be good at business.
To be fair, what you're quoting is what a journalist said about the author. It's not even a quote of the author, it's an interpretation by the journalist of what the author supposedly wrote. If second-hand paraphrasing is enough to condemn someone absolutely, then President Barack Obama must be the devil himself according to right-wing talk show hosts and Fox News reporters.
The Caliphates would have been able to do so. They're gone now.
Your point still comes off as more anecdotal than rigorous.
I can say he's possibly ambidextrous while logged on.
Hows that.
The modern 'miniature' dachshund wouldn't stand a chance in a badger hunt, though. It would be a rather pitiful spectacle.
Here in my town they have an annual 'dachshund derby' event that attracts hundreds of dogs from this geographical region. It's disappointing that there are so few full-sized dachshunds left anymore.
My point exactly.
I can't find any evidence of whether bassoon players are prone to beget more bassoon players. But it's just as tangential to anything being discussed here as your drift off onto the topic of 'actors.'
I suppose if one started out very very early at reedmaking, though....
Well, this is Slashdot so ...
Required reading for internet skeptics
Here's where the anecdotes come from.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Generalizations that are based on sound averages are exactly that, generalizations. Is it sexist to point out that the average male, college basketball players plays a better game than the average female. No, it is the truth. And the same holds for golf and other sports as well. Some of the best women have played against the best men and don't hold up. I'm sure there are other sports where this doesn't hold up.
Pointing out "sound statistics" is not racist or sexist.
I remember an account of one case where as adults, both men had (among other similarities) chosen identical belt buckles Show a study of at least several hundred monozygotic twins where similar choices in fashion were dictated by twin genetics and we can talk. Until then, you're just repeating freak stories. Look hard enough and you will find two twins with this sort of thing, but your confirmation bias is preventing you from registering all the twins without the genetic fashion imperative.
Da Blog
Scientific discussion of racial differences is not the same as racism.
Well, let us start with the expression "racial differences": here, you presuppose the existence of a meaningful definition of "race". Looking back over history we can see that philosopers and scientists have done everything they can to justify, scientifically, a definition of race based on things like skin colour, and when that didn't really work, on other physical traits. We have had very good reasons to think that the concept didn't actually refer to a deeper reality for a long time, and this is now corroborated by genetic evidence - the genetic variation, even within a single family, is normally far wider than the average variation between supposedly different races, which means that based on the gene map alone, it is not actually possible with any certainty to place any individual in any race, whichever way you define it.
One also has to bear in mind that biological concepts like genus and family are abstractions that are only in use because because they help us understand the reality they describe. The concept of "race" fails in that respect - it doesn't aid our understanding of biology.
It's amazing how afraid some people are of frank discussion about race. They want to shut it down as soon as it begins, typically by denying the question ("there's no such thing as race!!") or personal attacks like you're doing ("you're racist for even suggesting that!!!").
No - they just can't stand yet another, stupid row over something that is so obviously not useful and just reeks of prejudice.
So, you're making your own ridiculous assumptions (good at business = cunning? really? how so?) and ascribing them to the book and then labeling it racist.
I was being sarcastic - I have, over a far too long life, read, heard and encountered so much stupid stereotyping and bigotry: Jews are greedy money-lenders, Germans are humour-less 'Huns', Africans are half-apes etc etc. And drawing a line from "good at business" to "cunning" is not unreasonable. "Cunning" was one ot the characteristics that were often ascribed to the Chinese in the past (think of stories like "Fu Manchu"), and it is easy to see "good at business" as a euphemism for "cunning, devious, ...".
I want to know what gene controls the desire to participate in the blind cult of Political Correctness, even though it means denying facts, ignoring scientific observation, covering up research and somehow associating yourself with Hillbillary Clinton. I'm going to postulate that it is the human equivalent of the natural drive of lemmings.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Design, but looking at a dachshund, I wouldn't use the term "intelligent".
Of course it is intelligent design: the annoying dogs are all short and cannot run fast. That makes it easier to get away from them. Would you want a dachshund that could run like a greyhound?
I am anarch of all I survey.
I never realized there were so many racists on /.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Or say the Minoans, they had indoor plumbing, air and light control, aqueducts and sophisticated codes of law what, four thousand years ago
...invented printing, ...
then their island exploded.
Well, a volcano 100km away erupted. Crete is still there, I've checked it.
I haven't read the book, but from what I've read about the book, it's not proposing any scientific theories itself. Rather it's summarizing and presenting papers from other scientists, and discussing their implications.
I don't think it makes sense to equate a cold fusion scam (usually looking for investors) with someone who says "Here's a paper showing racial differences in testosterone. Here's another paper showing that declining testosterone levels were correlated with a strengthening of civilization, perhaps because people with lower testosterone were able to trust others more readily. Now taking those together, isn't it interesting that _____."
That's just discussion. And I do find it interesting.
Go ahead and link the paper. I'll bet it takes all of 5 minutes to find the study flaws that make the conclusion worthy of vitriol. Without even reading the paper, I'll almost guarantee that your colleague used college students as a study subjects (selection bias) and self-reported sex activity to establish experimental groups (even more selection bias).
Well, let us start with the expression "racial differences": here, you presuppose the existence of a meaningful definition of "race".
Sure.
the genetic variation, even within a single family, is normally far wider than the average variation between supposedly different races, which means that based on the gene map alone, it is not actually possible with any certainty to place any individual in any race, whichever way you define it.
That's incorrect... and I'll give you a simple example to show the fallacy in that line of reasoning. Look at the data sets {1, 3, 5, 7, 9} and {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}. If you compared the mean, median, standard deviation, distribution, or pretty much any measure of "average variation" guess what you would find... the members of the sets have more variation with each other than the two sets have between each other. The median of the 1st is 5, the median of the 2nd is 6. "Well gee, every single member of the first set (except 5) is farther away from the median than the two sets are from each other!!!"
I'm sure you see the point that overlap and variability are only part of the story.
I'm not saying race is so straightforward, but the current statistical argument against race (more variability within populations than between populations) is simply ignorant, mathematically speaking. That lack of separation has nothing at all to do with whether there are distinguishing features between the races. All it means is that all races are all human, and our humanity is far larger than our racial differences. But that doesn't mean there are no racial differences!
The fact that we are able to racially self-identify and that a third-person guess of another person's self-identified race is largely accurate (not 100% of course) should tell you there is a meaningful definition of race.
One also has to bear in mind that biological concepts like genus and family are abstractions that are only in use because because they help us understand the reality they describe. The concept of "race" fails in that respect - it doesn't aid our understanding of biology.
That's incorrect, unless you are entirely excluding (for instance) the medical field from biology. There are racial differences that inform medical decisions. That's just one example, a non-controversial one, of biological differences between races.
and it is easy to see "good at business" as a euphemism for "cunning, devious, ...".
Fair enough, but you shouldn't state it in a way that makes it look like that's the book's argument. For what it's worth, I don't think it is. When I think "good at business" I think of people who deliver on their promises and perhaps value business above other concerns. Some Chinese stereotypes of conformity and flexibility may play into that.. I know when the Three Gorges Dam was built, they relocated populations to do so and those people were expected to conform to the decision for the greater good. That type of environment is probably good for business, even at great personal cost.
I have no idea what evolutionary forces the book discusses that may play into that, but to me it sounds interesting, not racist.
Personally I come down on the Nurture side as adopted twins have more dissimilarities than twins raised together.
"This doesn't mean they have a gene for preferring Taryton cigarettes."
Straw man. No one said there is exactly a single gene for that. The effect of N genes working in conjunction toward outcomes such as visible racial features, social behaviors, preferences, are entirely consistent with theories such as those in this "decried" book.
Not at all, given the role sacrifice played out in Jewish theology and tradition.
But you've got the description wrong. Sin and Virtue are habits. If you have enough habits of Virtue to survive in Heaven, then you get to go there (eventually). If you don't, you get the booby prize of Hell, because you wouldn't be able to live in Heaven anyway.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I know I'm wasting my time, especially as a latecomer to the discussion, but I'll say it anyway: with all your (and I include all those making similar statements, not just parent) talk of Caucasian this and Black that, you are overlooking something important. It is meaningless to make references to these groups in a discussion about genetics without first defining exactly what those categories mean genetically. And you simply won't be able to do that, because geneticists currently have no test for "blackness" or "whiteness", in fact there is nothing in the human genome that a geneticist can point to and say, "these genes define blackness, if they are present the individual is black". Nothing like that currently exists for any race, which is why experts in field sometimes say that from a genetic standpoint there is no such thing as race. Without a genetic descriptor for race, the science of genetics can have nothing to say on the subject. Scientists can only look at race indirectly, using various non-genetic stand-ins as methods of racial categorization. This is a big reason why all such studies seem to inevitably end up being open to various interpretations, the scientific tools that could solve these debates once and for all simply do not yet exist.
"ÂGenetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups." American Anthropological Association Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (Sept 1997)
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
There is no real concept of Hell in the Old Testament or classic Judaism, especially as a punishment for sin, nor a devil who eternally torments the sinners; nor is there the current concept of Heaven. What there is is the concept of the resurrection, when all those who committed themselves to Yahweh, presumably via Judaism, and were reasonably faithful, will wake up in an earthly world, but one free of strife, pain, and suffering.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Somebody has to be the dominant culture on earth at any given time. For a very short while now, it's been European. Most of the time, it's been Asian. For a little while, it was middle eastern. You think genetics changes that fast as to cause these supremacies?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Exactly. It's not "fighting political correctness" to back the author of a popular book against all the experts he gets ideas from, who say he's misinterpreting their work; it's assholery.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"ÂGenetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups." American Anthropological Association Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting (Sept 1997)
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
No, some people are mad that somebody did a quick study of their life's work and published a book that says that it proves the exact opposite of what it proves, because that says what everybody who thinks like you do thinks everybody else is secretly thinking.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"And inherited traits are NOT racist if they primarily fall along skin color or ethnic lines." They don't, of course, but they wouldn't be racist if they did. Is that deep thought what the self consciously non PC are trying to teach us? Wow, my mind is blown.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Let us state it differently.
Looking at sports. You would state that there is no evidence that blacks seem to have a genetic advantage (as a group/race) when it comes to height and athleticism over say, Asians?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
From that Wikipedia article: "This leads to the conclusion that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment, since the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment." How does that make any sense? How does "no differences due to genetics" imply "all similarities are due to genetics"? If it turns out they both speak English, that's genetically determined? Dumb.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Yes, I would definitely state that, looking at sports, there is no evidence that blacks have a GENETIC advantage over Asians. Show me a gene which is linked to athleticism and differs in frequency between blacks and Asians. Meanwhile, I'll show you probably a thousand or more pages of studies of the lingering effects of slavery on opportunity in America, plus Yao Ming and the pigmy of your choice, plus Yao Ming and the pigmy of your choice, plus decades of Olympic results where the African nations somehow do not seem to overwhelm the Asian nations.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
They do in basketball and (american football)
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
And this is why America will not be leading the world in genetic medicine.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Since work in Strong AI and have a pretty workable and complete theory I would say I do know a little about human intellect. The stuff about genetics vs nurture is very easy to answer. On the race question (comparable) intelligence is about 98% culture and 2 or less % genetics. One of the biggest factors in intelligence is the (cultural) expectation of being intelligent - when a small child, mostly its negative feedback telling children not to be intelligent. An even bigger factor is the random chaotic element which is inherent in all brain evolution and intellect.. Of course ultimately intellect is 100% genetics but then it is also basically 100% learning, both are needed, and one without the other is simply capacity that cannot be used.
Genetically speaking though black people should be expected to have a very slightly lower 'average' intelligence than white because they have a wider spectrum of genetic variation. The same graph says that the most intelligent people in the world probably should be black not white - but most of these people are still culturally in places that hold them back as children or corrupt them in other ways. Black culture is what makes most black people stupid not the other way around, exactly the same with white people and every other race. Asian children are statistically better at mathematics because they have cultures that are more attuned to it.
There is stuff in Strong AI that is too controversial for publication, but it is not about race - it is more that there are things that most people would be very unwilling to accept. - eg
Most humans are not really intrinsically smarter than other animals, we just have much better memories and most of our superior intelligence really comes directly from remembered learning. We know this because all humans spent at least ~ 50,000 years with no writing, and no real cultural learning or sophisticated language - and basically did nothing intellectually that other apes and other higher animals were not capable of..
Ironically humans totally conquered most of the world when we were no smarter than other monkeys - we hunted in larger groups which made us stronger than other predators, and were more determined and vicious than other predators. Our superior memories and better tool use also made us more ruthless and better killers.. Now that's the real human.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Some truths are just way too painful to hear for some people.
"The geneticsts know this. Now you do."
Those geneticists who deny blatantly obvious genetic aspects of races are fooling themselves - and you.
Erm, from 800AD onwards, the Caliphates were on a severe downward spiral. They have made zero advancements since then.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Not entirely sure if you're joking or ignorant...
What, out of curiosity, led you to choose that date?
Theories are not rungs in a greater ladder of truth and enlightenment, but merely different sets of data.