The blatantly false liberal mantra "Races differ ONLY in skin color"

It's not particularly difficult to use the extra syllables. But it's so unlikely anybody would assume the explicit meaning rather than the implicit that I don't think it matters. Whenever someone "literally couldn't stop laughing" or had the "best burger in the world" I'm never unclear what they mean. And if anyone has ever used your phrase to me intending the literal I completely misunderstood them. I think I would remember such a thing because I would remember speaking to either a blind or a crazy person. Can you think of any examples of this in print? Or here on this forum? I'm a bit skeptical.

Obviously there's more to your intent bringing this up than a wish for increased precision - you disagree with the intended meaning as well, right? Why not just bring that subject up instead? This seems an awfully circuitous route to be "finally getting somewhere."

 

Sorry, I missed reading these before I asked if you had examples. I don't think either qualifies as an example of the literal claim that skin color is the only differentiator.

The titles both make use of our familiarity with "beauty is only skin deep." Everyone understands the implication here, that if it's not on the outside it must be on this inside. And they also understand that the "inside" is a metaphor for one's character.

So when both articles repurpose such a well known metaphorical phrase I would assume without even reading them that their intent was also metaphorical and not about internal organs. And it turns out neither article is - one is about genetics while the other takes a more anthropological approach. But neither makes the clearly incorrect literal claim I was looking for.

Although you didn't provide these in response to my request, so these might not be the examples you would use for me. You're not arguing either title should be taken literally, are you?

 

Wait. Are you saying Ebonics isn't a language or something?

Ebonics, although the term isn't used much by linguists anymore, refers to African American Vernacular English. It's a dialect of American English, itself a dialect of English. All three are complete, legitimate languages - there aren't any complex concepts or subtleties possible in English that are impossible in either of the other two. You could actually argue AAVE is the richer language, having clearly defined tense phases in both the future and the past. These subtleties generally go completely over the heads of native American English speakers who, unless they speak Italian or studied Latin, are probably unfamiliar with the 6 or 8 extra tenses in AAVE.

 

I should think that is obvious.

Studies have proven that racists are generally below average intelligence and the vast majority of their hatreds and prejudices stem from drooling problems as children.

 

In order words their problem is that they have a massive inferiority complex?

 

As I said in your other thread, human genetic variation is real.

I don't know of any credible scholar who denies this.

I have never heard of any expert on biology or genetics deny the existence of any of the physical traits you mentioned or that they are more common in certain populations vs. others.

Many Biological Anthropologists and Geneticists reject the concept of race as biologically meaningful because the recognized scientific definitions of race do not fit the actual data on human biological variation. Racialists often associate race with any observable biological differences while many experts on human biology maintain that race doesn't simply mean difference.

One of the problems with this debate is that there is a semantic dispute over the definition of race. Biological definitions of race differ from social definitions of race and there are several biological definitions of race that can be analyzed to see if they accurately fit the data on human populations.

I provided this chart in your other thread as well....





Here is an excerpt from an article written by an Evolutionary Biologist who addresses each of these definitions:

 

Lewontin wasn't debunked. His analysis of within and between group variation between human geographic populations was valid. My source in the previous post explained that the population definition of race revolves around within and between group variation between populations. Greater between group variation is indicative of populations undergoing the speciation process. If there is greater within group genetic variation in these populations then those populations are not on the cusp of becoming new species.

The genetic diversity within a species has major implications for the differentiation of biological systems within that population. Some variance exists in all species. Not every species however has sub-species or races. In fact not all primates have sub-species. Chimpanzees and Gorillas are polytypic species with populations that can be classified as subspecies while Humans and Bonobos are monotypic.

Graves also addresses the problems with Edwards arguments in his Lewontin's Fallacy Paper:

 

No, I don't care whether you call ebonics a language or not. I was addressing Shiva who suggested the I.Q. testing was rigged so that blacks didn't get a fair shake or an equal chance to to score well. Seeing how that is absurd on its own merit, I still believe that having blacks speak ebonics becomes a detriment in their attempt to score high on an IQ test. Having heard people speak ebonics makes me glad I live in a segregated/gated community.

 

Fair enough. I imagine they think you sound funny too.

I don't think IQ testing is rigged. It's just been created and maintained by people deep from within the educational system with the expectation that intelligence is best measured using the language of academia. So people who excel, do just fine, or struggle but finish high school are going to do, in aggregate, much better than those who don't. For a whole set of reasons that are not the subject of this thread leaving school early is a problem in the black community. So much so it's reflected in IQ scores, but if you test a group selected because they dropped out the numbers no longer match up with their race but with their education. And college educated black people are indistinguishable from anyone else based on their IQ testing.

 

Very true.

Regarding IQ testing, racialists are of the opinion that races differ in intelligence. The logic they use to support this claim is that there is a strong hereditary component to intelligence. Since genes play an important role in determining intellectual potential in their view it is very likely that there is at least a partial genetic component to group differences in IQ. The theory is even more likely according to them because there is genetic variance between the groups in question. So they believe that because there are intelligence differentials on an individual level that are partially linked to genes it is just as plausible that intelligence differentials between groups like races are also partially linked to genes.

The challenge for the racialists is to provide credible scientific evidence that this theory is correct. Since they are the ones making the claim the burden of proof is on them to prove it. If they cannot make a positive argument they cannot make the claim. Since IQ scores depend on environment about as much as they do genes only experimental or observational designs that can equalize environment between groups can indicate one way or another that genes play a role in the mean IQ differentials between groups.

We know that the learning environment for racial groups like White and Black Americans are not equal and that in America the environments were made unequal by racist discrimination (Slavery, Segregation, Jim Crow etc.). So we know that environment plays a major if not sole role in the mean IQ differential between White and Black populations in the United States. There are several ways that we can attempt to develop experiments that can equalize environment between select test subjects that represent either population but since racism can effect several environmental variables including culture and self-esteem there is no definitive way to fully equalize environment between test subjects. The fact that we live in racially stratified societies means that the life experience for groups like Blacks and Whites will inevitably be different and those different experiences could greatly impact ones potential to learn and excel in that society.

That being said there is psychometric and anthropological data that strongly suggests that genes do not play a role in IQ differentials between populations. The fact that IQ scores can be significantly boosted by improving the learning environment of disenfranchised groups and that the genetic differentiation between geographic populations is too small to have an impact on the body's major biological systems including those that impact brain function and intelligence indicates that there is no genetic component to IQ gaps between demographic groups like White and Black Americans.

Racial hereditarians have tried desperately to prove that their theories on racial differences in intelligence are valid but their claims have been debunked by their critics.


Here are two articles that summarize the problems with hereditarian research and the evidence that refutes it:

 

Huh? The existence of genetic variation doesn't necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Jensen never said that. It is an empirical question.

 

In Brazil race is skin color.

 

Racist bigotry and utter twaddle.

 

When did anyone suggest that teaching in Ebonics was a good idea? The only times I have ever heard of it, it was in the context of teaching teachers how to understand it so that they could better teach their students better American Standard English, and so that they could undersatand a student's questions or answers in other subject areas.

Livng in fear is bad for your intellectual development. You need to learn more about what is going on so that the world does not frighten you as badly.

 

I think you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. You have made this argument before.

Graves is saying that Jensen's assertion that Black African cognitive deficiency may be caused by differences in a multitude of loci is ridiculous because there is no biological rationale for this claim. Jensen has in fact claimed that the basis for his hypothesis that there are mental differences between races is that genetic variation is responsible for many observable differences between humans. So differences in intelligence are no less plausible. That's why racialists like Jensen claim that opponents believe "evolution stopped at the neck." But as Graves explained there is no scientific basis to assume genetic variation within a species results in deficiencies in any given trait within a population of that species.

 

I really abhor the common ignorance of racists. Let’s address some facts based upon genetics.

So let’s do the math. We have a 0.1% deviation between nucleotides between individuals but only 3-5% of those actually do anything. That means the differences between two random individuals off all “races” is somewhere between 0.003% and 0.005%. The genetic differences are so small that they have fundamentally no meaning at all and support the genetic fact that there is only one race and that is the HUMAN RACE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

There are no fundamental physiological difference such as average brain to body mass ratio, which is an indicator of intelligence in animals, as all humans have an approximate 1:40 ratio.

 

Jensen's hypothesis is that the totality of evidence indicates genetics are a factor in the racial IQ gap. Graves' long winded and jargon laden reply is essentially: "No they aren't". He offers no technical argument for this, merely constructs pathetic strawmen of Jensen's position and knocks them down, such as the one I addressed earlier. Genetics is the most parsimonious explanation for the same pattern of negro IQ in all times and places. Thus it is the most scientific explanation. Graves merely offers his wishful thinking opinion, and says it is "scientific" and "biologically rational", without demonstrating that the race IQ gap is environmental in origin. In short, Graves is a muppet.

 

Your math is off because the distinctive variation tends to be functional. See "The role of geography in human adaptation". A one base pair difference can kill, it is foolish to talk of "small differences" in the genome. There is a consensus that the within race genetic variation is mainly responsible for IQ variation. Therefore it is certainly possible that these "small genetic differences" as you put it are responsible for the between race differences. Is IQ "unimportant"? Would you want your child to have an IQ of 70? And humanity is of course a species, which can be described by using the race concept, or not described, by Marxist ideologues who want to pretend we are all the same. Biomedicine, meanwhile, quietly continues to use this essential concept.

 

Racists love to grab onto "racial" differences in IQ test scores but fail to comprehend that an IQ test score does not reflect overall intelligence nor were they ever intended to.

IQ tests measure logical deduction based upon specific attributes of society, predominately "white" society, and technical knowledge. They are specific to a person's ability to succeed in "western" education and enterprise. IQ tests are cultural in nature and don't even attempt to measure a person's intelligence but only a very small element of intellegence as it relates to western culture.

What we have also learned is that IQ scores aren't even a very good predictor of success.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel...RzZWMDbWl0X3NoYXJlBHNsawNtYWlsBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Refer to the article to see what EQ, MQ, and BQ tests measure which are far more important than IQ.

So we have an IQ test that doesn't measure overall intelligence and that isn't all that important when it comes to the success of the individual and the racists grab onto those scores as if they have some magical meaning related to "racial" differences. What they actually represent are cultural differences that don't correspond the the "white culture" the racists advocate.

By analogy it's like looking at a color wheel and only measuring the color blue as an component and then condemning colors like orange because it is comprised of yellow and red and doesn't have any blue in it. Our IQ tests measure blue but don't measure any other colors.

 

This is false.

Studies in genetics indicates that at least 40 to 50% of the differences in intelligence are due to SNP genetic variation but these genertic codes are completely unrelated to the genetic codes for skin color or other "racial" characteristics of the individual. The basic genetic structure of the human brain is the same in all "races" and there are genetic variation that do make a difference those variations exist in all human beings and are not in any way related to invidious racial classifications.

If all a genetic scientist had was a human brain to genetically test they could not determine the "racial" background of an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

 

Correlation is not equal to causation.

 

If you accept that there is genetic variation for IQ within races it must be at least possible that there is variation between them. In fact it is practically impossible for them to be exactly the same. Nobody is saying intelligence can be determined by race, just that the overall distributions are different. You are just making up the idea that all races are genetically the same in cognitive ability, you have no evidence for it. And of course they can racially classify a brain, with a DNA ancestry test.

 

That, which is uncomfortable, cannot be true to some people.

 

Genetic variations in intelligence do occur in the human race (Hu) but not based upon false and invidious "racial" criteria.

 

First of all, humanity is a species. Do you agree that people in Europe are different from people in Sub-Saharan Africa? We can sample Europeans, and sample Sub-Saharan Africans, and identify differences. That's all I mean by race. You cannot deny that this is possible and meaningful.