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?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A racist, tired, discredited, bad science argument is a stupid argument no matter who makes it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are welcome to retread a racist 100-year-old theory on your own. I am not interested in feeding stupid trolls.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should his article be discounted because of the false statement in the opening paragraph? Yes.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That he is so poor a researcher he thinks that was the first mention instead of the 1000th doesn't improve his credibility.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
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]
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is bad science. It has been discredited for decades. You are wistfully wanting science to justify your racism.
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
