This is topic Have the human races evolutionarily diverged in psychological characteristics? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
What do you think? Is it possible that the human races -- or the human populations that correspond to what we mean by "race" if you don't think the term is valid -- have diverged evolutionary? If you believe in evolution, then shouldn't you be open to the possibility? And surely aren't the persistent psychometric gaps between the "races" at least possibly due to innate psychological differences? Is Africa the way it is because there simply aren't enough smart people there? Is this line of inquiry as upsetting to liberals as assertions of atheism are to Christians? That is, in the same way of having something you took for granted (i.e, the bio-egalitarian hypothesis) questioned? What might it mean for society if it is in fact true that there are human races and they differ on average in important characteristics?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's an old, old racist argument that's been around for several centuries. Slightly spruced up clothes, same bad, racist "science."
Stupid article, too. This idea didn't appear in the last 40 years. It appeared immediately after evolution started gaining traction as an idea. It's about as revolutionary as a steam engine.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's an old, old racist argument that's been around for several centuries. Slightly spruced up clothes, same bad, racist "science."
I don't think Jonathan Haidt of UVA -- a liberal Jew -- is a racist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A racist, tired, discredited, bad science argument is a stupid argument no matter who makes it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are welcome to retread a racist 100-year-old theory on your own. I am not interested in feeding stupid trolls.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: A racist, tired, discredited, bad science argument is a stupid argument no matter who makes it.
"Heresy!"
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The question might be old, but is it false?
Yes.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You are welcome to retread a racist 100-year-old theory on your own. I am not interested in feeding stupid trolls.
I deleted the comment this was in response to, but I had quoted katharina saying that it's an old question with "but is it wrong?" I meant to say "but is it wrong to ask it?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a lie. Javert quoted your actual question, where you asked if the theory is false.
Yes, it is false.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The question might be old, but is it false?
Yes.
Why?
Why is it so upsetting to ask if human "races" diverged evolutionarily?
Psychometric testing reveals persistent gaps between the races.
And East Africans always seem to dominate long distance running whereas short distance running is dominated by people descendant from West Africans.
Why can't all of this be due to biology?
If we observed different behaviors from different breeds of dogs we wouldn't hesitate to wonder whether or not the difference was due to biology.
Why is it so different with humans?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
katharina, I'm not seeing what would automatically make this argument racist. I don't think anyone is stating we should be deriving an ought from an is. Haidt even specifically touches on this at the end when he says:
quote:There are reasons to hope that we'll ultimately reach a consensus that does not aid and abet racism. I expect that dozens or hundreds of ethnic differences will be found, so that any group — like any person — can be said to have many strengths and a few weaknesses, all of which are context-dependent. Furthermore, these cross-group differences are likely to be small when compared to the enormous variation within ethnic groups and the enormous and obvious effects of cultural learning.
Nowhere in his article does he state that we should treat people differently or with disrespect if we find out there are minor psychological differences in different ethnic groups.
His examples both of the russian foxes(which i've read about before) and of lactose tolerance in different cultures are both salient examples. I don't think the example Clive brings up in his OP is helpful, and I'm not saying I even fully support the hypothesis, but I don't know that the question should be discounted offhand, either because Clive brought it up, or because it's a politically touchy subject.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Clive:
quote:What do you think?
Here's what I think, you should have stuck with your last question, "What might it mean for society if it is in fact true that there are human races and they differ on average in important characteristics?"
Instead of the obviously baited ones with phrases like, "Is this line of inquiry as upsetting...", "If you believe in...shouldn't you be open to the possibility...".
As for the article, I'm not sure what you think is so controversial about it. It struck me as somewhat dull.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It struck me as somewhat dull. [/QB]
Well I thought that others might find his assertion that science might reveal differences between races/ethnicities to be interesting, as it is a pretty taboo topic.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't taboo so much as stupid with a racist history. Considering the article itself contains factual errors in the opening paragraph, you might as well be linking to the national enquirer and asking about UFOs.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
Katharina, I think that strawman has had enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yours? I agree.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It isn't taboo so much as stupid with a racist history. Considering the article itself contains factual errors in the opening paragraph, you might as well be linking to the national enquirer and asking about UFOs.
I can't speak for the inaccuracies in the opening paragraph, though I wouldn't jump straight to your conclusion. He might be referring to something that has in fact been going on for 40 years, and even if he isn't should the entirety of what he has to say be discounted because of it?
But I do know that Jonathon Haidt is a pretty well respected psychologist. And Edge is a great site with lots of respected contributors including V.S. Ramachandran and Stephen Pinker and many more. Comparing it to the National Enquirer doesn't do anybody any good.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Should his article be discounted because of the false statement in the opening paragraph? Yes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Can we stop feeding this troll? I know there isn't much else to do at hatrack these days, but feeding this troll is taking us in exactly the wrong direction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It struck me as somewhat dull.
Well I thought that others might find his assertion that science might reveal differences between races/ethnicity to be interesting, as it is a pretty taboo topic. [/QB]
There's where you are misunderstanding science then. Science doesn't reveal whether something is "interesting" or not. It describes whether a relationship may or may not exist, what kind of relationship, and that's it.
It's up to everybody else to decide what to do with the information.
Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
CLIVE THERE IS MORE EFFING GENETIC DIVERSITY IN A SINGLE TRIBE OF CHIMPANZEES THEN THERE IS IN THE ENTIRE HUMAN EFFING RACE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DIVERGING EVOLUTIONARY PATHS FOR DIFFERENT HUMAN GROUPS.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Should his article be discounted because of the false statement in the opening paragraph? Yes.
But his false statement isn't a statement about science. It is a statement about the history of this debate in scientific communities. And since he doesn't go into detail about what part of the debate he's referencing, you're jumping to the conclusion that he's talking about the same thing as you. And again, even if he is wrong about how long scientists have argued about this, so what? What does that have to do with the rest of the essay?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: CLIVE THERE IS MORE EFFING GENETIC DIVERSITY IN A SINGLE TRIBE OF CHIMPANZEES THEN THERE IS IN THE ENTIRE HUMAN EFFING RACE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DIVERGING EVOLUTIONARY PATHS FOR DIFFERENT HUMAN GROUPS.
Try to not post in all caps Blayne. TIA
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There's where you are misunderstanding science then. Science doesn't reveal whether something is "interesting" or not.
Science doesn't care whether or not you think something is "dull" either.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
By the "40 years" remark, Haidt is referring to the 1969 paper in the Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen that argued programs like head start were doomed to failure due to inherent IQ limitations.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That he is so poor a researcher he thinks that was the first mention instead of the 1000th doesn't improve his credibility.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now? [/QB]
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S? [/QB]
Why not?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What a perfectly nasty argument for a troll to make.
Continuing in the long tradition of using bad science to try to justify racial discrimination.
This is an old, stupid story that isn't varying a bit from the discredited, nasty script.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That he is so poor a researcher he thinks that was the first mention instead of the 1000th doesn't improve his credibility.
katharina, why are you twisting the author's words around? Is it simply so you can discount anything he says and feel good about it? Ancient philosophers had lots to say about innate differences in people. Should I rage at the inaccuracy of using 40 years instead of 4000? Haidt is most likely referencing a certain type of debate in the scientific community. He talks about genetic differences. Arguing about genetic differences depends on the discovery of genes and DNA right? That's not a 100 year old theory. Obviously the aspect of the conversation you refer to as a 100 year old racist argument is not the one Jonathon Haidt is referring to in his essay.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That he is so poor a researcher he thinks that was the first mention instead of the 1000th doesn't improve his credibility.
1969. Arhtur Jensen published a major paper in the Harvard Educational Review that more or less kicked in the modern debate in psychology about psychometrics and differing aggregate scores for differing groups. That's what he was referring to. Just because you don't know that doesn't mean he made some sort of error.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S?
Why not? [/QB]
I'm kidding. Look, I'm pretty much asking the same question as you. Keep up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't know the history of using wobbly, bad science to justify racial discrimination. Or, you do, and you are thrilled to become a part of it.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't know the history of using wobbly, bad science to justify racial discrimination. Or, you do, and you are thrilled to become a part of it.
Here's the question for you, katharina, that you keep ignoring: What if it isn't bad science? We know that it isn't impossible, due to Darwinism. And genetic studies tell us that there are in fact a fair amount of genetic difference between differing human populations, though we don't know what most of those differences mean. But when we do -- and if it turns out that those differences aren't insignificant -- what will you say then?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Is this line of inquiry as upsetting to liberals as assertions of atheism are to Christians?
No in my case. And based on this thread, it would seem no, it would upset one particular Christian more Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
katharina, I'm sorry for insulting you in my last post. Our particular conversation is getting nowhere though, so I'm not going to continue it.
Blackblade, I agree with you that the more important questions regarding this topic have to do with how we as a society will react to findings that show differences between ethnic groups in psychological traits. It's exactly the worry that people will use the data as an excuse for their racism that we need to have a method of dealing with these types of issues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's an old, old racist argument that's been around for several centuries. Slightly spruced up clothes, same bad, racist "science."
I don't think Jonathan Haidt of UVA -- a liberal Jew -- is a racist.
Why? Liberal Jews can't be racists? News to me!
quote: Here's the question for you, katharina, that you keep ignoring: What if it isn't bad science? We know that it isn't impossible, due to Darwinism.
This needs to be addressed. Clive, the mere possibility presented by a different way of thinking opens up 10 avenues of investigation, of which 9 will be fruitless. Now, the particular avenue you are pursuing has been dismissed as a useless and fruitless area of inquiry for many decades by the mainstream scientific community.
However, just because "Darwinisim" as you call it, or more accurately the theory of evolution by natural selection shows that animals adopt disparate traits as adaptive measures, you cannot therefore assume that all things, given Darwinism, are equally possible. Most importantly, the problem with applying macro-evolutionary theory to anything about modern human society is that modern humans are so very closely related to each other. All human beings, every one of us, has a most recent common ancestor who lived only a few thousands years ago, possibly as late as the first millenium. Human beings have particularly low genetic diversity because we arrived at our present state after several evolutionary bottlenecks, in which most of the human population died, and a very few survived and propagated.
The main arguments in favor of genetic intelligence traits were made when scientists still believed that human beings might have evolved seperately, over millions of years. They found fossils of humanoid creatures in different parts of the world and guessed that perhaps these forms evolved into separate modern human forms. This outdated theory was even taught when I was in middle school and high school, not long ago. It has been proven impossible. Human populations did not evolve into their present forms from any other separate forms. All human beings are from a single tribe of hominids, which propagated the entire human race. Difficult to wrap your mind around, but proven by genetics to be true. Given this discovery, the chances that any poplation had the chance, in so short a time, to evolve a higher state of intelligence is laughable.
[ November 30, 2009, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's an old, old racist argument that's been around for several centuries. Slightly spruced up clothes, same bad, racist "science."
I don't think Jonathan Haidt of UVA -- a liberal Jew -- is a racist.
Why? Liberal Jews can't be racists? News to me!
No, someone known as a liberal Jew isn't going to go out of their way to make public racist statements, I'm 100% certain.
[ November 30, 2009, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S?
Why not?
I'm kidding. Look, I'm pretty much asking the same question as you. Keep up. [/QB]
Keep up? I'm not sure where you have lost me. I'm just asking what you would do in all seriousness if it could be determined that certain genes make certain behaviors more apparent. In my hypothetical you said you'd stop them from immigrating here, then said you were joking. So what would you do?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's an interesting hypothetical, but I don't think it's one with any backing merit. Unlike Kat, though, I think it's possible to discuss the issue without actually encouraging racists.
For one thing, you can argue that films like "Gattaca" are actually about this sort of distinction, albeit broadly: in a world in which various physical and neurological traits can be identified and preferentially selected, is there a consequence to being genetically "inferior" in a certain category that would justify prejudicial treatment against a class of people? What if that class was simply excluded from a profession or social group, not preferentially, but because they didn't have -- as an example -- gills?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:No, someone known as a liberal Jew is going to go out of their way to make public racist statements, I'm 100% certain.
...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Tom, that particular film pointed out rather convincingly that human potential and our understanding of genetics were impossible to reconcile. Thus, the genetically inferior brother beats a system he isn't even supposed to understand, and is therefore not inferior at all, but stronger than the system.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:No, someone known as a liberal Jew is going to go out of their way to make public racist statements, I'm 100% certain.
...
Blasted typo. I meant "isn't." But you can feel free to repeat your three dashes as they are more enlightening than anything else you had to say in this thread.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The main arguments in favor of genetic intelligence traits were made when scientists still believed that human beings might have evolved seperately, over millions of years
Orincoro, I'd just point out that while Clive focused on intelligence, the article doesn't ever reference intelligence, but talks more generally about psychological differences. While I personally think most broad psychological differences in ethnic groups are dependent more on culture than genetics, I think it's an idea worth exploring. I guess the question would be whether these genetic predispositions for psychological differences could be selected for in some way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a stupid statement with and without the "not".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, the obvious problem there is that psychological traits are also cultural and linked to the environment. For instance, a known genetic trait of Native Americans is alcoholism- which is psychologically destabilizing. At one time, there was no alcohol in America, and so the trait had a different effect (and probably wasn't as widespread). Genetic traits can go a long way in effecting individual personality- anyone of any skin color knows that just from living in modern society, and that can't be erased for the purposes of a study. I maintain, differences in human intelligence and temperament on a genetic level are impossible to study effectively. Not only is there no controllable group of humans to test, but there would be no humans capable of objectively scoring or evaluation any results. It's a null question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, that particular film pointed out rather convincingly that human potential and our understanding of genetics were impossible to reconcile.
Well, more accurately, that film claimed that human potential and our understanding of genetics could not be reconciled. Had the genetically inferior brother failed, you'd be saying the film pointed something else out. There is, no doubt, some hypothetical point at which genetic superiority overcomes any amount of generalized "human potential;" the question of whether or not that point will ever be reached is an open one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Clive, I never thought I'd say this, but I suggest you stop responding to katharina. Feeding trolls is never very productive.
As for the actual question, Blayne's point about the genetic diversity is well taken, but it is not conclusive. We do not know enough about the interaction of genetics with the human brain, or indeed with the chimpanzee body, to say what diversity is important and what is just window dressing. For all we know (well, anyway, for all I know, it's not as though I'm a biologist) human diversity is concentrated exactly in the brain/mind interface, while chimp diversity is all in non-coding DNA.
There has been a lot of seriously bad science done in this area. But now that we have the tools to actually do some real research on gene distributions and gene-brain relations, it seems to me that we could do without the hysterical, knee-jerk "Burn the heretic" reactions. (I admit that Clive does kind of invite it.) Suppose that Asians, for example, genuinely are smarter (as a group) than Caucasians (yes, yes, I know these are very diverse groups and don't really exist as races; it's a convenient shorthand, except of course it's not really that convenient since I have to insert these long-winded parenthetical apologies; I shall forthwith cease doing so. Please consider them done from now on.) Doesn't that have some public-policy implications?
Except... no, it doesn't, actually. Group statistics just don't tell you this kind of thing. You would still have to evaluate the individual Caucasian or Asian, and see if they're actually smart, or perhaps they're in the bottom tail of their own group.
We could likely drop affirmative action in college admissions, though, if such a thing were shown to be true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thus, the genetically inferior brother beats a system he isn't even supposed to understand, and is therefore not inferior at all, but stronger than the system.
Ah, but only because he had help from the "superior" humans. Nonetheless, I agree with your overall point. Genetics doesn't tell us everything about potential. Which is good, because I'd hate living in a deterministic universe. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I would drop affirmative action regardless.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Clive, I never thought I'd say this, but I suggest you stop responding to katharina. Feeding trolls is never very productive.
You do not make it easier for me to believe that you are not in fact Clive. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In the late 80s and into the 90s, there was a great revolution in social/personality psychology brought about by cross-cultural studies. We found that not everyone is like white European men.
Instead, there are a wide variety of responses and viewpoints of the world that differ on fundamental psychological levels. The earliest and generally still most distinct differences were found among different cultures/peoples.
The earlier work focused largely on discovering and describing these differences and then on studying the often vast differences in large scale systems that seem rooted in what can sometimes be few differences in primary outlook. But there was always an push towards explaining how these differences came about.
This is especially important in schools that have a proscriptive or transformative bent, like Haidt's positive psychology. Haidt (who is a well respected scientist who has a good idea of what he is talking about) studies cross cultural morality formation and works from a viewpoint that differences in cultures morality come from differing values that put on fundamental concepts, like Fairness versus Loyalty, etc. Reading this, it sounds like he is interested in finding out what, if any, role genetics plays in how peoples' predispositions towards valuings.
And that is an important question. If genetics does play a role, this is something that should be investigated. But, since the 60s, looking at race's genetic differences as an explanation for the different behavior of those races, especially when those differences are "good" and "bad", has been an offensive area of study for many in psychology and related fields...in my opinion, for good reason.
We should be clear about what Haidt is talking about. He's not saying that there are differences, nor is he relying on the flawed "science" of the past. What he is saying is that these differences are possible, that he thinks that they likely do exist, and that we are starting to looking at them with enough precision to actually make some meaningful statements about them.
I think he's wrong about how likely they are, but none of what he says in incorrect, and while the discovery of some differences will likely be used as justifications by some racists, there is nothing inherently racist about what he said or this effort itself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good post, MrSquicky.
I think that one interesting aspect of this area of study is that we can learn to value a diversity of traits instead of assuming that certain traits are "good" or "bad" due to our own conditioning.
Mucus, this is one reason for affirmative action.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Haidt (who is a well respected scientist who has a good idea of what he is talking about) studies cross cultural morality formation and works from a viewpoint that differences in cultures morality come from differing values that put on fundamental concepts, like Fairness versus Loyalty, etc. Reading this, it sounds like he is interested in finding out what, if any, role genetics plays in how peoples' predispositions towards valuings.
It does sound like an interesting question, but seems terribly fraught.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think so. The purpose of affirmative action, and indeed of almost every get-people-into-college program, is to ensure that those who would benefit from a college education (and let's remember that this is less than 25% of the population) are not held back by artificial barriers, such as race discrimination or poverty. If, however, you assign a quota by raw numbers of skin colours, and one group doesn't in fact produce college-ready people at the same rate as others, then some quota'ed-in people will not benefit from college, and some quota'ed-out ones would. Even worse, the ones who got in on quota instead of brains will pull down the reputation of their group, and a college degree will come to mean less if you are of a group known to be over-colleged, even if you personally do good work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Mucus, this is one reason for affirmative action.
I don't agree, either way.
Edit to add: To elaborate, even if for the sake of argument we exist in a world where significant differences exist between races in the areas of knowledge and intelligence, we would still need to determine whether those differences are more significant than those caused by culture or tradition.
I would suggest no. (Keep in mind, I have no real objection to studying them nonetheless)
Furthermore, I believe that the injustices (either intentional or unintentional) and the disadvantages created by institutionalizing in affirmative action, a mechanism for treating people differently based on something like race or ethnic group are inherently difficult to avoid. It is unappealing as currently implemented in either China or the United States for example.
[ November 30, 2009, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think so. The purpose of affirmative action, and indeed of almost every get-people-into-college program, is to ensure that those who would benefit from a college education (and let's remember that this is less than 25% of the population) are not held back by artificial barriers, such as race discrimination or poverty.
Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately many people misunderstand the basic premise of affirmative action, which is not the artificial lowering of academic barriers, but the lowering of artificial economic and social barriers with the purpose of eliminating them. Also unfortunately, this type of program is often defeated in detail, because actually lowering those barriers proves very difficult.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
There may not be a formal quota, but I do rather suspect that at some point, once enough minorities and women have been recruited, people will stand back and say "Right, our work is done". Further, I disagree with the premise; I think you'll find that there is no actual science showing that diversity-exposed students do better, just theories saying it ought to be so.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I wonder how people's reactions to the question posed in this thread would change if the word "psychological" were replaced with "behavioral" or something like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, that is not - at least not here - the only or even primary reason for affirmative action (which, BTW, is not determined by quota but by making a specific, intentional effort to recruit minority and women faculty and students). It is considered a valuable and useful thing for all of our students to be exposed to a diverse environment. It is a vital part of our educational mission.
There may not be a formal quota, but I do rather suspect that at some point, once enough minorities and women have been recruited, people will stand back and say "Right, our work is done". Further, I disagree with the premise; I think you'll find that there is no actual science showing that diversity-exposed students do better, just theories saying it ought to be so.
Enought for what? Do better at what?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Enough that every student is exposed to a 'diverse environment', and better at whatever it is the diverse environment is supposed to improve. Dude, you're the one claiming this is useful and valuable, not me! Or is this another case where you 'choose to believe' in something with different standards of evidence, on the apparent grounds that factual mistakes do not matter if something is morally important to you?
[ November 30, 2009, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well then, yes, I suppose that once the institution reached a point where the environment was considered sufficiently rich and diverse then the people who are tasked with this would decided that the strategies in place were working well rather than trying to find new ways of attracting minorities.
ETA: Lovely dig, BTW, but did you think that the University sets its policies by what I personally choose to believe?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The abstract of Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes, published in the Harvard Education Review (fulltext)
quote:In the current context of legal challenges to affirmative action and race-based considerations in college admissions, educators have been challenged to articulate clearly the educational purposes and benefits of diversity. In this article, Patricia Gurin, Eric Dey, Sylvia Hurtado, and Gerald Gurin explore the relationship between students' experiences with diverse peers in the college or university setting and their educational outcomes. Rooted in theories of cognitive development and social psychology, the authors present a framework for understanding how diversity introduces the relational discontinuities critical to identity construction and its subsequent role in fostering cognitive growth. Using both single- and multi-institutional data from the University of Michigan and the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, the authors go on to examine the effects of classroom diversity and informal interaction among African American, Asian American, Latino/a, and White students on learning and democracy outcomes. The results of their analyses underscore the educational and civic importance of informal interaction among different racial and ethnic groups during the college years. The authors offer their findings as evidence of the continuing importance of affirmative action and diversity efforts by colleges and universities, not only as a means of increasing access to higher education for greater numbers of students, but also as a means of fostering students' academic and social growth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quite so; I notice there is a rather remarkable lack of actual numbers. Some interesting quotes from the main text:
quote:All of these measures required students to assess themselves. Self-assessments are credible and widely accepted methods of measuring educational outcomes.
Uh-huh. Especially when there exists one answer that's the socially acceptable one, and one that doesn't.
quote:GRE scores were not used as a measure of learning outcomes
Naturally. That might provide actual evidence against your hypothesis. Can't have that, can we?
quote:College grades were not selected as a measure of learning primarily because grades inadequately capture the active thinking and intellectual engagement we were attempting to test.
Ah yes. We wouldn't want to test anything too verifiable.
quote:ETA: Lovely dig, BTW, but did you think that the University sets its policies by what I personally choose to believe?
No, but I certainly hope that your defense of its policies are based on what you believe. I trust you would not have spoken up in defense of a policy you disagreed with? Or perhaps I shouldn't; I have to keep reminding myself of the depths of your Escher-ness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, reading further into the study is even more interesting. Have a look at the table 3. The column of interest is the one where they show the size of effect attributable to diversity measures. They don't go above the single digits! And what's worse, have a look at this sentence: "[O]ne kind of diversity experience or another was significantly related to each of the learning outcomes". One kind or another! In other words, they had say ten different random numbers, and in each case they picked the one that was significant, or rather would have been significant if there were only one number! This is textbook abuse of statistics.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hey, don't look at me. You were the jackass who said without any justification that there was no science backing this. I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Darn. Now I have that song stuck in my head. The one where the cynical mouse has to help fix the singing clock because he pissed off Santa.
KoM, you are a cheesy made-for-TV holiday special in the making.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, so you're not interested in an argument on the actual merits of the case, then? Can't say I'm surprised. The rot sets in surprisingly quickly once you allow wishful thinking to count as evidence.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hey, don't look at me. You were the jackass who said without any justification that there was no science backing this. I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
And inadvertently provided evidence for my statement. Thank you. Did you read anything but the abstract before posting?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
You didn't look hard enough.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: I just pulled the first reputable looking google result.
You didn't look hard enough.
Yeah, I did. All I was looking for was something to contradict "There is no science backing this." I did that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gee, katharina, such constructivity you display in your criticism! Maybe you'd like to show comrade Squicky how it's done? I mean, I'm not married to my assertion that there's no good evidence for the positive effects of diversity on college outcomes. Squicky is right to say that I merely asserted it; indeed, my original post had "I think you'll find", which is not how I state certainty. So, if you have any better evidence, by all means bring it!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Effects greater than 1% are quite large for social science studies.
And the part you quote does not mean what you say it does. They looked at the presence of general categories of diversity experience, and took presence/not presence as a model. They didn't check each one and pick the significant ones.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Yeah, I did. All I was looking for was something to contradict "There is no science backing this." I did that.
Well no. You found some science, using the term loosely, that looked at the problem. It does not, however, back up kmb's position.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Ignoring the IQ and benefit of diversity question- let's take a real world example.
ACTN3- if it is mutated, you might be a good endurance athlete. If it isn't, then sprinting is for you. Africans tend to have the non mutated version in significantly higher proportions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/ However, no one race has a monopoly on this lack of mutation or anything near that. However, if you are an olympic sprinter and someone offers you a bet on your genes, you should bet it all on having the nonmutated version.
So, for hypotheticals: We know this particular allele is the ideal for sprinting. We are setting up a sprinting team. Should we have everyone who wants to try out first submit their DNA and only allow those with the right genes to try out? Should we look at the proportion of people of different races with the allele and allow that percentage to try out (so, if Africans are twice as likely to have the allele, we let 2 Africans try out for every one non-African)? Or do we just line everybody up who wants to run and see who goes fastest? Let's say we are doing this a the high school level, where the genetic difference is not yet as noticeable. Knowing who has the potential to be the best someday would be nice, before we waste our time and money training them.
Knowing that studies of this gene may lead to discrimination in athletics (such as only accepting those with the proper speed and genes into the training program instead of everyone with the right starting speed), should we still perform those studies. But, knowing that the sprinter athletes have this mutation does tell us useful things about what the gene does and how our muscles work. Is that knowledge worth the potential for abuse?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm struck by this:
quote:The impact of classroom diversity was also statistically significant and positive for White students and for Latinos/as. The effects of classroom diversity disappeared for Asian American students when we examined the net effect, controlling for the simultaneous effect of informal interaction. One statistically significant negative result emerged for African American students in the analyses that tested the net effect of classroom diversity on self-assessed academic skills.
Additionally, if you look at the breakdown, the number of white students simply dominates, especially in Michigan where "At the time the MSS was conducted, 92 percent of White students and 52 percent of African American students came to the University of Michigan from segregated communities. As groups, only Asian American and Latino/a students came to the University having lived and gone to school in environments where they were not in the majority."
Plus, "because of the racial separation that persists in this country, most students have lived in segregated communities before coming to college."
It seems to me the problem is more that the US practices segregation and racial separation rather than a problem with college admissions.
The whole exercise is pointless for the Asian students who already have the benefit of diversity.
Edit to add: Setting aside how lame the measures for "democracy outcomes" are, the same effect occurs there "Among Asian Americans these activities were related to two of the democracy outcomes (Model 1), although the net effect of this kind of diversity was no longer statistically significant when the other kinds of diversity were taken into account (Model 2)."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Effects greater than 1% are quite large for social science studies.
Sorry, but this is not an argument for the study, it is an argument against social science. Single-digit percentage correlations you can find between any two phenomena you like.
quote:And the part you quote does not mean what you say it does. They looked at the presence of general categories of diversity experience, and took presence/not presence as a model. They didn't check each one and pick the significant ones.
I don't think that makes a difference. If you have five random correlations, you expect one of them to be 'significant' on average.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it isn't. An effect of 1% in improving student outcomes is potentially thousands upon thousands of students going from dropping out to getting good grades. Learning about things that can have an impact like that is huge. That effects are "small" in statistical terms does not at all make them small in practical terms. They are still very important to study. And it isn't like when studying large groups of people there are many effects that are large that are interesting.
If your treatment is "presence of anything on this list of ten things", you're only checking one correlation, not ten, when you check treatment vs effect.
Though looking over the table, they are talking about two different diversity measures; however, the levels of statistical significance are .01 or .001. One is statistically significant for all populations, and the other for almost all populations. There's no cherry picking required; they could have picked either treatment and had a strong argument for an effect. Your criticism is void.
What disappoints me is the (very common) lack of plotting original data points (in aggregates, even) to show where the effect occurs, especially for a more complex model.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The real kicker in this entire discussion is that, even ignoring the racial issues, the connection between genetics and psychological characteristics is very poorly understood. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to separate the genetic contribution from the environmental contribution which is known to be extremely significant. Even when we are talking about clear extreme cases, like schizophrenia and autism, the genetic component is very poorly understood and highly controversial.
To make things even more complicated, the environmental component is becoming increasingly complex as we gain a better understanding of how things like intestinal bacteria and other parasites can influence our behavior.
How can we even begin to discuss whether the relatively minor differences observed between races have an evolutionary/genetic component when we don't have any clear idea how much genetics influence much more dramatic differences in psychological characteristics.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Clive has sent some controversial threads before.
This one, while controversial, was not Trollish. He didn't demand his point of view, but wanted to discuss it.
Kath, and to a lesser extent Blayne were too quick to jump on the Troll wagon.
We can keep doing that. We can Flame everyone who has a different idea or thought. Its what you do on the internet.
Or we can do what some others here have done, and take the question serious. By answering that question we can bring Clive into a discussion, and into our fold, instead of kick him out angrily and wonder where all the polite discussion that made Hatrack special has gone.
Clive, the reason this subject is so quick to cause outbursts is not that science has never considered this idea. Its because that psuedo-scientists have used it for over a century to explain why the Holocaust was OK, why racism and slavery are fine, why killing Indians (red or brown) is no sin for a White-man.
I think we need to take a step back and consider this not in the area of racial genetics, but as it was looked at 50 years ago--horse breeding.
Some horses breed into fast race horses, and some breed into strong work horses. So the (Put Preferred cultural definition here) are the smart breed, while the (put cheap labor culture here) is the strong breed. Don't waste education on the strong breed since they can't be smart and don't force labor on the smart breed because they just aren't built for it. Why the poor Central European will get all tired and sore from working 80 hours a week, but those Southern Europeans, they enjoy working that hard.
Of course, what they don't understand is that there are no two humans as genetically different as a Clydesdale is to a Appaloosa. Further, there are some pretty fast Clydesdales and some pretty strong Appaloosas.
But those who pull out these ideas aren't looking for those details. They want a blanket scientific theory to rationalize their biases.
For example, since some study shows that anti-social and violent behavior is more prevalent in Arabic genetics, we need to incarcerate all Arab peoples, or at the least, not believe them in court but if suspected, assume they are guilty. If all things are equal, or even somewhere near equal, or at least could be considered in the same continent of equal, then the Arab will be the guilty one, and the European will be innocent.
There are a lot of guilty Europeans who love this theory.
There are even more innocent Arabs who hate it.
So yes, the base theory has been examined, pulled apart, and is mostly useless.
Especially as the "races" and "cultures" continue on their fast spiral into that great "Melting Pot" that the US held made it so special.
PS: I personally know, and am related too, several Liberal Jewish folks. They can be and are Racist, though its a condescending racism. They wouldn't hang a black man for dating their daughter, they wouldn't even disown the daughter. They would, however, avoid inviting the couple to any family gatherings--(because it makes everyone so nervous.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... Especially as the "races" and "cultures" continue on their fast spiral into that great "Melting Pot" that the US held made it so special.
Yeah, this immediately contrasts with something from that aforementioned study.
quote:Because of the racial separation that persists in this country, most students have lived in segregated communities before coming to college. The work of Gary Orfield and associates documents a deepening segregation in U.S. public schools (Orfield, 2001; Orfield, Bachmeier, James, & Eitle, 1997; Orfield & Kurlaender, 1999; Orfield & Miller, 1998).
It is not strictly contradictory because it is theoretically possible that only public schools are becoming more segregated while other things in society are getting better (or things could have picked up after 2001), but the contrast does seem jarring to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Please tell me that none of the mice are named Algernon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, it isn't. An effect of 1% in improving student outcomes is potentially thousands upon thousands of students going from dropping out to getting good grades. Learning about things that can have an impact like that is huge.
Well, if the study were measuring grades, then ok, this would be a good point. But self-assessments of civic engagement? Come now.
quote: That effects are "small" in statistical terms does not at all make them small in practical terms. They are still very important to study.
My argument is that a correlation of a few percent, in a sample size of a few hundred or a few thousand, is just random chance; I do not deny that effects of this size would be interesting if you could study them, but you cannot meaningfully do so at these sample sizes.
quote:If your treatment is "presence of anything on this list of ten things", you're only checking one correlation, not ten, when you check treatment vs effect.
Nu, quite apart from statistical issues, I think I would say that this is really bad experimental design. Further, that's not how I interpret the sentence I quoted; it looks to me like they said "Is improvement from X significant? Is improvement from Y significant?" and so on, rather than "Is the improvement significant?" But now we're getting into mind-reading.
Let me rephrase: It appears to me that their method was to take A, B and C measures of diversity, and X, Y, and Z measures of (self-reported) outcomes, and then say "Does A correlate with X? Does A correlate with Y?", and so on; and when they got one out of ABC to correlate with each of XYZ, they were happy and reported it as significant. But when you've got three chances at something correlating, you've improved the probability of it happening by quite a bit! (Three in my example, that is, not in the study.) I must say I am very skeptical of this procedure.
quote:Though looking over the table, they are talking about two different diversity measures; however, the levels of statistical significance are .01 or .001. One is statistically significant for all populations, and the other for almost all populations. There's no cherry picking required; they could have picked either treatment and had a strong argument for an effect. Your criticism is void.
I see that they mention these significances in the text, yes, but I don't see them in the tables. I find it hard to understand how they're applying this; how does a 3.5% correlation become statistically significant at the 0.001 level in a sample of about ten thousand?
I also get very skeptical when I see sentences like this:
quote:In the Michigan study, all three kinds of diversity experiences were influential for at least one of the groups, and for at least one measure of learning outcomes.
quote:In the CIRP data, citizenship engagement is a measure of students’ motivation to participate in activities that affect society and the political structure. These activities include “influencing the political structure,” “influencing social values,” “helping others in difficulty,” “being involved in programs to clean up the environment,” and “participating in a community action program.” Racial and cultural understanding is assessed by students’ self-ratings of how much they had changed in “cultural awareness and appreciation” and “acceptance of persons from different races/cultures” since entering college.
quote:The second MSS measure, racial/cultural engagement, is a one-item question asking students how much they have learned during college “about the contributions to American society of other racial/ethnic groups.”
To be answered on a five-point scale, no doubt!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It is not strictly contradictory because it is theoretically possible that only public schools are becoming more segregated while other things in society are getting better (or things could have picked up after 2001), but the contrast does seem jarring to me.
In my experience the increased "diversity" of my University led to greater visible segregation. Ethnic groups were largely enough represented to form exclusive groups, clubs, or even sustain businesses or products intended for only their use. I have never really understood if that was a positive thing or a negative one, or what problem, if any, it actually represented. I can see why it would be seen negatively, but on the other hand if you have a bunch of people from different backgrounds all lumped together, and there are enough of each to form subgroups, who can be shocked that it happens? The alternative is seperating racial groups and not allowing them to go to school together, which makes no sense.
ETA: I do believe I recall an episode of Pen and Teller that had different university admissions experts admitting that diversity programs increase racial segregation within schools, but I don't remember their theories as to why, or why they thought it was a bad thing or not.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I've gotta say, I don't see anything inherently racist about the article. It poses an interesting hypothesis, nothing more. It's not a hypothesis which needs to be immediately dismissed because of what it could suggest. It could suggest a lot of things, after all. It certainly doesn't mean that ethnic group A is superior to ethnic group B. Why is it so terrible to entertain the idea that relatively short term selection pressures may have had some vague effects on different human populations? There's no need for knee-jerk reactions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Level of statistical significance is given using the standard stars annotations. In particular, two stars is .01, and three stars is .001.
As for the how they can be so significant, they're using a blocked hierarchical regression, so it shouldn't be very hard with that many data points.
quote:Let me rephrase: It appears to me that their method was to take A, B and C measures of diversity, and X, Y, and Z measures of (self-reported) outcomes, and then say "Does A correlate with X? Does A correlate with Y?", and so on; and when they got one out of ABC to correlate with each of XYZ, they were happy and reported it as significant. But when you've got three chances at something correlating, you've improved the probability of it happening by quite a bit! (Three in my example, that is, not in the study.) I must say I am very skeptical of this procedure.
Considering almost every one they found is significant, as I said above, no cherry picking would be necessary even if this were their approach. Additionally, reading their methods section a bit more, they did a blocked hierarchical regression, so when they say they're looking at "one effect or another" they're just looking at the proportion explained with that as the "first block". The model still takes into account the multiple comparisons issue (indeed, that's one of the strengths of hierarchical regressions). There is no multiple comparisons issue in the analysis presented.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The reason the ideas should not be casually entertained is that people have a tendency to glom onto them in order to justify their pre-established biases. The reason people come down very hard on such "isn't that interesting" talk, is that for centuries, people have been abusing science in such a way. The reaction is not extreme, it is the result of a very long history of people continually and unstoppably reverting to the same very poor and very destructive assumptions.
It's kind of like someone logging into Hatrack for the first time and posting a "Do? It doesn't do anything... that's the beauty of it..." thread. No matter how many times people cite that the line was originated as part of a psychology test to see if you could convince people they recognized it, people still theorize as to where it is from. Race is one of those areas of human thought in which our logical brains, so good at getting us through the day and solving all our other minor problems, often fail miserably.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, fair enough, I sit corrected on the significance issue. Different jargon. I stand by my criticism of the effect they actually studied. Self-assessed cultural appreciation ratings, forsooth!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In my experience the increased "diversity" of my University led to greater visible segregation. Ethnic groups were largely enough represented to form exclusive groups, clubs, or even sustain businesses or products intended for only their use
You are only addressing the social aspects of college life, which are not the most important aspects of a University education (at least in my estimation).
Even if ethnic groups segregate 100% social, they are still in the same classes, they are forced to learn and work together in the key aspect of their education.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
Exactly my response to this thread from the opening post.
They can't even agree on what a race IS, let alone if they have different evolutionary paths at this point .
But don't let actual facts stop you THIS time around. LOL
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The reason the ideas should not be casually entertained is that people have a tendency to glom onto them in order to justify their pre-established biases. The reason people come down very hard on such "isn't that interesting" talk, is that for centuries, people have been abusing science in such a way. The reaction is not extreme, it is the result of a very long history of people continually and unstoppably reverting to the same very poor and very destructive assumptions.
It's kind of like someone logging into Hatrack for the first time and posting a "Do? It doesn't do anything... that's the beauty of it..." thread. No matter how many times people cite that the line was originated as part of a psychology test to see if you could convince people they recognized it, people still theorize as to where it is from. Race is one of those areas of human thought in which our logical brains, so good at getting us through the day and solving all our other minor problems, often fail miserably.
True I suppose, but utterly sad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, this is one of the curses of social science research. For many subjects, you can get either a lot of messy survey data, or a little data measured with much greater refinement. The usual approach to reaching an understanding is to do a number of studies of both types.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, hang on a minute. I'm looking at the column labeled "Percent variance explained by diversity factors", and those are all rather smaller than the betas and have no significance indicators. Perhaps I'm again mis-interpreting data presented in a way that's standard in a different field, but doesn't this indicate that the correlation effectively disappears after the regression is run?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are only addressing the social aspects of college life, which are not the most important aspects of a University education (at least in my estimation).
Even if ethnic groups segregate 100% social, they are still in the same classes, they are forced to learn and work together in the key aspect of their education.
True, and in that regard my experience was that people mixed very readily. But I was in a small department that demanded group work and made it easy for people to know each other socially. Not much I could say about the departments outside music and English, since I only ever took a handful of classes outside my major, and they were all huge classes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Orinoco, for some it is the first time they have seen, for example, a black woman in a position of authority or a latino that isn't poor. Even this, I think, is a good thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The percent variance explained columns are either for the whole model (left column, with several variables for demographic information in addition to the treatments) or for all of the treatments combined (right column, none of the demographic variables), accumulating just those blocks. They're just giving an idea of how noisy the data is versus how noisy the effect is, basically.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I think so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The percent variance explained columns are either for the whole model (left column, with several variables for demographic information in addition to the treatments) or for all of the treatments combined (right column, none of the demographic variables), accumulating just those blocks.
Right, and my point is that the diversity variables whose effect they are interested in appear to explain very little of the variance. My understanding here is that overall, there is a correlation between diversity and the outcomes they study (which incidentally I still think are useless), but once you correct for the demographic variables, most of it goes away. In other words, what they're actually seeing is that richer (or perhaps it's poorer?) universities have more diverse student bodies and also better self-reported outcomes.
quote:They're just giving an idea of how noisy the data is versus how noisy the effect is, basically.
I must admit I do not understand how you get this from what I quoted above.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ever notice Clive tends to stop posting in his own threads once the conversation actually turns into a discussion?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
...or once KoM starts posting?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ever notice Clive tends to stop posting in his own threads once the conversation actually turns into a discussion?
Shh! Don't discourage this!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:...or once KoM starts posting?
Do you actually believe they are the same person or are you just trying to pick at KoM?
As far as I can tell the only evidence that they are the same person is that you don't like either of them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By that standard, most of Hatrack is one person.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
<snicker> I think of it as KoM usually is one of the few skeptics who doesn't take bs from people and calls them on their illogical arguments and will stay on your ass and wear you down until you either stop posting or admit defeat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
...and Clive Candy is also like that? *confused look*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, I don't think Blayne was implying they were the same.
I would more easily buy Clive Candy and malanthrop being the same person, because they both follow this pattern: post until utterly stumped, then immediately post something essentially unchanged in a new thread.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: All human beings, every one of us, has a most recent common ancestor who lived only a few thousands years ago, possibly as late as the first millenium.
What do you mean by "few"?
The group of people who left Africa and whose descendants spread to Asia/Europe/Americas are estimated to have left Africa 50 thousand years ago.
50,000 years of divergent evolution could separate your average African and your average non-African.
Certainly enough time for biological differences to emerge.
Also, as mentioned previously, observe how lanky East Africans are always winning long distance running events, and West Africans can't succeed at those events. Isn't this a clear example of divergent evolution in action?
My younger brother is in track, and in one of his district meets I couldn't help but notice that all the kids who were representing their schools in sprinting events were African American, all of them strikingly of the same body type. The district is majority white.
If different populations can differ in this physical way than why can't they also differ in behavioral/psychological characteristics? Human bio-egalitarianism is just a hypothesis.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Clive, modern humans emerged from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, however they continually intermarried and spread their genes back and forth during all that time. Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA show that all living humans have single common ancestors of more recent origin roughly according to what region they originate from. It is believed, for instance, that the Western and Central European common ancestor may have been as recent as 1,000 AD. That is, all people of western European decent share a common ancestor at a remove of 1,000 years. Globally, with a couple of major exceptions, the single common ancestor lived at some time between 2,000 BC and 0 AD. in order to cover all remote populations, that number would have to be scale back slightly, but the most recent common ancestor of the majority of the world's population is probably no less recent than 3,000 years. I don't want you to get confused here- there are still ancestors who are shared by some people, and not by others, however all humans today have been proven to be linked by common ancestors of both sexes, and those links are recent, meaning that intermarriage among disparate populations happened. If you push back into human history far enough, you arrive at a time in which all humans then living can be grouped as either common ancestors of all modern humans, or those have no living ancestors at all.
quote: Also, as mentioned previously, observe how lanky East Africans are always winning long distance running events, and West Africans can't succeed at those events. Isn't this a clear example of divergent evolution in action?
(note: I am an interested non-expert, so experts freely correct me on my information)
No, this is not clear at all. Research into such phenomena have not shown that genetics are responsible for these traits. However, research does show that populations living in different areas rapidly adapt to their environments, much faster than evolution could possibly account for. There are some theories, including some involving epigenetics, that try to account for these changes. Some theories suggest that the expression of genes is influenced by the environment in ways that cause the organism (such as a human being) to change without their DNA changing. There is some evidence to suggest that famine, disease, and climate can cause populations to alter the expression of their genes at a cellular level, and change their physiology, ostensibly to adapt to their environment. Research has shown that populations change in outward appearance when they are relocated to a new environment, even when they do not intermarry. These changes can be multi-generational, and occur outside the process of natural selection, effecting the whole population at once.
And this in its entirety ignores an even better and more demonstrable explanation, that West African society happens to strongly support the development of long distance runners because for many reasons, that is a popular sport in that region. Because West Africans can gain prestige and money by becoming great runners, the whole country will naturally have a larger pool of professional running candidates, the same way that the vast majority of American football players are Americans. Americans are not genetically superior at American football, we simply have a big system in place to select people with skills suitable to playing the game. That's why the world's best hockey players are Czechs, Russians, and Canadians, and why Europeans beat America at soccer despite our population being larger than any European country. Are you going to argue that Latin people are genetically superior soccer players? Because the supposition is just as ridiculous.
This is why you should not be idly speculating about anything in this subject area, you don't know enough to know how much you don't know.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you mean no living descendants
Also, AFAIK the models for the most recent common ancestor sometimes produce estimates of a few thousand years earlier than that. Still very recent, just not necessarily within recorded history.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans. A scientist couldn't have come up with a better control group. Only the strongest survived the journey and of them only the strongest survived slavery. The touchy area is suggesting the impact on the descendants in other areas, mental capacity and self discipline. Unlikely the strong willed, intelligent ones were preferred to pick cotton and treated as well as the complacent dim whits with strong backs. African Americans are unique among blacks around the world due to the genetic filter their ancestors passed through.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:African Americans are unique among blacks around the world due to the genetic filter their ancestors passed through.
You are hopefully aware that African slavery is not a system that was unique to the US. The Caribbean and South America (primarily Brazil) had larger slave populations than the US.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Orincoro- to defend the info I posted that Clive alluded to- ACTN3 is a gene where one allele is found heavily in short distance runners, the other allele in long distance runners. The frequency of the alleles is different in different populations (though every population has some of both- like having a population with one allele as low as 20% would be lowest expected frequency). The fact that Olympic athletes very very strongly tend to have one allele if they run short bursts, and the other allele if they do endurance is fairly strongly supported. This is connected to the percentages of fast twitch/ slow twitch muscle fibers that they have.
This was not to say that only West Africans can win at certain races or that only East Africans others. The science shows that this specific gene (which is present in both population at different rates- but still present in both) seems to be an important indicator of success. So far, I believe the research shows training can change the ratio of slow/fast one way, but no evidence of it going the other way.
[ December 01, 2009, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans. A scientist couldn't have come up with a better control group. Only the strongest survived the journey and of them only the strongest survived slavery. The touchy area is suggesting the impact on the descendants in other areas, mental capacity and self discipline. Unlikely the strong willed, intelligent ones were preferred to pick cotton and treated as well as the complacent dim whits with strong backs. African Americans are unique among blacks around the world due to the genetic filter their ancestors passed through.
And provided we were willing to ignore:
- the African Americans who were smart enough to act dumb - the African Americans who were smart enough to escape to the North when that avenue became possible - the African American offspring from Caucasian slaveowners, who were presumably intelligent since they were all Caucasian and stuff.
You seem to be working up to the suggestion that American blacks -- or at least those of African descent -- are as a class going to be stupider, less disciplined, and stronger than American Caucasians and doing so by looking for evidence that supports this theory. It's clearly not their fault, by your reasoning, but now that that "genetic filter" has been applied we have to look at what has resulted, I think is what you're saying. Yes?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that the selection pressure on so diffuse a quality as intelligence cannot have been large enough, over the few centuries of widespread slavery, to have produced much of an effect. Indeed I'm not convinced there was such a selection pressure at all; you might just as well argue that the smart ones were more likely to survive, in this as in other circumstances. Intelligence is correlated with longer time preferences, which might make for better escape plans, fewer outraged rebellions in hopeless circumstances, better yes-massa acting, and of course the classic advantage that the chicks dig it. But this is all just-so storytelling and with only a few centuries to work with, at that. Short of the slave owners deliberately breeding for stupid (or smart, as the case might be), I don't think you can get any such effect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans.
what darwinian concept? "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with darwin. It isn't even really part of evolutionary science.
Survival of the Fittest is a tautology coined by Herbert Spencer to justify his pseudoscientific culture war.
It says something of the quick conclusions one could come to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It seems to me that the selection pressure on so diffuse a quality as intelligence cannot have been large enough, over the few centuries of widespread slavery, to have produced much of an effect.
You also need to factor in the fact over those few centuries of slavery, there were very very few children born to multigenerational slaves. The demographics are very revealing. From the time of Columbus up to the official end of the transatlantic slave trade in the early 19th century, the slave population in all of the Americas grew at a rate that was significantly lower than the number of slaves imported each year (i.e the death rate among slaves was much higher than the birth rate).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That would actually increase the selection pressure, though, if there were few surviving children. Also, I'm not convinced "significantly lower" translates into "very very few children"; it presumably doesn't take much of a bump in the death rate to get this effect for pre-industrial subsistence-level populations.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That would actually increase the selection pressure, though, if there were few surviving children.
But that would be offset somewhat by the fresh imports which would be pushing the gene pool back towards the baseline.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure. The conclusion being, at this point you would have to do some sort of very careful analysis of what the selection pressures were and how large their effects were. The simplistic scenarios outlined by malanthrop, or by my post giving counter-stories, just don't hold up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No KoM, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. In order for a population to evolve, selection pressure has to be present over multiple generations in the same isolated population. But this simply wasn't true not only because the time span was short, but because the population was being continuously replenished by new slaves from Africa that hadn't been subjected to the same selection pressures. There probably were lots of children, but there were very very few children, (of children)^n of slaves. Hence, one would not expect the population to have evolved due to the selective pressures of slavery.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nu, I guess my objection is to your assertion
quote:there were very very few children, (of children)^n of slaves.
The birth/death rate statistic you quoted does not, it seems to me, of itself support this assertion. Even if it's true, though, what it does is shorten the timespan for the selection pressures to work; at some point between say 1800 and 1864 there's no more imported slaves, or not enough to be significant. Even if there were by then no descendants of slaves imported before 1700, you still have some amount of time and pressure to work with. But it does make mal's assertions even more simplistic, obviously.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Also, I'm not convinced "significantly lower" translates into "very very few children"; it presumably doesn't take much of a bump in the death rate to get this effect for pre-industrial subsistence-level populations.
Look at the data. The average life expectancy for an imported slave (after importation) was 7 years. The average life expectancy for native born slaves ranged between 20 - 30 years and was about half that of the non-slave population. (I'm basing this on Eric Williams "Capitalism and Slavery")
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans. A scientist couldn't have come up with a better control group. Only the strongest survived the journey and of them only the strongest survived slavery. The touchy area is suggesting the impact on the descendants in other areas, mental capacity and self discipline. Unlikely the strong willed, intelligent ones were preferred to pick cotton and treated as well as the complacent dim whits with strong backs. African Americans are unique among blacks around the world due to the genetic filter their ancestors passed through.
Slavery in the U.S. lasted for what, 10 generations? 'Nuff said.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Also, I'm not convinced "significantly lower" translates into "very very few children"; it presumably doesn't take much of a bump in the death rate to get this effect for pre-industrial subsistence-level populations.
Look at the data. The average life expectancy for an imported slave (after importation) was 7 years. The average life expectancy for native born slaves ranged between 20 - 30 years and was about half that of the non-slave population. (I'm basing this on Eric Williams "Capitalism and Slavery")
Is that consistent through the centuries? Averaging over many generations can give rise to all sorts of artifacts. Besides that, recall that life expectancies of 30 years at birth are very easily generated by high infant mortalities and life expectancies of 60 years at 5 years of age. Further, that 7 years seems to indicate that the proportion of imported slaves could not have been high at any given time, which does not jibe well with the lack of n-th generation slaves.
But really, I don't think we disagree on the fundamental point that there's just no time for any serious evolution to happen. The issue of exactly how short the time is seems to require some very careful analysis; I suggest it's not worth our time. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes KoM, Its consistent through the centuries. I strongly recommend you read Eric Williams from Columbus to Castro. Its a bit dry but has excellent demographic data.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
btw, i know the conversation has evolved(pun intended) from the conversation about the original article specificaly, but I thought I'd post Jonathan Haidt's TED talk for anyone interested.
It's about the moral roots and differences of liberals and conservatives.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S? [/QB]
Just so everyone knows, this response by Clive Candy is essentially perfect. When you look at it very carefully, it tells you everything you need to know about what he is doing on this forum.
Think about it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That hes a racist nut?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: All human beings, every one of us, has a most recent common ancestor who lived only a few thousands years ago, possibly as late as the first millenium.
What do you mean by "few"?
The group of people who left Africa and whose descendants spread to Asia/Europe/Americas are estimated to have left Africa 50 thousand years ago.
50,000 years of divergent evolution could separate your average African and your average non-African.
Certainly enough time for biological differences to emerge.
Also, as mentioned previously, observe how lanky East Africans are always winning long distance running events, and West Africans can't succeed at those events. Isn't this a clear example of divergent evolution in action?
My younger brother is in track, and in one of his district meets I couldn't help but notice that all the kids who were representing their schools in sprinting events were African American, all of them strikingly of the same body type. The district is majority white.
If different populations can differ in this physical way than why can't they also differ in behavioral/psychological characteristics? Human bio-egalitarianism is just a hypothesis.
Thank you for this wonderful example of non-scientific reasoning backed by no credible research.
Questions are a start, but a refusal to accept answers you don't like or that don't support your hypothesis is the OPPOSITE of the scientific method.
Thanks for playing. LOL
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I actually linked to some information on wikipedia in the "have we gone mental" thread that might bear on this conversation. To sum up, not that anybody needs me to, the links referred to the rapid increases in Asian-American and American Jewish IQ test scores over several decades, relative to American whites. Basically, if anyone wants to use IQ test scores as a way to disparage the intelligence of African-Americans, they're going to need something else, probably something I'm not aware of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let's say some scientist looked at this article, and after doing some super human scientific research isolated a group of genes in a configuration germane to the Maori people. Together these genes increase aggression while simultaneously reducing empathy for others. What now?
Don't allow Maori people to immigrate to the U.S?
Just so everyone knows, this response by Clive Candy is essentially perfect. When you look at it very carefully, it tells you everything you need to know about what he is doing on this forum.
Think about it. [/QB]
Still doesn't explain what in creation is the source of his thing with women, which is what I want to know more than anything.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Basically, if anyone wants to use IQ test scores as a way to disparage the intelligence of African-Americans, they're going to need something else, probably something I'm not aware of.
Only if you assume that they would have a problem with also disparaging the intelligence of European-Americans Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans.
:facepalm: Darwin's theory was about evolution by natural selection. *Natural,* underlined, selection. Artificial selection is not natural selection. And, as you will continue to ignore because it doesn't fit with your stupid assumptions and your blanket willful ignorance, but as everyone else responding to you has also pointed out, slavery did not in any way represent a focused or concerted evolutionary pressure, and occurred over such a short period of time, that an actual process of evolution in that very widespread and already genetically diverse population is impossible. Unfortunately you're one of those people who thinks his ignorance is a strength- who thinks the things he observes in his daily life are true representations of global phenomena, and who thinks for some unknown reasons that the napkin math he does about the things he thinks he can see is also, therefore, divine and unconquerable truth.
So far, every folk-wisdom theory you have shared with us has been wrong. Not "technically" wrong, or "not quite right," but the kind of wrong that anyone who has real knowledge of the subject is bored to death of encountering. The kind of wrong that gets entered in the beginning of textbooks in the form of "Many years ago, before the serious study of this subject began, people assumed...." It's sad that you don't know this. Your ignorance is sad.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Artificial selection is not natural selection.
I must say that I don't quite see what this has to do with anything. Selection pressure is selection pressure. There's plenty to criticise in mal's post; why are you hitting on what is at most a bad phrasing?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Anyone who adheres to the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest should be able to come to quick conclusions about African Americans.
:facepalm: Darwin's theory was about evolution by natural selection. *Natural,* underlined, selection. Artificial selection is not natural selection.
Care to cite for the board what the first chapter of Origin" is titled? It would be edifying, I assure you.
Here's a quote from it:
"No doubt the strawberry had always varied since it was cultivated, but the slight varieties had been neglected. As soon, however, as gardeners picked out individual plants with slightly larger, earlier, or better fruit, and raised seedlings from them, and again picked out the best seedlings and bred from them, then, there appeared (aided by some crossing with distinct species) those many admirable varieties of the strawberry which have been raised during the last thirty or forty years."
The problem with Mal's argument is that he has no evidence that the observed variation of behavior or psychology is significantly influenced by genetic factors, he's just asserting that it must be so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. IQ is about 50% inheritable, IIRC.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Is that consistent through the centuries? Averaging over many generations can give rise to all sorts of artifacts. Besides that, recall that life expectancies of 30 years at birth are very easily generated by high infant mortalities and life expectancies of 60 years at 5 years of age.
Yes but that wasn't the case. The mortality rate was high across the board. Slave owners typically budgeted that a slave would live 10 years after reaching adulthood.
quote:Further, that 7 years seems to indicate that the proportion of imported slaves could not have been high at any given time, which does not jibe well with the lack of n-th generation slaves.
You are making a number of assumption that are simply aren't true. Whether there were a high proportion of imported slaves is a function both of the life span of imported spades and the rate at which they were imported. Typically, 5% of the total slave population was imported from africa in any given year and the slave population grew at a little under 1% per year. Assuming a decreasing exponential with an average of 7 years, that results in a steady state population that is 30% first generation. Imported slaves were mostly adults, whereas native born slaves were about evenly split between children and adults so at any given time about half the adult population would have been first generation slaves from Africa.
quote:But really, I don't think we disagree on the fundamental point that there's just no time for any serious evolution to happen. The issue of exactly how short the time is seems to require some very careful analysis; I suggest it's not worth our time.
This much is valid. But what I think you are missing is that even if the African slave trade had had persisted for thousands of years, we still would expect it have result in any significant evolutionary effect because the slaves were never an isolated population. There was a continuous and significant influx of new genetic material that had not been subjected to the pressures of slavery.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. IQ is about 50% inheritable, IIRC.
The more closely you look at the data the more unreasonable it seems. When studying IQ, it is very difficult to separate genetic factors from environmental factors. The better job studies do of separating the two, the smaller the effect of genetics. When all possible environmental factors are considered including nurturing and education but also nutrition, intestinal flora, parasites, etc, the influence of genetics is likely far less than 50%.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. IQ is about 50% inheritable, IIRC.
If we could get to the point where we could totally quantify what percentage of IQ is heritable, I'd like to see the genetic models that come up with such a figure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Artificial selection is not natural selection.
I must say that I don't quite see what this has to do with anything. Selection pressure is selection pressure. There's plenty to criticise in mal's post; why are you hitting on what is at most a bad phrasing?
Yes, but artificial selection over such a very short period produces unpredictable results. Mal's idea, as best I can see, is that somehow American slave owners compressed thousands of years of natural selection into two or three generations of slaves, and that there would actually be a comprehensively observable and consistent effect from this. I'm not denying that artificial selection has any effect on anything, I'm just suggesting that there is no way it has the effect he thinks it does, because his ideas about selection pressure are post-hoc justification for racial stereotypes. That's the problem with virtually any piece of positive genetic evidence of inherited traits of any kind- you ignore the zillion genes that aren't different, and zero in on the gene that is, and then you declare that gene as the Cause, of whatever you're studying. The same thing happens with Mal's argument. He sees that there are more pro black athletes in America than whites. He assumes prematurely that the reason is genes (not economics, which is the real reason), then scans through all the information he has about black Americans, alights on slavery, and presto, he has an ironclad theory that no one can convince him is, if not out and out *wrong*, then at least vastly overstated, premature, simplistic, and useless.
The fact that different subgroups of populations have a higher occurrence of certain genes is not proof positive that genetics is the cause of any larger phenomenon. For instance, if you transposed the eastern and western African populations in terms of genetics, changing all East Africans to West Africans and vice-versa, there is no significant evidence that west African long distance running dominance would diminish at all. Long distance running developed there for more reasons than that people were inherently skilled at it, just as it developed in other places where people don't carry many of the same genes as West Africans. The success of the sport in West Africa is dependent on West African society, not West African genes. You can look at any population in the world and isolate a gene that occurs often enough, and link that to something the population is known for, but in doing so you ignore every other vastly more important factor in that society's development. We are not defined by our genes, however much white guilt leads Mal and whomever else to explain away their societal advantages, or lack of them, as coming from their genes, rather than from a world that is simply too complex to understand fully.
(eta: As an interesting aside, look at the presence of African Americans in American sports according to the expense of participation in that sport during childhood. Running, basketball, boxing- cheap to do, highly scalable games, and dominated by black Americans. Hockey, Golf, Motorsports, mountain biking and x games, swimming, shooting, skiing, equestrian- more expensive, less scalable, and include higher proportions of whites. Football and baseball are two of the only sports in between, with expensive and non-scalable versions alongside cheap and scalable versions. Are you going to tell me that white people are genetically superior in shooting and golfing because there are more pro shooters who are white? And how were these white people selected genetically to develop these skills? By shooting at black people? Do you see how ridiculous this all is?)
[ December 02, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
At least this is all completely amateur postulation of racial divergence. If any even partially well studied pseudo-phenotypologists were part of this discussion arguing about what happened to blacks over X generations of slavery, we would have spent 90% of our time arguing over ideas taken straight from Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:As an interesting aside, look at the presence of African Americans in American sports according to the expense of participation in that sport during childhood.
That is an excellent point.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: At least this is all completely amateur postulation of racial divergence. If any even partially well studied pseudo-phenotypologists were part of this discussion arguing about what happened to blacks over X generations of slavery, we would have spent 90% of our time arguing over ideas taken straight from Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve."
Nah. I'd just like to any one of 4-5 completely well researched refutations of their entire premise, as well as their methodology, and be done with it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If an Asian told me that whites weren't as good at math, I wouldn't be offended. It is a fact of common traits that does not negate the fact that there are some white's equal to or greater than Asians at math.
Ignore test scores if you want. I know many blacks who are smarter than me but it shouldn't be racist to point out on average they underperform. I suppose it's ok to say the Asians are good at math but not ok to say they are better than a different group. It's ok to say blacks are fast sprinters but not ok to say that they are faster than another group. I know stupid parents with smart kids and smart parents with stupid kids but the odds are, the kids will be like the parents: fast, slow, fat, white, black, strong, smart, stupid...pick your trait. Are we any different than horses or dogs when it comes to inherited traits? I think the mutt is superior, even human mutts. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If an Asian told me that whites weren't as good at math, I wouldn't be offended.
Really? You would be justified in taken offense at such rudeness. Perhaps this is why you don't understand how offensive the things you say here are to everyone else.
quote: Ignore test scores if you want. I know many blacks who are smarter than me but it shouldn't be racist to point out on average they underperform.
You know, here's the crux of your problem Mal. Here's where you're not getting it. You make outrageous statements, *related* to such an observation, and then you tuck your tail between your legs and say: "well, jeez guys, I didn't know I couldn't bring up that subject or make that observation!"
It is not racism to "point out" as you say, that a certain portion of the population on average performs at a lower or higher level on certain tests than another group. It is not for that that I think you are a racist. I think you are racist because you have blundered ahead with your "theories" and your "logical reasoning," talking about how those things you have blithely "pointed out," are indicative of all these other things that "anybody could see," or that "is obvious from the data." I think you have done this because you, Mal, want to believe that you are superior to others inherently, and that is why the world functions in the way it does, and provides you with the opportunities you have had in life. I think whatever measure of success you have personally ever had, you are terribly jealous of the idea that others will think you don't deserve it, so you come up with ways of justifying yourself, as well as the reasons why other people don't have what you do. Since chance isn't good enough, you settle into things like "hard work," and "character," and "faith," and occasionally you dabble in the notion that you are simply superior to others as a natural characteristic. That wouldn't be their fault! That would just be nature, with you at the top of the pyramid, and the negros and orientals somewhere farther down the chain! After all, it's obvious that's the way things are! So perhaps that's the way things were meant to be! It's *nature* after all!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I am just not politically correct. No group of people is superior, all exceptional in their own ways and full of variability that defies the norm. Pit bulls are dangerous and often violent but I owned one that slept with cats and was afraid of flying paper bags. My skipperke is tougher than my yorkie which is smarter than my beagle who has the best nose. From all that I've read, they are quite common examples of their breeding and I do not think any one is superior. With dogs you don't have to be PC so such things are easy to say. I bet you're afraid to state that the average black male has a higher vertical leap. You're gagged by your notions of political correctness and blinded from reality by your fear of offence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess malanthrop has decided to take a page from ron lambert's "you are blinded from reality!" playbook.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Ignore test scores if you want. I know many blacks who are smarter than me but it shouldn't be racist to point out on average they underperform.
It is when you blithely ignore all other conditions such as social strata, environment, economic opportunities and health and base your conclusion solely on race.
It's not fear of offense. It's a fear of how believing in such short-sighted assumptions will color how you think about other topics. If you can "prove" blacks are better at some things -- basketball, sprinting, dancing -- you can then assume that whites are better at others -- raising families, not committing crimes, etc. Neither assumption is founded.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I am just not politically correct. No group of people is superior, all exceptional in their own ways and full of variability that defies the norm. Pit bulls are dangerous and often violent but I owned one that slept with cats and was afraid of flying paper bags.
Oh God DAMMIT you are a douche.
quote: I bet you're afraid to state that the average black male has a higher vertical leap. You're gagged by your notions of political correctness and blinded from reality by your fear of offence. (sic)
:sigh: Dear ****ing christ how many times do you have to do this?
No. Mal, I would *not* be afraid to state such a thing had I studied it, and found it to be true.
I would be horrified, however, to be caught saying the utterly idiotic things you have said regarding race here in this thread. You now revert to a position of disinterested but liberated free thinker. You are a complete idiot, if you think there is anyone here who isn't wise to your game. In fact, I just think you're a complete idiot regardless.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Clive, modern humans emerged from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, however they continually intermarried and spread their genes back and forth during all that time. Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA show that all living humans have single common ancestors of more recent origin roughly according to what region they originate from. It is believed, for instance, that the Western and Central European common ancestor may have been as recent as 1,000 AD. That is, all people of western European decent share a common ancestor at a remove of 1,000 years. Globally, with a couple of major exceptions, the single common ancestor lived at some time between 2,000 BC and 0 AD. in order to cover all remote populations, that number would have to be scale back slightly, but the most recent common ancestor of the majority of the world's population is probably no less recent than 3,000 years. I don't want you to get confused here- there are still ancestors who are shared by some people, and not by others, however all humans today have been proven to be linked by common ancestors of both sexes, and those links are recent, meaning that intermarriage among disparate populations happened. If you push back into human history far enough, you arrive at a time in which all humans then living can be grouped as either common ancestors of all modern humans, or those have no living ancestors at all.
It sounds like you're confusing yourself, because you're saying some really obvious things (all humans share a common ancestor! Well yes, all living creatures too) and others that can possibly be subtlety misleading. It might be true that all Europeans share a common ancestor going back to whatever date your list, but that says nothing about common ancestors between the five major races (Caucasians, black africans, Asians, and Australian Aborginines.) There might be recent common ancestry within these groups -- i.e, central and northern europeans -- but that says noting about Europeans and Asians, who could separated by tens of thousands of years. The point of contention is not the differences between an Englishman and a Swede but that between the Swede and a Nigerian.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clive, you are the one confused. The most recent common ancestor for all people of all races is generally estimated to be three to ten thousand years ago, with more recent being considered more likely.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, this is not clear at all. Research into such phenomena have not shown that genetics are responsible for these traits. However, research does show that populations living in different areas rapidly adapt to their environments, much faster than evolution could possibly account for. There are some theories, including some involving epigenetics, that try to account for these changes. Some theories suggest that the expression of genes is influenced by the environment in ways that cause the organism (such as a human being) to change without their DNA changing. There is some evidence to suggest that famine, disease, and climate can cause populations to alter the expression of their genes at a cellular level, and change their physiology, ostensibly to adapt to their environment. Research has shown that populations change in outward appearance when they are relocated to a new environment, even when they do not intermarry. These changes can be multi-generational, and occur outside the process of natural selection, effecting the whole population at once.
Why are African Americans overrepresented then in sprinting events? They've been sharing the same environment as other groups for hundreds of years.
quote: And this in its entirety ignores an even better and more demonstrable explanation, that West African society happens to strongly support the development of long distance runners because for many reasons, that is a popular sport in that region. Because West Africans can gain prestige and money by becoming great runners, the whole country will naturally have a larger pool of professional running candidates, the same way that the vast majority of American football players are Americans. Americans are not genetically superior at American football, we simply have a big system in place to select people with skills suitable to playing the game. That's why the world's best hockey players are Czechs, Russians, and Canadians, and why Europeans beat America at soccer despite our population being larger than any European country. Are you going to argue that Latin people are genetically superior soccer players? Because the supposition is just as ridiculous.
I don't deny that some things can be explained by culture.
Yes, the best hockey players are Russians/Canadians. Perhaps that's because the only talent pool that's being selected are from the few regions that are interested in the sport.
On the other hand, springing is an event that's open to everyone, and which nearly every country attempts to compete in. Why would Western Africans prefer sprinting over long distance running? Why would East Africans prefer long distance running over short distance running? Indeed, you would think that all running events would be of interest to these athletes, but how odd, they end up preferring the very same running events their bodies are optimized for...
[ December 04, 2009, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Clive, you are the one confused. The most recent common ancestor for all people of all races is generally estimated to be three to ten thousand years ago, with more recent being considered more likely.
Proof?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That doesn't seem right, fugu. IIRC, there were humans in the Americas certainly as early as 12000 BCE, and possibly even before that, and it seems to me that they must have been reproductively isolated when the Bering Strait land bridge went under. Similarly the original migration into Australia was aided by land bridges, and that's been traced back as far as 40000 BCE, if I've got my memory straight.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: that isn't relevant; the only question is if everyone alive today shares at least one ancestor, and there's plenty of traffic with those locations at the moment.
edit: also, though not really relevant, both the Americas and Australia had regular (though infrequent, especially in the case of Australia) contact with the outside world. It isn't like people crossed over and then no people came there. The Americas had quite frequent contacts, especially from eastern Russia/northern Europe, and Australia had a number from the mainland. While it takes a lot of migration to significantly change an area's genetics, it doesn't take much at all to become part of an area's genetics. The isolation does push the time back quite a bit at which every person is a common ancestor of everyone alive today.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: KoM: that isn't relevant; the only question is if everyone alive today shares at least one ancestor, and there's plenty of traffic with those locations at the moment.
Of course, and some ad-mixture has resulted from this. Amerindians seem to be few in numbers and a lot of indigenous Australians seem to be mixed. That doesn't negate though the impact being seperated for tens of thousands of years has had on different populations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM: that isn't relevant; the only question is if everyone alive today shares at least one ancestor, and there's plenty of traffic with those locations at the moment.
Ok, I see what you're saying. But it seems to me that this is not the right metric for measuring the degree to which races are genetically separated, because it depends rather strongly on low-probability events. (Not your fault, I know; Clive brought it up.) Rather one should look at something like the degree to which n-th generation ancestors overlap on average. For example, I likely share more great^10-grandparents with you than with someone picked at random in Zimbabwe.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: It sounds like you're confusing yourself, because you're saying some really obvious things (all humans share a common ancestor! Well yes, all living creatures too) and others that can possibly be subtlety misleading. It might be true that all Europeans share a common ancestor going back to whatever date your list, but that says nothing about common ancestors between the five major races (Caucasians, black africans, Asians, and Australian Aborginines.) There might be recent common ancestry within these groups -- i.e, central and northern europeans -- but that says noting about Europeans and Asians, who could separated by tens of thousands of years. The point of contention is not the differences between an Englishman and a Swede but that between the Swede and a Nigerian.
No, Clive. There are no "major five races." That is the point, the idea comes from the theory of parallel development of human races, which has been shown by genetic studies to be false. All human populations exist on a spectrum, and are not divided into discrete racial paradigms. The idea that they *are* divided as such is one fostered by simple lack of familiarity with the world's actual racial diversity. Phenotype variations among human populations are also accounted for in many ways *other* than significant genetic differences, such as epigenetics, or the expression of genes caused by the environment, rather than the development of new genes in different areas. There is as much or more, I repeat myself: as much or more genetic variation between two individuals of the same race, as between two individuals of different races. That is not a theory, that is a fact. It means that the genes of two white Europeans from the same region and the genes of a white European and a South American of Mayan decent will show about the same amount of actual variation. The variation specifically connected with phenotype (appearance) is highly visible, but accounts for an extremely small amount of a person's actual genetic code. You, like all humans, are used to spotting that difference because it is a valid way of distinguishing between people according to their origins. It is, however, *not* useful in saying anything about their actual genes. That is an assumption you are making, and a wrong one, and you have persistently ignored anyone who has pointed out these facts to you. They are not alternate theories, they are facts. You are wrong, and these facts prove that you are wrong.
quote: Why are African Americans overrepresented then in sprinting events? They've been sharing the same environment as other groups for hundreds of years.
You answer this question yourself.
quote: Yes, the best hockey players are Russians/Canadians. Perhaps that's because the only talent pool that's being selected are from the few regions that are interested in the sport.
Keep in mind that African American sprinters did *not* dominate the sport 100 years ago. Whites did. Now you may point out that most current records in sprinting were set by Africans or African Americans. That's true, but current records in most sports have been set very recently. Records in swimming have been set by predominately by white Americans. Training and selection, nutrition, medical advances, and technical improvements have led to increased performance across all races in all sports. Current Black American dominance in certain sports is purely cultural, and there is no compelling evidence to suggest that performance has improved among the black community faster than any other, given similar levels of emphasis within any given culture. This is the same reason that Japanese, Korean and Chinese classical musicians are now becoming well known in the western world, where that genre of music originates- it is not because Asians are superior genetically at music, but that many Asian cultures have ideally suited their people to pursue classical music as a profession- specifically because Asian agricultural traditions and methods (and thus language and education) placed a much higher emphasis on mathematical skill than in many other cultures. Growing rice requires a different cultural attitude than growing grain. That is only one of the reasons that can be pointed out as purely cultural. And these effects, Clive, are massive. They are not negligible. Everything we find out about genetics tells us that the role of genes is insignificant, while everything we learn about cultural history tells us that culture is massively important.
[ December 04, 2009, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
What did I bring up?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: On the other hand, springing is an event that's open to everyone, and which nearly every country attempts to compete in. Why would Western Africans prefer sprinting over long distance running? Why would East Africans prefer long distance running over short distance running? Indeed, you would think that all running events would be of interest to these athletes, but how odd, they end up preferring the very same running events their bodies are optimized for...
You are making an assumption that "their bodies are optimized for" this event because they furnish the top athletes in this event at the Olympic games. Think about it- that's a post-hoc rationalization. As you say, East African Olympians win at those events, despite everyone else also furnishing their own top athletes for the event as well.
But does East Africa have a highly commercialized professional sports industry? Do East African kids dream of being baseball players and American football players so that they can become rich and successful and renowned in their own cultures? No. And so there are many people who take up running who, in another life, might have been basketball stars, or running backs, or swimmers, or anything else. Imagine if the US had none of the commercialized pro sports that we currently do. Imagine how many of our most talented athletes might seek notice by entering into Olympic sports, rather than pro sports.
Imagine, please, on a related note, that White Americans represented the lowest income racial group in the US, rather than the highest. Imagine whites had less opportunity for education, lived in poorer neighborhoods, and had fewer prospects on the whole for making money in business, working in government, or becoming artists. How many driven and strong willed young people who turn their sites not on being musicians or artists or CEOs or engineers or scientists or doctors, but on being professional athletes? What if being a sports hero was even more highly valued in white society than being a Senator, or a businessman, or a surgeon, or a teacher? Don't you think the pool of potentially great athletes would be bigger?
Why does Cuba dominate Olympic boxing even though Cuba has no professional boxing circuit comparable to the American one? Because, duh, the best Cuban boxers participate in the Olympics, whereas the best American boxers make 20 million for a fight in Vegas, and aren't eligible to be Olympians. Cuban Olympic boxers are on average much older and more experienced than boxers from other countries, because they have no professional circuit, and so remain eligible, and place a high emphasis on the Olympic competition, while Americans don't.
So you can argue till the cows come home that Cubans are genetically superior boxers, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so when you are taking your evidence from a sample population that is vastly different in age and experience from most other Olympian boxers.
In short, Clive, you're really just not thinking these things through very well.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: It sounds like you're confusing yourself, because you're saying some really obvious things (all humans share a common ancestor! Well yes, all living creatures too) and others that can possibly be subtlety misleading. It might be true that all Europeans share a common ancestor going back to whatever date your list, but that says nothing about common ancestors between the five major races (Caucasians, black africans, Asians, and Australian Aborginines.) There might be recent common ancestry within these groups -- i.e, central and northern europeans -- but that says noting about Europeans and Asians, who could separated by tens of thousands of years. The point of contention is not the differences between an Englishman and a Swede but that between the Swede and a Nigerian.
No, Clive. There are no "major five races." That is the point, the idea comes from the theory of parallel development of human races, which has been shown by genetic studies to be false.
It might have, at one point. The multi-regional development of human races is discredited, but it doesn't discredit the idea of "race" which can be accounted by a simpler theory: namely, that homo-sapien sapien arose, went separate ways and locally adapted to different eviromental conditions. The broadest differences that resulted from these adaptations is what constitutes racial differences, the physical and, perhaps, psychological.
quote: Phenotype variations among human populations are also accounted for in many ways *other* than significant genetic differences, such as epigenetics, or the expression of genes caused by the environment, rather than the development of new genes in different areas
African Americans have been in America for hundreds of years, yet they still earn the majority of medals in sprinting events and dominate overwhelmingly in basketball. Which better accounts for this -- epigenitcs, mere genetics, or a cultural explanation? How can epigenetics explain this? The cultural argument on the other hand is hogwash -- all sorts of young men from all sorts of ethnicities go for sprinting events and basketball, yet how odd that African Americans manage to come on top overwhelmingly. Surely a genetic cause is probable?
quote:There is as much or more, I repeat myself: as much or more genetic variation between two individuals of the same race, as between two individuals of different races. That is not a theory, that is a fact
It's an irrelevant fact.
me: the average man is taller than the average woman.
you: NO. There's a greater variance of height WITHIN each gender than BETWEEN the genders!
It isn't necessary to answer the conclusions you draw from this point.
[ December 04, 2009, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't believe epigenetics explains much about sports performance. I was talking about racial features, not sports. You are conflating my two points, but they are not the same point. My points are a) phenotypes are governed by more than our genes, and b) sports performance, especially as the function of an average over a large population are not government by our genes, *at all*. Individuals *can* be genetically better suited to a certain sport, but populations are not. Populations, luckily, have lots of individuals in them, and since the variations among one racial group are a broad as between two, as I have pointed out, there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not. That's a simple point Clive, and you just don't believe it. But it's not a theory of mine, or a supposition, or a rationalization. It is fact. It has been proven to be true.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: On the other hand, springing is an event that's open to everyone, and which nearly every country attempts to compete in. Why would Western Africans prefer sprinting over long distance running? Why would East Africans prefer long distance running over short distance running? Indeed, you would think that all running events would be of interest to these athletes, but how odd, they end up preferring the very same running events their bodies are optimized for...
You are making an assumption that "their bodies are optimized for" this event because they furnish the top athletes in this event at the Olympic games.
I am not making any assumptions. Please see the book Taboo by Jon Entine on what these physical differences are and how they bestow certain athletic advantages and disadvantages.
quote: But does East Africa have a highly commercialized professional sports industry? Do East African kids dream of being baseball players and American football players so that they can become rich and successful and renowned in their own cultures? No. And so there are many people who take up running who, in another life, might have been basketball stars, or running backs, or swimmers, or anything else. Imagine if the US had none of the commercialized pro sports that we currently do. Imagine how many of our most talented athletes might seek notice by entering into Olympic sports, rather than pro sports.
Why are you repeating arguments I've already addressed? We can't make any assumptions about how good one race would be in a sport it isn't culturally familiar with and isn't interested in -- though perhaps we can guess which other sports they'd be good at from the sports we know they're already successful in. I can't say how good East Africans would be at Baseball. But I do see they're one of the few groups of people who are overrepresented in having gold medals in long distance events. The underlying cause of this I can theorize about. Why East Africans aren't great hockey players is really beside the point.
quote: Imagine, please, on a related note, that White Americans represented the lowest income racial group in the US, rather than the highest. Imagine whites had less opportunity for education, lived in poorer neighborhoods, and had fewer prospects on the whole for making money in business, working in government, or becoming artists. How many driven and strong willed young people who turn their sites not on being musicians or artists or CEOs or engineers or scientists or doctors, but on being professional athletes? What if being a sports hero was even more highly valued in white society than being a Senator, or a businessman, or a surgeon, or a teacher? Don't you think the pool of potentially great athletes would be bigger?
I don't think so, because people don't lie to themselves. First of all, high end athletic talent is almost always identified early on -- perhaps middle school and high school. The average professional basketball player was identified in high school. I doubt that many black kids, after seeing themselves outshined athletically by their peers, still hold on to the hope of making it, if they even entertained the notion in the first place. On the other hand, there could be a large talented pool of black athletes to select from, because blacks on average could have certain genes that make them better athletes. There need not be a greater will and drive on their part -- that is, greater than that of other ethnic groups -- for them to out compete other groups in this fashion. They're just advantaged genetically.
And you go on -- boy how you go on -- offering cultural explanations that aren't necessarily incorrect but are so beside the point.
quote: Why does Cuba dominate Olympic boxing even though Cuba has no professional boxing circuit comparable to the American one? Because, duh, the best Cuban boxers participate in the Olympics, whereas the best American boxers make 20 million for a fight in Vegas, and aren't eligible to be Olympians. Cuban Olympic boxers are on average much older and more experienced than boxers from other countries, because they have no professional circuit, and so remain eligible, and place a high emphasis on the Olympic competition, while Americans don't.
Take it easy on that strawman.
quote: So you can argue till the cows come home that Cubans are genetically superior boxers, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so when you are taking your evidence from a sample population that is vastly different in age and experience from most other Olympian boxers.
You picked a scenario where you knew you could offer an easy cultural explanation.
Please explain why East Africans can't seem to win short distance events and West African can't seem to win long distance events. Why wouldn't East African runners be interested in short events and West Africans interested in long events? What is the cultural explanation for this remarkable phenomenon?
quote:In short, Clive, you're really just not thinking these things through very well.
Talk about delusional. Please save such jibes for when you aren't making hilariously bad arguments.
[ December 04, 2009, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Clive Candy ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not. That's a simple point Clive, and you just don't believe it.
Altnough most of the top long-distance runners in the world are Kenyans, there is one white guy, his name escapes me, who is a current world-champion-level long-distance runner. He is surrounded by Kenyans when he competes, but he's right up there with them in terms of performance.
Given that, common sense would tell you that, yes, long-distance running ability is highly correlated with genetics, but those genetic tendencies don't conform perfectly to general race and sub-race classifications. I wouldn't say that Kenyans/Ethiopians are genetically better at long distance running, on average, except for the fact that they kick the crap out of everybody else on the planet at it so regularly. They really do. It's so obvious. However, there are some good long-distance runners from other racial groups too.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I don't believe epigenetics explains much about sports performance. I was talking about racial features, not sports. You are conflating my two points, but they are not the same point. My points are a) phenotypes are governed by more than our genes, and b) sports performance, especially as the function of an average over a large population are not government by our genes, *at all*.
You need to back this up with anything. Like reasoning that isn't entirely comprised of the easiest cultural explanation you can find (The best hockey players are Russian and Canadian because practically no one else cares for the sport!)
quote:Individuals *can* be genetically better suited to a certain sport, but populations are not. Populations, luckily, have lots of individuals in them, and since the variations among one racial group are a broad as between two, as I have pointed out, there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not
From the gender that is known as "male," more superior runners can be selected than from the gender that is known as "female." However, it is wrong to say that men are better runners as a whole population than the female population. This obvious factoid is endorsed by Orininco.
quote: That's a simple point Clive, and you just don't believe it.
You are an obstinate person. I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make. Hell, for all we know there might be some women who are better runners than every man alive. That does not impact the statistical reality, however. DO YOU GET THIS?
quote: But it's not a theory of mine, or a supposition, or a rationalization. It is fact. It has been proven to be true.
Do go on stating obvious things no one has contested.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: quote:Individuals *can* be genetically better suited to a certain sport, but populations are not. Populations, luckily, have lots of individuals in them, and since the variations among one racial group are a broad as between two, as I have pointed out, there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not
From the gender that is known as "male," more superior runners can be selected than from the gender that is known as "female." However, it is wrong to say that men are better runners as a whole population than the female population. This obvious factoid is endorsed by Orininco.
I mean really, Clive, I know you're dense and have trouble with spelling and grammar, science, history, math, and probably a lot else of which you just haven't revealed your gleeful ignorance, but really? That statement follows? If there is no significant genetic differences between races, then therefore there are no physical differences between sexes? Really Clive? Really really? I don't know, I would feel insulted if you hadn't gone out of your way to make yourself look like a complete idiot. So you've proved my point unassisted. That's great, I can go home happy after this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair's fair. Clive is making reasonable arguments based in statistics, here, and you lot are giving him the abuse and ad homs. The point about gender is well taken; the spread of characteristics within a race does not invalidate that the means can be different, any more than it does for gender. No, not even if the within-race standard deviation is larger than the difference in the means.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clive/KoM: returning to the earlier conversation, if that was what you wanted to argue, then you shouldn't have said you were arguing against the least common ancestor being so recent. I never said anything about populations separating or not. I just wanted to correct Clive's fallacious rejection of the least common ancestor being so recent.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: quote:Individuals *can* be genetically better suited to a certain sport, but populations are not. Populations, luckily, have lots of individuals in them, and since the variations among one racial group are a broad as between two, as I have pointed out, there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not
From the gender that is known as "male," more superior runners can be selected than from the gender that is known as "female." However, it is wrong to say that men are better runners as a whole population than the female population. This obvious factoid is endorsed by Orininco.
I mean really, Clive, I know you're dense and have trouble with spelling and grammar, science, history, math, and probably a lot else of which you just haven't revealed your gleeful ignorance, but really?
Wow. It's an all out flame war now, is it? F*ck you too.
quote: That statement follows? If there is no significant genetic differences between races, then therefore there are no physical differences between sexes?
Nope. The statement of yours I responded to did not assert that there are no differences between the races. You were stating a truism -- there's more variation within a group than between groups:
quote: Individuals *can* be genetically better suited to a certain sport, but populations are not. Populations, luckily, have lots of individuals in them, and since the variations among one racial group are a broad as between two, as I have pointed out, there's a running star in every populations, whether he trains his whole life to win in the Olympics, or not
I mocked this with the gender example, and I guess I must've hit a nerve because you responded primarily with insults.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
I was really happy to ignore your bad arguments, Orinco, until you attacked me in the HIV thread. You made it clear that you take people ignoring your long-winded posts as evidence that they can't refute what you have to say. You're mistaken.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Clive/KoM: returning to the earlier conversation, if that was what you wanted to argue, then you shouldn't have said you were arguing against the least common ancestor being so recent. I never said anything about populations separating or not. I just wanted to correct Clive's fallacious rejection of the least common ancestor being so recent.
For the record, I wasn't arguing anything in particular in that discussion, I was just rather confused that the common ancestor should be so recent. Thanks for the new data. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well enough.
It is a very interesting phenomenon, as is the "everyone was a common ancestor" time that greatly predates it (while still being remarkably recent). Simply put, much as we talk about people in different places being different, the variance of human phenotype & genotype among all humans is tiny, and, compared even to that small variance, the variance among all humans but those largely descended from a few tribes in Africa is almost nothing.
We're just not very diverse animals.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
fugu13, supposing that Europeans never settled the Americas and Australia, how far back do you think the common ancestor goes?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Please explain why East Africans can't seem to win short distance events and West African can't seem to win long distance events.
Even if differences in running among the tiny number of world-class runners were well-correlated with genetics, that doesn't tell you anything about whether or not genetics contributes significantly to the variation seen across the population of the whole country, or the world.
That's what you've claimed, that's what you need to show. So stop harping on the tiny number of elite atheletes, and show the evidence that genetics correlates with what you say it correlates with in the general population.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Please explain why East Africans can't seem to win short distance events and West African can't seem to win long distance events.
Even if differences in running among the tiny number of world-class runners were well-correlated with genetics, that doesn't tell you anything about whether or not genetics contributes significantly to the variation seen across the population of the whole country, or the world.
What if from a country one sub-population kept producing the world class athletes, and from the world one region kept producing the best world-class runners? In a sport in which the whole world attempts to compete in? Doesn't that tell you something about that sub-population? About that region?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It can, but you completely miss out from that potential by angling for wholly simplistic causes that you would like to believe and refuse to drop if they are shown not to actually be proven as strongly as you WANT them to be.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It can, but you completely miss out from that potential by angling for wholly simplistic causes that you would like to believe and refuse to drop if they are shown not to actually be proven as strongly as you WANT them to be.
Just because something is simplistic doesn't mean it isn't true. Why would I want to believe that the human races differ in important ways? It's an uncomfortable and awkward truth, especially for myself, as I am a black African. *I* don't benefit from such facts in any way, but truth is truth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clive: probably not more than another thousand years or so. As I said before, it doesn't take much interaction (and there were plenty of people interacting with the Americas and with Australia) to lead to genetic mixing. Most of the time would be time for the genetic heritage to spread across the more isolated places in the Americas/Australia after being introduced, I suspect.
Of course, it would also have to be the case that Europeans studiously avoided flying anywhere near Australia/the Americas. If you're imagining a modern world where there are still nations there that interact with everyone, just they're mostly populated with descendants of native americans/aborigines, then I don't think that would push things back at all. There would still have been copious genetic exchange.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hur, hur. She said "genetic exchange". Heh, heh.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
She? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Shush you, you mentioner of "copious genetic exchange!" Don't you know that this is a family forum?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Please explain why East Africans can't seem to win short distance events and West African can't seem to win long distance events.
Even if differences in running among the tiny number of world-class runners were well-correlated with genetics, that doesn't tell you anything about whether or not genetics contributes significantly to the variation seen across the population of the whole country, or the world.
What if from a country one sub-population kept producing the world class athletes, and from the world one region kept producing the best world-class runners? In a sport in which the whole world attempts to compete in? Doesn't that tell you something about that sub-population? About that region?
No. At most it would tell me
1) This particular allele correlates strongly with the fastest times among the most elite runners.
2) This allele happenes to be more common in a certain small population than it is in the species as a whole.
Your "selection is everything!!!!1111" thinking of evolution is decades out of date. Those alleles could be concentrated in those populations by chance alone, just due to genetic drift.
And that still says nothing about genetic contributions to anything in the general population.
I'm perfectly willing to grant that there are strong QTLs for fast running times among the msot elite runners. You show the studies where the QTLs are just as strong in the general population for running, or better yet, the psychological measures that you brought up in the first place, and then we'll have some facts.
But expecting everyone to extrapolate from a directly physical QTL among a tiny sub-population, and conclude something about a much less straightforward phenotype among a whole country full of people is ridiculous.
So let the Pubmed links roll. Heck, the more ambitious among us can follow along with you and your analysis of the studies and data with R/QTL. I've been meaning to mess around with that software some more, this would be a fine opportunity.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
AS much as I love dogs, I have to say that this is your problem. People aren't dogs, and individual breeds are easily identified and categorized.
People are far more complex, as are the issues you are addressing. Simple doesn't mean correct, or even close.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have a question for you, one that illuminates the entire problem with your approach, Mal.
What is the average vertical leap of an African American, and of an "average white guy"? Hell, what is an average white guy? What nationality? Because if your point IS correct, there should also be significant differences between nationalities of white people. The Scottish ancestors I have were minors and tenant farmers for at LEAST as many generations as we had slaves in this country.
You don't know, not without looking it up. I would bet on it, even if you don't admit it here.
Yet you have no problem stating facts you aren't sure of, based on racial stereotypes that aren't valid, with no way of measuring your results, and claiming it as fact.
This is not right, scientific, or even sensible.
It's complete bullshit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Just because something is simplistic doesn't mean it isn't true.
Right! And did you catch the important part where you don't drop the simplistic causes you hinge on, when they turn out not to be true?
You saw that, right? Do you stop reading other people's posts halfway through?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I think he does, because he never seems to get all the way through someone's argument before he refutes it by making exactly the same suggestion the person has just gotten done saying is stupid and wrong. It would be well explained if you just assumed he never read more than half a post. ETA: well that's not very fair, maybe he just skims things. At one point he got aggity about my choosing an example that fit perfectly with my point. He said I "cherry-picked" it- as if I was supposed to a choose an example that didn't represent the phenomenon I was talking about in a clear way.
So, we have learned that A) Theories extrapolated from loosely related and generalized observations and tailored to fit preconceptions in an ad-hoc fashion are valid unless proven false (and even then, probably they're still true), and B) specific examples that add weight to any alternate theory are invalid, because they fit too well, and anyway they seem to invalidate "the logical theory," and so are obviously not meaningful.
I think were beneficial to his view of himself, Clive could accept and work up a defense of the theory that the moon is made of cheese.
"Your dismissal of the theory is shallow and leftist, you accept anything the scientific dogmatists throw at you! But the moon appears similar to cheese, and I have not myself been on it. Isn't it therefore logical to assume that perhaps there is some cheese content in the moon? If you can explain to me why the presence of cheese would cause the moon to stop orbiting the Earth, it might lend some credence to your theory, but as things are, you have given no credible reason why there CAN'T be cheese in the moon, and clearly because the moon looks cheesy, my theory that it is made of cheese and is therefore edible and an excellent natural resource is perfectly valid. Clearly Nasa cherry-picked a landing spot without as much cheese in the vicinity- but the recent rocket landings on the moon showed water, which is consistent with cheese... "
[ December 05, 2009, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, I think he does, because he never seems to get all the way through someone's argument before he refutes it by making exactly the same suggestion the person has just gotten done saying is stupid and wrong. It would be well explained if you just assumed he never read more than half a post. ETA: well that's not very fair, maybe he just skims things. At one point he got aggity about my choosing an example that fit perfectly with my point. He said I "cherry-picked" it- as if I was supposed to a choose an example that didn't represent the phenomenon I was talking about in a clear way.
Just because you claim assertions to be stupid and wrong doesn't make them so.
I got agitated about you choosing what is a specific sports phenomenon that has a cultural explanation and assuming somehow my assertions conflicted with it. It was glaringly poor reasoning, because I never claimed "every instance of a sport being dominated by an ethnicity, or a sport not having significant representations of ethnicity X, can be explained by genetics." Your point about Cuban boxers would have been a perfect refutation of the latter claim but you seem to have trouble distinguishing between what was and was not actually claimed.
quote: So, we have learned that A) Theories extrapolated from loosely related and generalized observations and tailored to fit preconceptions
What preconceptions?
quote: I think were beneficial to his view of himself, Clive could accept and work up a defense of the theory that the moon is made of cheese.
"I can't refute what he's saying, so I'll just make up a clearly bad argument and say his argument is just like that. Strawman? Pffft."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Clive, I just want to say that I am very aware that common sense shows that East Africans and West Africans, on average, have different levels of genetic ability for short versus long distance running. Any fool can see that.
What you're missing, or not saying, is that the IQ data doesn't support the conclusion that blacks are, on average, not as smart, as far as general intelligence.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
I actually think this is a really interesting concept. There definitely are varying physical characteristics between races, so it's not incomprehensible to think that there are varying psychological ones as well.
I guess the problem with this whole area of thought is that it always gets tied up in the IQ factor and is used to justify racism. If we can get beyond that and actually explore other psychological traits of races, beyond the "who is better" debate, I would be very interested in the results of that research. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon in our political climate... race is too much of a contentious issue and it will be for a long time.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
The problem with this whole area of thought is that biological races don't exist in humans.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There is, no doubt, some hypothetical point at which genetic superiority overcomes any amount of generalized "human potential;" the question of whether or not that point will ever be reached is an open one.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)