The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too here... tons of people are denying a genetic component to intelligence. It's pretty mainstream in the west to do this.

 

What counter points?

Can you name any scientist, that has done research in the field, who denies that there is a genetic component to intelligence?

 

Adoption studies.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

Nope, but half the people on this forum, most of my liberal college professors and 3/4ths of the people I've known in California deny it anyway.

 

I think the more interesting question is about the history of homo sapiens. It has been my contention that our species has been around far longer than we believe. Why do I say this? Looking at evidence of human habitation and migration across the globe puts us in Australia around 50k years ago. We were in Northern Europe far before that date. Excavations in Java and PNG show even earlier evidence. The settling of the Americas is either 15k or far longer depending upon the veracity of claims in a cave in Chile. So let us assume that by 50k years ago, we had people all over the globe whose ancestors now look completely different making up what we call race. This implies that these physical differences appeared before the mass migrations occurred. If you do not accept this then you must be arguing that these differences occurred to a single type of human who changed quite quickly once dispersed and isolated. My opinion is that what we call race actually occurred far deeper in human history and may have been one of the causes for the migrations. Different looking people might have been pushed out which caused them to move away. So the question is, how could an African end up creating through selection or evolution all these different types of people? It is a fascinating question. Some say that like dogs, our genes are easily manipulated and that may be true for racial characteristics. It is interesting though that brains appear to be immune to this type of selection process. So if brains are less likely to change through generations as evidenced by the very common brain in all humanity, how did the brain come to it's current state? It could be that it came about through the process of punctuated equilibrium, a very rapid evolution that separated a small population from the previous group. If this is logical, then IMHO, this pushes back homo sapiens history hundreds of thousands of years, we just have not found their remains yet. I do believe that today's races are virtually identical and are therefore just social constructs as the author argues. Fascinating subject.

 

Sure. People with IQs of 70 and 100 are 99.9% identical.

Also chimps are virtually identical.

Are they social constructs?

 

Just because we Humans decided to provide a name such as race to a specific group of people that share physical appearance characteristics as a dominate trait in their population doesn't mean this can be identify at the genetic level.

How we measure intelligence which is debatable as if it really means anything since those tests are based on the educational level of which you have been taught and retained in your memory also can not be detected at the genetic level.

You environment can change drastically and your IQ score will mean nothing if you cannot survive in the new one.

 

We are lucky to have the author on this thread, try to be civil.

 

This is all totally false.

 

This is totally true.

We are products of our environment (culture).

 

Which adoption studies are you referencing?

I have never heard ANYONE deny that there is a genetic component to intelligence. Virtually all scientists agree that intelligence is highly heritable and that there are individual differences in intelligence. They also agree that it runs in families (smart parents often have smart children). What they don't agree on is the exact nature of intelligence. Can every mental characteristic be regarded as intelligence or are there multiple types of intelligence? Also when it comes specifically to group differences in intelligence there is debate over whether group differences in IQ are innate or a product of environment. That is what scientists debate not whether intelligence itself has a genetic component.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, and I'm not trying to make a personal attack, but if you have never heard anyone deny this, you are living in some kind of bubble somewhere.

 

Actually, your first evidence for your claim that higher East Asian IQ is environmental was an Op-Ed on better educational systems in East Asia.

You were obviously unable to counter my logical criticism of your original argument and have simply modified your claim.

I guess that goes to debunk the toxic stereotype hypothesis you throw around. Thanks for proving my point.

It tells me plenty of the toxic stereotype theory you've bandied around. Also, Jews scored low on IQ tests?

Comparing East-Asian IQ in the US to East Asian nations shows no evidence for your belief racist society adversely affects IQ.

This is simple logic.

Great - you have a hypothesis; all you need is evidence.

Which West African culture emphasizes hard work? I'll laugh when you're unable to name one, and respond that you're simply confusing the professional class of West Africans with the general population.

How did they fare compare to Whites in the same region?

Overcoming racism simply means Japanese are able to do better than Whites. I've severely torpedoed your theory by pointing out Japanese-Americans have roughly the same IQ as Japanese. So, there is no evidence racism affects IQ.

I also suggest you not use conjecture as the basis for your argument.

Like the 5th generation Chinese laborer immigrants from 19th century China in Singapore or the US?

Please stop basing your arguments on conjecture.

If you can't show racism is negatively affecting Mexican-American IQ then you can't claim that.

I don't accept Gould-level standards of argumentation.

Then show racism affects IQ.

Interesting. That's known as a logical fallacy. In debate, you respond to the what was requested.

So which study shows Confucian culture boosts IQ?

I asked for direct evidence that Nisbett supported his claims that Confucian culture enhances IQ. It helps to read.

Try focusing. Nisbett clearly says East-Asians study more than Whites based on the available data that they have higher SAT scores; however, their IQ scores are not boosted from the additional studying.

I quickly checked and saw none.

 

So you can't name a single scientist and insist a large portion of the board believes this claim without evidence but I'm living in a bubble?

Scientists believe that nature and nurture affect intelligence. We could create a thread and make a poll to get different opinions on the topic. I believe that you are simply wrong here. Would you like to test your claim with a thread?

No, my claim has always been that better education systems and the culture that creates is the reason that both East Asians and East Asian immigrants in the West have high IQs.

Try again.

No, it doesn't because as I said before East Asian culture is the reason East Asians excel despite experiencing racism.

Earlier in the 20th century they tested Jews and other European immigrants and they did score low on IQ tests. If I remember correctly Joseph Graves said in one of his books that the SAT was specifically created to keep Jews out of top schools.

It does if you consider that East Asian culture is the reason for East Asian success.

That's not a hypothesis that's a factual statement.

Nigerians for instance have a reputation for practicing good study habits and are overrepresented among successful African immigrants in the United States. Ofcourse most of these immigrants come from the professional class but the same is true of most East Asian immigrants who fly here looking for better opportunities for work. That doesn't change the fact that it is their culture that impacts their success. In fact there are some cultural tensions between African immigrants in Urban communities and African-Americans of Middle Passage descent who are stereotyped by African immigrants as being lazy.

Most of the Blacks I knew were of average or exceptional intelligence. They only made up about 2% of the town's population and I knew a lot of the Black students from church. I personally was consistently the smartest person in my class in most subjects, far above the average White student. I tested above the 98th percentile for intelligence as a child and was placed in a lot of advanced courses. There were always at least a few Blacks in these classes.

Nope. You still haven't countered my explanation for why Japanese-American IQ is virtually the same as Japanese IQ.

It's culture.

Stereotype threat is a real phenomenon affecting certain ethnic minorities.

http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html

Second, research has given us a better understanding of who is most vulnerable to stereotype threat. Research has shown that stereotype threat can harm the academic performance of any individual for whom the situation invokes a stereotype-based expectation of poor performance. For example, stereotype threat has been shown to harm the academic performance of Hispanics (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002; Schmader & Johns, 2003), students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Croizet & Claire, 1998), females in math (Good, Aronson, & Harder, 2008; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), and even white males when faced with the specter of Asian superiority in math (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keogh, Steele, & Brown, 1999; Stone, Lynch, Sjomerling, & Darley, 1999). In addition, research also demonstrates that within a stereotyped group, some members may be more vulnerable to its negative consequences than others; factors such as the strength of one’s group identification or domain identification have been shown to be related to ones’ subsequent vulnerability to stereotype threat.

I have. Research stereotype threat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3642236/

Stereotype threat has been found to account for racial/ethnic performance discrepancies on IQ testing among populations who would otherwise be expected to perform similarly (Steele, 1997). According to stereotype threat theory, a person who belongs to a group for which there is a negative stereotype may underperform in the domain to which the stereotype threat pertains, particularly if this domain is also an essential component of their identity. Stereotype threat has been demonstrated to negatively affect certain racial/ethnic groups when they become hyper-aware that their performance could confirm the very stereotype that they wish to avoid. The pressure to not conform to the stereotype creates anxiety, which in turn adversely affects performance.

In the classic stereotype threat study, Steele and Aronson (1995) randomly assigned both African American and Caucasian college students from Stanford University to either an experimental condition (which elicited stereotype threat), or a control condition. In the experimental condition, participants were told that they would be given a test of intellectual capacity. The control group, however, was told that they would be participating in an “exercise.” African Americans in the experimental condition, in which the stereotype of underperformance was activated, performed dramatically worse compared to African Americans in the control group. No performance differences were observed across ethnicities in the control group. This effect has also been replicated with stereotypes related to age and gender (Hess, Auman, Colcombe, & Rahhal, 2003; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). The interaction between participants’ group membership and the alleged diagnostic value of the administered test is important to understanding the concept of stereotype threat. In other words, if a test seems to assess abilities that are personally valued, threat should occur (Wheeler & Petty, 2001). Although stereotype threat has been well documented in studies of IQ, math, and work performance (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; Jamieson & Harkins, 2007; Steele & Aronson, 1995) it has received less attention in the neuropsychological literature. However, this phenomenon is particularly relevant to advancing our understanding of race-related performance differences on neuropsychological tests.

They show that Confucian culture positively impacts academic performance.

At the time East Asians scored slightly lower than Whites on IQ tests (contradicting your hypothesis that East Asian intelligence is always superior) but higher on the SAT. Since you can't study for the IQ test but can for the SAT this strongly indicates that good study habits impact academic success.

Neither did I, so you have no basis for making the claim.

 

You've been presented with them time and again over years, they are in Rushton and Jensen which you have read, so I can only assume you get a kick out of wasting people's time by playing dumb and repeating yourself.

 

I already said I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering what kind of environment you're in to have never encountered people who do disagree. Or maybe you're just trolling, so I guess we're done here.

 

There are alot of studies there. Perhaps you can post the information again and explain how it supports your argument.

I'm not trolling. I have honestly never heard anyone deny that there is a genetic component to intelligence. There's an old concept in psychology known as the tabla rasa (Blank Slate) where proponents theorize that humans are not born with innate tendencies and that all mental characteristics are the product of nurture but even in that instance to say that intelligence has nothing to do with genetics is extreme.

 

Perhaps you can just google your usernames (EgalitarianJay and Morpheus) and read the thousands of people refuting you again and again if you have memory problems or are trolling.

 

So, your claim is a better education system is one aspect of an environment that will improve IQ. Yet, as I already pointed out, comparing East Asian communities with differing education systems shows no differences in IQ.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

East Asians in Japan or Korea should obviously excel more than East Asians in America if a) East Asians experience racism and b) racism is detrimental to IQ, regardless of how well East Asians perform compared to Whites or other races in the US.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

I'll give you an analogy.

Usain Bolt excels at running with the current amount of air resistance.

If he had less air resistance, he would obviously excel even more.

This reasoning is so simple it's startling to imagine how someone cannot understand such basic concepts.

The laws of physics are fact. I suggest you familiarize what facts are.

If you want to claim it's a fact Blacks have low IQ due to racism, I suggest you offer an equation that can predict the IQ of a Black community by the amount of racism they experience.

So what's the IQ of Nigeria, with its good study habits?

Feel free comparing Nigerian and Chinese immigrants in the US at the highest rungs of the academic and industrial ladders.

Uh-huh. Is this more of what you call 'fact' and 'evidence'?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 Ignoring you already (wrongly) claimed educational standards boost IQ - where Japan and the US differ - you now offer conjecture without the slightest attempt to show Japanese-Americans have not drifted from their Japanese cultural roots after several generations of living in the US.

So why doesn't the author quantify the affect of 'stereotype threat'?

So there's no reason why you didn't mention eliminating stereotype threat doesn't eliminate the Black-White IQ gap?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 I asked for IQ/cognitive ability. But fair enough, which study separating East Asians has shown East Asians in a traditional Oriental environment had higher IQ than East Asians reared in non-Oriental settings?

Oh, you mean those Korean adoption studies?

You mean my claim that intelligence is both genetic and environmental?

Interesting straw-man. I never questioned studying impacts academic success. I was discussing the impact of studying on adult IQ. I guess basic lines of logic are difficult to grasp.

You mean every claim you've made in your response that is simply built on conjecture?

I'll wait for your direct evidence.

 

It wasn't that long ago in history where education was only allowed for the rich people and none for the rest of their population.

 

And? ..

 

I think one of the problems with this pattern of thought is that we often take the statistics of intelligence coming out of nations like China or India literally, or we put waaaay too much faith in them. We all know how a nation will manipulate it's statistics to make things seem better than they really are. Greece manipulated it's data to appear financially sound when it was not. Obama manipulates job-recovery statistics to make his administration seem more productive that it was, when it wasn't. Crime statistics in New York City are fudged to give legitmacy to law enforcement and to give the Police Union weight in bargaining for better pay from the Mayor- which they do with every Mayor...and so on...

For one, many of the people in many Asian countries are poor and below the minimum standards of living set in the US. In India, there is a huge rash of suicides as the agrarian societies are being torn apart through force and sunk into vast amounts of debt by the new Indian capitalist movement that seeks to consolidate and turn private community farms into corporate rentals. (basically create the tenant-farmer system developing in the US)

The statisitcs we hear about come as the result of selective analysis of Asian education. This, of course, in a time where the US and western countries are trying to import more techs and such from areas outside the US who are not so expensive as the ones in the western world. I'd call it reverse psychology or reverse propaganda, but I think the meaning is fairly clear...

 

I certainly don't think that this should be an insulting thing to anyone, but there are a ton of scientific facts that show there are different races. Why wouldn't there be? Whenever a population of any organism becomes isolated from another then they're bound to change independenty over time.
Skin color is clearly one of the better examples of these changes. And it's easily explainable. All modern humans came from Africa, where dark skin helped to protect against the sun and allowed for hunters to spend hours chasing down prey in open savannahs with little cover from trees.
European people have lighter skin due to much less intense sunlight and a lot more cover from it. Lighter skin allowed for more sunlight absorption and made synthesis of vitamin E in less sunlight possible.
In Asian populations, including the Middle East and India, there too is a general pattern of darker skin in hotter environments, both arid and tropical.
And in nearly all island populations, where sunlight is primarilly very intense, there aren't any native populations that come to mind where the people weren't at least as dark-skinned as Hawaiians or the Pacific Islanders. I'll throw in Australian aboriginies, too. But Australia is so damn hot that they are far darker than most other island populations.
It isn't racist to say that genetic variation exists between races. Two more examples off the top of my head are Inuits developing brown fat and the dominance of the most popular sports (at least by the percentages) that those of African descent show over other ethnicities.
An example: American black people overwhelmingly having ownership of the heavyweight boxing title for decades, but as the sport declined the best usually go to the NFL or NBA as they are far and away the most popular US sports. NFL is about 66% black and NBA is about 80%.
Doesn't mean we all can't be friends

 

Egal etc.
The really troubling thing is {Mod Edit - Rule 2 Insult} trying to say that there is no such thing as race. But I can agree to a point. What are referred to as "races" are actually different species.

 

How so? Explain how human populations are actually separate races.

Here's a good video on how unscientific the concept of race is:


[video=youtube;VnfKgffCZ7U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnfKgffCZ7U[/video]

I'd also like to share a recent email between myself and Joseph Graves where I asked him two questions concerning the ethics of Scientific Racism and the accusation that people like him have a political agenda for denying the existence of races.