NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it is. I believe that people who explicitly look to science (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php) to make various claims, (such as "asians are smarter" or "blacks are dumber") correlating IQ and the concept of race, are themselves perpetuating (whether knowingly or unintentionally) bigotry and racism.

In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming
portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics
is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis.
They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree
as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to
other constructs must be tentative at best. They further
argue that race is a social construction with no scientific
definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race
and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot
serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively
linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling
genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this
time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic
concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such
a link.

Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf

During the last hundred years, the debate over the meaning
of race has retained a highly consistent core, despite evolution
of the technical details. Non-Europeans, and in
particular, Africans, are assigned the role of deviants and
outcasts, whose claim on our common humanity remains in
doubt. Each time the technical facade of these racialist
arguments is destroyed, the latest jargon and half-truths
from the margins of science are used to rebuild them
around the same core belief in Black inferiority. Because
race is in part a genetic concept, the advent of molecular
DNA technology has opened an important new chapter in
this story. Unfortunately, the article by D. Rowe (2005, this
issue) begins from mistaken premises and merely restates
the racialist view using the terminology of molecular genetics.
No technology—even the awe-inspiring tools now
available to DNA science—can overcome the handicap of
fundamental conceptual errors. Race is not a concept that
emerged from within modern genetics; rather, it was imposed
by history, and its meaning is inseparable from that
cultural origin. By ignoring its cultural meaning the reductionist
narrative about race fails— both in the narrow
terms of science and as a contribution to the broader social
discourse.

Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60171.pdf

The question "What portion of the 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites is genetic?" simply makes no sense. To begin with, the empirical gap is currently substantially less than that. Moreover, with the exception of Herrnstein and Murray, few investigators have ever suggested that the entire gap might be genetic in nature. Jensen, one of the best-known proponents of the view of European genetic superiority, estimates that the genetic gap is about seven points [ref.]. As Block (1995) has suggested, the reference point should not be a gap of 15 points or any other specific figure. Rather, it makes more sense to ask how far, and in what direction, the genetically-based difference between the races differs from zero.
If in fact it makes sense to ask the genetic question at all. All evidence points to two extraordinarily important conclusions. First, if there are genetically-determined differences between the races in IQ, they are not sufficiently large to show up with any regularity in studies with a wide range of methodologies.

Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

I agree.

Man it's quiet in here. Can you hear the echo?
...hear the echo...

Whether or not the methods are racist, the motivation behind such research is.

Whether or not the methods are racist, the motivation behind such research is.

If the motivation behind such research is racist, wouldn't you say that puts a strong researcher bias that would inevitably skew the results?

It seeks to show a correlation, and trys to distinguish between the races, so that is racist research. However, in this case, I don't think that it is wrong or immoral.

If the motivation behind such research is racist, wouldn't you say that puts a strong researcher bias that would inevitably skew the results?
Not inevitable, but likely.

I think researchers can be racist, and I think studies can be designed with bias, and I think results can be interpreted selectively, but these are human entanglements. The research itself is not racist, the motives behind it might be.

I think researchers can be racist, and I think studies can be designed with bias, and I think results can be interpreted selectively, but these are human entanglements. The research itself is not racist, the motives behind it might be.

Well... research isn't anything BUT studies, researchers, interpretations, and human entanglements.

I think researchers can be racist, and I think studies can be designed with bias, and I think results can be interpreted selectively, but these are human entanglements. The research itself is not racist, the motives behind it might be.
A distinction without a difference.

All researchers, being human beings, have some kind of bias going into their work. The test of a good researcher is their ability to put aside their personal bias and follow the data, even if it contradicts their prior personal beliefs/expectations. If a researcher is so biased that he will shape his methods to support it and/or manipulate or cherry pick data, then the results are as worthless as if they were entirely fictitious.

This is why there is such a thing as peer review. This is also why anyone who posts data from a questionable or controversial source must be prepared to account for the controversy and to present corroborating data from a different source.

Well, firstly, IQ is not a reliable measure of intelligence. Secondly, I do believe that the motivation of the research would invariably influence sample selection and so on.

So whether or not you call it 'racist' is irrelevant. It's simply invalid.

In re the OP:

Yes, the studies you are talking about are clearly racist, both in their results and, in this case, the motivation of the researchers.

The study of human biology/physiology has been so affected by racism and other social prejudices over such a long period of time, that, in my opinion, all studies have to be double- and even triple-checked to make sure they are providing proper, usable data.

Not necessarily racist.

I prefer not to label any serious attempt at researching a topic racist, regardless of how distasteful the subject matter is. Science should not be censored according to the subject material, but nevertheless should also demand that those pursuing any kind of research submit their work to rigorous review and testing.

Pseudoscience is one of the biggest threats to legitimate research; it is better to allow people to pursue controversial "theories" and debunk or verify them through rigorous review and testing than to allow them to float around unaddressed and masquerade as legitimate works.

This applies to anything, be it race/intelligence and eugenics or cancer research and particle physics.

I prefer not to label any serious attempt at researching a topic racist, regardless of how distasteful the subject matter is. Science should not be censored according to the subject material, but nevertheless should also demand that those pursuing any kind of research submit their work to rigorous review and testing.

Pseudoscience is one of the biggest threats to legitimate research; it is better to allow people to pursue controversial "theories" and debunk or verify them through rigorous review and testing than to allow them to float around unaddressed and masquerade as legitimate works.

This applies to anything, be it race/intelligence and eugenics or cancer research and particle physics.
Well said.

"They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition."

EXACTLY! :)

There is much in the I/O literature regarding group differences on cognitive ability test score. The basis behind this is not racist, it is legal.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, and various court cases since then (Griggs v. Duke Power 1971 being the prominent example) have led us to the notion of Adverse Impact. This is when a selection decision, based on some hiring criteria, adversely affects one protected class relative to another. In such cases, companies can be held liable for discrimination, even when that was not the intent, as the selection rates are different fom one group to the next.

This ties into intelligence testing because cognitive ability has be shown to be one of the best predictors of job performance for a wide variety of jobs. This has led to a plethora of research into group differences in test scores in intelligence.

While the correlations between these test scores and performance are the same for both groups, the mean scores are not. Depending on where the cut-score is set, adverse impact can be the result (different selection rates). How best to avoid this?

Therefore, much of this reasearch that you call racist is actually stemming from civil rights legislation and case law and the need to understand this phemomenon to reduce adverse impact (or unintended discrimination in hiring). Adverse impact needs to be balanced agaist the need to hire the best people for the job. These researchers and companies would be overjoyed if this difference went away or some predicitve congitive ability test were developed without differing scores.

For most of this research, the motivation is not racist. While it may not be fully understood, to cease this research guarantees no improvement in result.

*snip*
Informative. Thanks.

Informative. Thanks.

Hey, no prob. Lots more on that subject, but no need to be even more boring. Did my masters thesis on a new way to assess AI.

I prefer not to label any serious attempt at researching a topic racist, regardless of how distasteful the subject matter is. Science should not be censored according to the subject material, but nevertheless should also demand that those pursuing any kind of research submit their work to rigorous review and testing.

Pseudoscience is one of the biggest threats to legitimate research; it is better to allow people to pursue controversial "theories" and debunk or verify them through rigorous review and testing than to allow them to float around unaddressed and masquerade as legitimate works.

This applies to anything, be it race/intelligence and eugenics or cancer research and particle physics.


Agreed. With the whole post, but specifically the text I placed in Bold. I can't defend every study (haven't read 'em all and I'm sure there are some pretty bad ones), but there has been alot of genuine and solid research here.

What a pointless and subjective exercise that "research" would be.

Even if you could find an objective, unbiased and measurable standard of "intelligence" it would still be impossible to control for environmental factors. Why not just measure people's skulls and correlate it to IQ scores?

"Race" doesn't tell you anything about anyone except maybe which continent (some of) their ancestors happened to live on.

What a pointless and subjective exercise that "research" would be.

Even if you could find an objective, unbiased and measurable standard of "intelligence" it would still be impossible to control for environmental factors. Why not just measure people's skulls and correlate it to IQ scores?

"Race" doesn't tell you anything about anyone except maybe which continent (some of) their ancestors happened to live on.
Try reading what John Galts Vision posted.

Try reading what John Galts Vision posted.

I did

I did
Perhaps you misunderstand it then. It shows a very clear motive for such research.

Well, firstly, IQ is not a reliable measure of intelligence. Secondly, I do believe that the motivation of the research would invariably influence sample selection and so on.

So whether or not you call it 'racist' is irrelevant. It's simply invalid.
That's the key.

Although I believe that IQ is an outdated system, I don't think this research is racist. It's only perceived as racist because whites get higher scores than blacks. If blacks were getting higher scores, this would be taught in every high school psychology class in the Western world.

In order to do any research about different "races", one must first assume that such constructs actually exist. Those who have researched the question of the existence of different human races have found that there is not enough biological difference between the groups that society often labels as "races" to biologically classify them as such. Thus, an assumption that there are different races is, from the very beginning, a flawed assumption - which means that the study is flawed.

There have been groups of human beings that have been fairly genetically isolated for long enough to develop some traits that are more or less common in their populations, but they have not been genetically isolated enough to develop the amount of difference necessary to classify them as separate races.

Agreed. With the whole post, but specifically the text I placed in Bold. I can't defend every study (haven't read 'em all and I'm sure there are some pretty bad ones), but there has been alot of genuine and solid research here.

The researchers should submit it to a rigorous peer review and testing, and if their work is deemed scientifically valid then it should be pursued further. It is not a wise policy to automatically reject things based upon their subject matter; the key to science is to test and logically examine hypotheses and to see if they are valid enough to proceed further as theories.

You're just as likely to lose new discoveries as you are to stop the proliferation of bad science if you automatically dismiss work without reviewing it and debunking or verifying it. Science should not use emotion to determine whether something is valid or not; doing that leads inevitably to more and more deeply entrenched pseudoscience and the creation of conspiracy theories that weaken the ability of science to debunk things even under rigorous testing and objective review.

*snip*
Indeed. Whatever a scientist's personal views, beliefs and opinions, he/she must remain utterly objective in the conduct of his/her research. Likewise, the work should be objectively reviewed.

It does seem that when any such research is done, fairly soon another slew of research gets the opposite results. So the research itself seems biased...

However, when dealing with IQ tests, the problems are myriad. For instance, when Koko (the gorilla who learned sign language) was given an IQ test, one of the questions was "What do you do when there is a thunder storm?" Koko answered "Climb a tree" which made perfect sense for Koko, for whom the shelter of a tree is the ideal place to seek refuge, but was scored as wrong, because humans are taught to stay away from trees when there is lightning. It has been demonstrated that IQ tests are culturally biased, and so are a very inaccurate standard of measurement. And it has been demonstrated that some people who are very intelligent do not test well, which further skews the results.

With the tests themselves being so unreliable, it is difficult to assess the data they generate. So, what may be said is that perhaps certain races do not score as high on IQ tests, but that doesn't mean anything about what their actual intelligence is.

Even if you could find an objective, unbiased and measurable standard of "intelligence" it would still be impossible to control for environmental factors. Why not just measure people's skulls and correlate it to IQ scores?

I win! Oh wait, are you talking about thickness or overall size?

We can't measure intelligence as such, but we can measure people's performance on I.Q. tests and that appears to be correlated enough with what a majority of people would call intelligence to serve as a stand in for it for some rough purposes. If the only thing you knew about 2 prospective employees was their IQ test results you should probably pick the one with the higher result as high IQ test scores are correlated with good job performance. However, in actual fact the high IQ person could be a lazy incompetant bully who will end up costing your company money while the lower IQ person might be hard working and friendly. Even if IQ results can be correlated to physical features it would be a great mistake to judge a group of people based on this. Even if you know that male people with green eyes have lower average IQ than women with blue eyes, it pretty much tells you nothing about a particular green eyed man.

Another thing to point out concerning such research: Even if we had an accurate test of intelligence and actual biological races to correlate to it - correlation does not equate to causality. If people of a given ethnicity tend to have lower scores on a given test, regardless of what that test does or does not tell us, this does not mean that the lower scores are actually due to the genetic background of those taking the test.

An interesting little tidbit: Phone usage correlates almost perfectly with the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Nearly everyone who has cardiovascular disease has used a phone and nearly everyone who has used a phone will, at some point in their lives, have cardiovascular disease. This correlation is actually much better than the correlations with high cholesterol, smoking, etc. - risk factors typically associated with such disease. Does this mean that phone usage causes cardiovascular disease?

Perhaps you misunderstand it then. It shows a very clear motive for such research.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Galt but I understood that the research is carried out so that racial quotas can be maintained in accordance with the civil rights act? In otherwords to design a test to produce a predetermined outcome? However well intentioned I believe it is misguided and futile.

Whatever a scientist's personal views, beliefs and opinions, he/she must remain utterly objective in the course of his/her research.

I don't believe this is possible in the social sciences.

We all have a individual outlook on life which is the summation of our upbringing, environment, personality, genetics etc..

Well racist in the respect it uses race to draw lines ... but not so in the way of being discriminitory really

Either way I think I voted wrong lol

Although I believe that IQ is an outdated system, I don't think this research is racist. It's only perceived as racist because whites get higher scores than blacks. If blacks were getting higher scores, this would be taught in every high school psychology class in the Western world.
Actually, East Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests. That fact isn't taught in High School Psycology either.

The problem is that both ideas of "race" and intelligence are so difficult to define, that any study that attempting to find a correlation between them is currently unachievable.

The difficulty in defining race stems not only from the rediculously small genetic differences between races but also from the fact that such differences are not consistant. A randomly selected black man could easily be genetically closer to me than a randomly selected white man.

The difficulty in defining intelligence arises because of several factors. Just to illustrate this difficulty, here's a little fact: Whites that score in the mildly retarded range on IQ tests (slightly below 70) tend to be truly socially handicapped. Blacks with such scores, on the other hand, tend to function much more normally within society.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Galt but I understood that the research is carried out so that racial quotas can be maintained in accordance with the civil rights act? In otherwords to design a test to produce a predetermined outcome? However well intentioned I believe it is misguided and futile.
It at least shows that the motivation is not necessarily racist.

I don't believe this is possible in the social sciences.

We all have a individual outlook on life which is the summation of our upbringing, environment, personality, genetics etc..
Biology is not a social science.

The difficulty in defining race stems not only from the rediculously small genetic differences between races but also from the fact that such differences are not consistant. A randomly selected black man could easily be genetically closer to me than a randomly selected white man.

Interestingly enough, the fact that this is incredibly likely to be true means that you are not truly a different biological race from that person. In order for biology to group people into separate races, they would have had to have been genetically isolated long enough so that we could tell from the differences in genetics what race they belonged to.


Biology is not a social science.

No, it isn't. But the groupings we generally refer to as "races" are much more social constructs than biological ones.

It seems a lot of people think that "race" means "genetic difference." No wonder these threads can get confusing.

-snip-

The difficulty in defining intelligence arises because of several factors. Just to illustrate this difficulty, here's a little fact: Whites that score in the mildly retarded range on IQ tests (slightly below 70) tend to be truly socially handicapped. Blacks with such scores, on the other hand, tend to function much more normally within society.



LoL. *bites tongue*

I think it is. I believe that people who explicitly look to science (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php) to make various claims, (such as "asians are smarter" or "blacks are dumber") correlating IQ and the concept of race, are themselves perpetuating (whether knowingly or unintentionally) bigotry and racism.



Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf


Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60171.pdf



Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf

I wouldn't say it's racist. Rather it's bad science. "Race" experements are based either on self selection of race by the individual or superficial and highly subjective observer selection. Neither is a valid means of distinguishing "races".

An intelligence experement conducted on rats wouldn't be valid if the rats self selected. Nor would it be valid if two observers selected on superficial and highly subjective grounds and came up with different classifications (which is the case with "race").

Edit for a better example: In a study on asthma, if the researcher simply classifies the patients as symptomatic and asymptomatic on the basis of their appearance, or simply asks the patients to choose a group, would the study be valid?

I'll leave the question of whether "bad science" is a legitimate pursuit to Vetalia, and the others discussing it, as they are doing a good job. ;)

It at least shows that the motivation is not necessarily racist.

Well we could start arguing semantics but while the intention may be benign it is racist by definition. People are being categorised based on their "race" (skin colour more or less) rather then some other criteria.

As regards IQ tests the number of books in your home might be a better predictor of performance then anything else.

Race and intelligence are probably both factors of environment.

People who live in temperamental, hot, deleterious environments tend to have darker skin, and more importantly, may tend to not be as intelligent due to the fact that for thousands of generations they've been too busy contending with the elements in order to survive to develop in other areas of life.
Examples: African tribes, aboriginal tribes, Amazon tribes

This is the distinguishing characteristic between hunter/gatherers and farmers. After many millennia, we might have to consider that there is some discrepancy that has developed between people who have been hunter/gatherers from the dawn of mankind and people who have developed into farmers.

This isn't "racist", it's unsavory scientific data, which seems, unfortunately, to be proven as fact due to statistical correlations between race and IQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_IQ

What distinguishes people is their reaction to this data.
Instead of promoting ideas of inferiority or spreading intolerance, what people should be doing is attempting to make environments all over the world hospitable to the people who live there… That way a region's inhabitants will be able to spend more time developing and spend less time fending for survival.

Simply put, to write off scientific data as “racist” and brush it under the table simply because you don’t find it palatable is immature and equally crude.

Before you jump all over me, look at my fucking sig.
I'm not "conservative", I'm not a "Nazi", I'm not a "racist."

I'm simply a liberal who's willing to use reasoning in conjunction with empathy.

You give me scientific proof: I will read it without presupposition or bias, no matter how unfortunate or detestable I might find the data to be due to the ethos I was raised with.

Race and intelligence are probably both factors of environment.

People who live in temperamental, hot, deleterious environments tend to have darker skin, and more importantly, may tend to not be as intelligent due to the fact that for thousands of generations they've been too busy contending with the elements in order to survive to develop in other areas of life.
Examples: African tribes, aboriginal tribes, Amazon tribes

This is the distinguishing characteristic between hunter/gatherers and farmers. After many millennia, we might have to consider that there is some discrepancy that has developed between people who have been hunter/gatherers from the dawn of mankind and people who have developed into farmers.

This isn't "racist", it's unsavory scientific data, which seems, unfortunately, to be proven as fact due to statistical correlations between race and IQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_IQ

What distinguishes people is their reaction to this data.
Instead of promoting ideas of inferiority or spreading intolerance, what people should be doing is attempting to make environments all over the world hospitable to the people who live there… That way a region's inhabitants will be able to spend more time developing and spend less time fending for survival.

Simply put, to write off scientific data as “racist” and brush it under the table simply because you don’t find it palatable is immature and equally crude.

The problem with all that is whether "race" even exists as a biological reality.

I think that in the current climate it is too inflammatory to study.
I dont think any subject should be forever banned from study. But Id say any legitimate attempt to study any trait on the basis of race should wait until it is no longer taboo and likely to set people off.No matter which races are being studied. The main exceptions to this in my mind are in the field of medicine in instances where a given race is more likely to have a given ailment than another race.

I think that generally people have become so sensitive about the subject of studying racial differences that any knowlege gleaned from studies would be outweighed by the public outcries. I think we are nearly on the verge of the same public sensitivity and outrage regarding studies exploring differences between male and female humans. Possibly over the line if a study showed unpopular results.

I think it is. I believe that people who explicitly look to science (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php) to make various claims, (such as "asians are smarter" or "blacks are dumber") correlating IQ and the concept of race, are themselves perpetuating (whether knowingly or unintentionally) bigotry and racism.



Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf



Source: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60171.pdf



Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf
the study to see if "Intelligence is Genetic/Racial" isn't Racist. what they do with the information is the deciding factor.

would be interesting to see their control group and what methods they are using.

For the data to be honest and pure, the subjects must be equal in all footings, social standing, type of friends, economic stability... a student who has to work to help support their family obviously won't be able to study as much as one who doesn't have to. A student who spends his time playing and hanging out with friends again won't study as a geek or nerd who has no friends.

The problem with all that is whether "race" even exists as a biological reality.

Although race isn't a biological reality, that doesn't detract from the fact that the situation appears to indicate that there are discrepancies between the average intelligence of various ethnic groups (i.e. people who can be distinguished by physical appearance/characteristics.)

This will lead to problems, and, as such, has to be addressed.

If you truly don't believe in race or ethnicity however, then I suppose you shouldn't care about the related socioeconomic differences that mark racial/ethnic groups as well. So once again, it’s actually imperative that those of us who consider ourselves to be “liberal” address the issue head on, rather than hiding away from the facts presented to us and disregarding it as "racist."

Race and intelligence are probably both factors of environment.

People who live in temperamental, hot, deleterious environments tend to have darker skin, and more importantly, may tend to not be as intelligent due to the fact that for thousands of generations they've been too busy contending with the elements in order to survive to develop in other areas of life.
Examples: African tribes, aboriginal tribes, Amazon tribes

This is the distinguishing characteristic between hunter/gatherers and farmers. After many millennia, we might have to consider that there is some discrepancy that has developed between people who have been hunter/gatherers from the dawn of mankind and people who have developed into farmers.

Say what? Human beings developed intelligence in order to deal with their environment. If you read Jared Diamond you will see that he speculates Australian Aborigines and other hunter/gatherers are likely to be genetically more intelligent than Europeans for precisely the same reason you say they should be less intelligent. It takes more brains to hunt dozens of different animals and use hundreds of different kinds of plants than it takes for a farmer to grow just a few different varieties. Also hunter/gatherers suffer from less disease due to their low population densities. Agriculturalists have high population densities which means more disease which means they have more selection pressure on their immune systems than on their intelligence. Of course one could theorize that Agriculturalists have adapted to working better in large groups, but that's not intelligence as it's commonly thought of, that's social behaviour.

I think that in the current climate it is too inflammatory to study.
I dont think any subject should be forever banned from study. But Id say any legitimate attempt to study any trait on the basis of race should wait until it is no longer taboo and likely to set people off.No matter which races are being studied. The main exceptions to this in my mind are in the field of medicine in instances where a given race is more likely to have a given ailment than another race.

I think that generally people have become so sensitive about the subject of studying racial differences that any knowlege gleaned from studies would be outweighed by the public outcries. I think we are nearly on the verge of the same public sensitivity and outrage regarding studies exploring differences between male and female humans. Possibly over the line if a study showed unpopular results.

Absolutely not!
Rule of Science #1: Fuck public outcry
We'd still believe in heliocentrism, flat earth, creationism, etc. if scientists kowtowed to fears of public outcry.

More importantly, the whole reason that race is such a sensitive issue is because these discrepancies are so painfully apparent. How the hell are we supposed to solve problems of socioeconomic discrepancies between races/ethnicities if we can't even address it?

Although race isn't a biological reality, that doesn't detract from the fact that the situation appears to indicate that there are discrepancies between the average intelligence of various ethnic groups (i.e. people who can be distinguished by physical appearance/characteristics.)

This will lead to problems, and, as such, has to be addressed.

If you truly don't believe in race or ethnicity however, then I suppose you shouldn't care about the related socioeconomic differences that mark racial/ethnic groups as well. So once again, it’s actually imperative that those of us who consider ourselves to be “liberal” address the issue head on, rather than hiding away from the facts presented to us and disregarding it as "racist."

You've just confused ethnicity, a cultural concept, with race, a biological concept.

I do believe that, at the moment, there are IQ differences between the "traditional" races. I also belive that these differences are not genetic, but environemental. Further, my "belief" is founded upon reading a good number of studies on this matter, so it's more of a knoledge than a simple belief.

Not making any IQ studies corelated with the subjects' race will not make the differences magically dissappear, since ignoring a problem will not make it go away. As long as, after making the study, we use its results to adress the problem, not to continue discriminating, everything should be fine. Actually, more than fine, since the study will then have a very positive outcome, making people aware that a problem exists and it should be adressed.

Say what? Human being developed intelligence in order to deal with their environment. If you read Jared Diamond you will see that he speculates Australian Aborigines and other hunter/gatherers are likely to be genetically more intelligent than Europeans for precisely the same reason you say they should be less intelligent. It takes more brains to hunt dozens of different animals and use hundreds of different kinds of plants than it takes for a farmer to grow just a few different varieties. Also hunter/gatherers suffer from less disease due to their low population densities. Agriculturalists have high population densities which means more disease which means they have more selection pressure on their immune systems than on their intelligence. Of course one could theorize that Agriculturalists have adapted to working better in large groups, but that's not intelligence as it's commonly thought of, that's social behaviour.

Excellent points. Maybe that's true... but that still doesn't explain the results. :(

I'd still argue that they probably wouldn't have the abilities necessary to do well on an IQ test, nor would they be able keep up in the industrialized society we've fabricated for ourselves.

You've just confused ethnicity, a cultural concept, with race, a biological concept.

Are you sure Race is a biological concept rather then a sociological construct?
How is race defined in Biology?

You've just confused ethnicity, a cultural concept, with race, a biological concept.

Yes, but since "race" for humans is, as you said, possibly hypothetical, I'd argue the terms can be used interchangeably. That's why we're willing to consider "Hispanic" a race, even though anthropological tradition dictates that there are only three races and "Hispanic" is an ethnicity.
Furthermore, if you look at the studies, they make distinctions that include other ethnicities as well.

Is not a person's intelligence related more to his upbringing and exposure and family traditions and cultural traditions (nurture?) than genetic?

I mean, if you take an Indian/east Asian/Jew/white/supposedly high IQ "race" child and grow him up in aboriginal Australia/kalahari desert/Amazonian forests - how the hell will he score high in IQ tests?

Given that measuring intelligence by IQ tests (the ones currently in vogue anyway) is itself a fuzzy concept and "race" as a genetic concept is even more fuzzier - I would not take any studies that correlates IQ with race seriously.

Is not a person's intelligence related more to his upbringing and exposure and family traditions and cultural traditions (nurture?) than genetic?

I mean, if you take an Indian/east Asian/Jew/white/supposedly high IQ "race" child and grow him up in aboriginal Australia/kalahari desert/Amazonian forests - how the hell will he score high in IQ tests?

Given that measuring intelligence by IQ tests (the ones currently in vogue anyway) is itself a fuzzy concept and "race" as a genetic concept is even more fuzzier - I would not take any studies that correlates IQ with race seriously.

The idea that environment is a major factor is an excellent point, though most scientists seem to be of the opinion that genetics is of higher importance in this issue.

The idea that IQ tests are flawed and that race/ethnicity and IQ aren't related is unlikely, since, as stated, the discrepancies in socioeconomic status and crime rates, not to mention the stereotypes that exist and lack of high-profile counterexamples to the claims, seems to indicate that a correlation does exist.

Are you sure Race is a biological concept rather then a sociological construct?
How is race defined in Biology?

And here we find the root of the problem - the scientific usage and the common usage. Yes, race is a biological taxon, usually called sub-species. A race is defined as a population of a species that has definite distinctive morphological differences that are not on a cline and that can interbreed but generally don't due to geographic isolation. In laymans terms, races look really different, there is a sharp and distinctive transition in the appearance instaed of a gradual transition, and the populations can reproduce but they're isolated enough that they don't have enough contact to do so regularly.

Ethnicity is a anthropological concept, and stems from cultural.


You've just confused ethnicity, a cultural concept, with race, a biological concept.

Yes, but since "race" for humans is, as you said, possibly hypothetical, I'd argue the terms can be used interchangeably. That's why we're willing to consider "Hispanic" a race, even though anthropological tradition dictates that there are only three races and "Hispanic" is an ethnicity.
Furthermore, if you look at the studies, they make distinctions that include other ethnicities as well.

See the above for the reasons they can't. There are certainly many more ethnicities than three.

Is not a person's intelligence related more to his upbringing and exposure and family traditions and cultural traditions (nurture?) than genetic?

I mean, if you take an Indian/east Asian/Jew/white/supposedly high IQ "race" child and grow him up in aboriginal Australia/kalahari desert/Amazonian forests - how the hell will he score high in IQ tests?

Given that measuring intelligence by IQ tests (the ones currently in vogue anyway) is itself a fuzzy concept and "race" as a genetic concept is even more fuzzier - I would not take any studies that correlates IQ with race seriously.

Exactly so. Add in the problems of identifying and grouping "races", and you'll see why I have problems with the scientific validity of such studies.

And here we find the root of the problem - the scientific usage and the common usage. Yes, race is a biological taxon, usually called sub-species. A race is defined as a population of a species that has definite distinctive morphological differences that are not on a cline and that can interbreed but generally don't due to geographic isolation. In laymans terms, races look really different, there is a sharp and distinctive transition in the appearance instaed of a gradual transition, and the populations can reproduce but they're isolated enough that they don't have enough contact to do so regularly.

Ethnicity is a anthropological concept, and stems from cultural.

See the above for the reasons they can't. There are certainly many more ethnicities than three.

I said that there are three races (which I was wrong about, I always forget about Australoid and that Negroid is subdivided into Congoid and Capoid.)

Furthermore, the article I read did distinguish between ethnicities, mentioning "Hispanics", "Ashkenazi Jews", "East Asians", and "Native Americans."

Absolutely not!
Rule of Science #1: Fuck public outcry
We'd still believe in heliocentrism, flat earth, creationism, etc. if scientists kowtowed to fears of public outcry.

More importantly, the whole reason that race is such a sensitive issue is because these discrepancies are so painfully apparent. How the hell are we supposed to solve problems of socioeconomic discrepancies between races/ethnicities if we can't even address it?

You are speaking of how research should be performed if people were rational.

They are not. Crying out that people should be rational and fair will not make it so. It will merely shut down the flow of research funds to whatever project a complainer is involved in. Like it or not gue to logistics funding and politics (both inside and outside the scientific community) scientific research is not done anywhere near as purely as it should be. You have to do the best you can with the cards you are dealt. And there is alot that can be done. But not by merely avoiding unpleasant facts of policy driven funding for research.

Michael Crichton did a good job of describing the pitfalls of being an Earth scientist here

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

When you consider that it was the Left that first pushed the concept of IQ testing I can't help but become amused at their more recent attempts to denounce the idea. That said, I don't see research on this subject as racist so much as merely lame. Race is definitely biological in nature and those who deny that simple fact merely make themselves look silly. That said, such results are meaningless for 2 simple reasons.

1. First and foremost in all matters of intelligence the individual is everything and the group is nothing. Your race is not you and how your race does on average has nothing to do with how *you* do. You stand or fall on your own merits or else you will never stand. That is why collectivist thinking is intellectually and morally bankrupt. :)

2. While race is a legitimate biological classification it is still too large a category to be a useful diagnostic by itself. Serious research would then have to target specific genomes within those categories and since those who pursue this research are mostly shrinks rather than real scientists such as geneticists I doubt any of these n00bs have the skilz necessary to seperate T-Rex from a c4t. :rolleyes:

So once again, I don't consider this research racist I merely consider it lame and a license to laugh at shrinks and leftists alike. ;)

When you consider that it was the Left that first pushed the concept of IQ testing I can't help but become amused at their more recent attempts to denounce the idea.

The left? I thought the army was the first to employ large scale intelligence testing? But then when you think about it, the army is pretty socialist. I mean they do have a command economy. Is this what you mean by left?

When you consider that it was the Left that first pushed the concept of IQ testing I can't help but become amused at their more recent attempts to denounce the idea. That said, I don't see research on this subject as racist so much as merely lame. Race is definitely biological in nature and those who deny that simple fact merely make themselves look silly. That said, such results are meaningless for 2 simple reasons.

1. First and foremost in all matters of intelligence the individual is everything and the group is nothing. Your race is not you and how your race does on average has nothing to do with how *you* do. You stand or fall on your own merits or else you will never stand. That is why collectivist thinking is intellectually and morally bankrupt. :)

2. While race is a legitimate biological classification it is still too large a category to be a useful diagnostic by itself. Serious research would then have to target specific genomes within those categories and since those who pursue this research are mostly shrinks rather than real scientists such as geneticists I doubt any of these n00bs have the skilz necessary to seperate T-Rex from a c4t. :rolleyes:

So once again, I don't consider this research racist I merely consider it lame and a license to laugh at shrinks and leftists alike. ;)

It is either good research with useful knowlege or not.

It is either racist or not.

It should make no difference whatsoever whether right or left or dead center pushed it. All three have pushed for very good and very bad research. All three have skewed results and made sure the results given were skewed. Its a politicians job to try to make sure research is policy driven and that the results are popular. If a politician lets research drive policy and the policy is unpopular he is soon out of a job.

You are speaking of how research should be performed if people were rational.

They are not. Crying out that people should be rational and fair will not make it so. It will merely shut down the flow of research funds to whatever project a complainer is involved in. Like it or not gue to logistics funding and politics (both inside and outside the scientific community) scientific research is not done anywhere near as purely as it should be. You have to do the best you can with the cards you are dealt. And there is alot that can be done. But not by merely avoiding unpleasant facts of policy driven funding for research.

Michael Crichton did a good job of describing the pitfalls of being an Earth scientist here

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought you were simply shying away from the issue due to your own biases and using public outcry as an excuse.

Ah, I'm sorry. I thought you were simply shying away from the issue due to your own biases and using public outcry as an excuse.

Nope. I think that research should be done. I dont think now is the time to do it is all. There isnt much hanging on the outcome save trouble at the moment, and it isnt as if there isnt research in other areas that needs to be done. I just think that there are too many open wounds and people aching for a chance to point a finger and howl racism for it to be a good idea now. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in a hundred people will be ready to explore those variances in humans. Not now.

It seems a lot of people think that "race" means "genetic difference." No wonder these threads can get confusing.

In order to be biologically classified as separate races, the genetic differences would have to be there. Since they are not, we cannot biologically classify races.

On the other hand, there have been sociological races for quite some time.

Although race isn't a biological reality, that doesn't detract from the fact that the situation appears to indicate that there are discrepancies between the average intelligence of various ethnic groups (i.e. people who can be distinguished by physical appearance/characteristics.)

The data, however, do not show any type of causative effect here. There is nothing in the data to demonstrate that the reason a given group has a lower average score is actually their ethnicity. It could be a variety of factors - none of which are controlled for. And the most often quoted paper's attempt to just wave them away by saying, "This can't be because of bussing," certainly doesn't demonstrate anything.


You've just confused ethnicity, a cultural concept, with race, a biological concept.

Races, as they are generally listed, are not biological classifications. They are cultural ones. Meanwhile, even if ethnicity is generally a cultural concept, because of the relative genetic isolation, you would expect different traits to be more and less common along ethnic lines.

To give an idea how much social construction goes into it, I was reading a really old book, from the 20s or so, where even European ethnicities (Germans, Poles, French, etc.) were refered to as different races. It even attributed various genetic characteristics to them (apparently the Germans have a heavy, plodding character). So clearly, race isn't as cut and dry as people make it out to be if our classifications can change that radically.

Races, as they are generally listed, are not biological classifications. They are cultural ones. Meanwhile, even if ethnicity is generally a cultural concept, because of the relative genetic isolation, you would expect different traits to be more and less common along ethnic lines.


Heh that made me laugh, so how can a differant skin colour for example be a cultural thing, and not a biolgical thing?

Heh that made me laugh, so how can a differant skin colour for example be a cultural thing, and not a biolgical thing?

Having a different skin color is biological. Stating that having a different skin color equates to being a different race is cultural. Thus, the classification of races is cultural.

In order for a subset of human being to be classified, biologically, as a different race, they would need to be genetically isolated for long enough to develop significant genetic differences. In the reality, the genetic variation within a given "race" is greater than that between the "races". As such, there is no reason to biologically classify races. Thus, the classification of races is cultural.

In order for a subset of human being to be classified, biologically, as a different race, they would need to be genetically isolated for long enough to develop significant genetic differences.
It all depends on your definition of "significant". ;)

It's not racist to say that in traditional asian culture, the children are pressured to an incredible degree to do well, sometimes to the point of direct competiton with other students.

It's not racist. It's history and present, it's a fact.

This is traditional asian culture, mind you. That doesn't mean all asian families are like that, only the traditional ones.

It all depends on your definition of "significant". ;)

We would have to be able to take DNA, look only at it, and determine the ancestry of that individual - what "race" they belong to. In order to do so, there would have to be more variation between races than within them.

Having a different skin color is biological. Stating that having a different skin color equates to being a different race is cultural. Thus, the classification of races is cultural.

In order for a subset of human being to be classified, biologically, as a different race, they would need to be genetically isolated for long enough to develop significant genetic differences. In the reality, the genetic variation within a given "race" is greater than that between the "races". As such, there is no reason to biologically classify races. Thus, the classification of races is cultural.

Ahhhhh so perhaps we should say a little from column A and a little from column B

In order to do any research about different "races", one must first assume that such constructs actually exist. Those who have researched the question of the existence of different human races have found that there is not enough biological difference between the groups that society often labels as "races" to biologically classify them as such. Thus, an assumption that there are different races is, from the very beginning, a flawed assumption - which means that the study is flawed.

*snip*.

I wholeheartedly agree here. Even though I'm defending some of the research in this area, I agree that the concept of race has its basis as a social construction, not a scientific one. However, this does not invalidate the research or point to racist motives behind it. The concept of race made the transition from a social construction to a political one, and in the U.S. over the last several decades, to a legal one. It can't be ignored, even though many of us may wish that were the case. U.S. law has said so.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Galt but I understood that the research is carried out so that racial quotas can be maintained in accordance with the civil rights act? In otherwords to design a test to produce a predetermined outcome? However well intentioned I believe it is misguided and futile.

*snip*

Hey Ceanchor (and others too),

I think you did missunderstand me, or at least part of my original post. This research, and the laws providing the motivation, have nothing to do with quotas. In most circumstances, racial quotas are illegal in hiring in the U.S. the law driving at least a portion of this research (I'm talking about the stuff published in Personnel Psychology and Journal of Applied Psychology - both teir 1 peer-reviewed journals in I/O psychology) deals with selection rates.

For example, lets say XYZ company needs to hire alot of people. They have past research that demonstrates a strong correlation, even after statistically controlling for some other variables such as personality traits or demographics, between cognitive ability tests and job performance (notice I do not say "IQ" in any of my posts). They use this test, and group differences in test scores result. Now, the group difference in test scores is not the legal issue per se, the problem is with the selection decision based on them. If they hire only the top 10% of this group, then there is a good chance that the selection rate for the minority group may be lower than the selection rate for the majority group. If the difference in selection rates is large enough, then this can open the door to legal problems. Potentially expensive legal problems.

Now before someone asks why they just don't use a different construct other than cognitive ability, consider that it often shares the most variance with job performance, and that some other 'predictive' assessments can cost much more to administer. Companies need to balance the costs and risks. This drives research to understand the problem with the hope to improve upon what is currently available.

There are many different ability tests. Cognitive ability tests have been developed with culture in mind, though these often still show the same group differences.

I'm sure that there has been alot of psuedoscience in this area; I'm only defending the area of this research that I am familiar with, where the vast majority of it cannot be said to be racist in motive.

Sorry for the long posts!

I think it is. I believe that people who explicitly look to science (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/cdri-bai042505.php) to make various claims, (such as "asians are smarter" or "blacks are dumber") correlating IQ and the concept of race, are themselves perpetuating (whether knowingly or unintentionally) bigotry and racism.

I think your logic is completely backwards.

Looking to science is exactly what people SHOULD do. Science will tell them, time and time again, that the "races" as they have been defined in our society do not in any way correlate to innate ability. Science will tell them that it is our TREATMENT of individuals based on racial classifications that appears to most strongly influence their adult potential.

If somebody cherry-picks data and misrepresents scientific studies, or performs flawed "research" in an effort to support a hypothesis they have already concluded must be correct, then that person is not "looking to science." They are looking for a way to put a more legitimate face on their totally unscientific opinions.

I prefer not to label any serious attempt at researching a topic racist, regardless of how distasteful the subject matter is. Science should not be censored according to the subject material, but nevertheless should also demand that those pursuing any kind of research submit their work to rigorous review and testing.

Pseudoscience is one of the biggest threats to legitimate research; it is better to allow people to pursue controversial "theories" and debunk or verify them through rigorous review and testing than to allow them to float around unaddressed and masquerade as legitimate works.

This applies to anything, be it race/intelligence and eugenics or cancer research and particle physics.

Absolutely right.

Everyone always asks tis question with regard to the relative intelligence of various populations. Would people be so upset if the question was asked about the physical abilities of various populations? If I had research that said people of west African descent had more efficient musculature or circulatory systems or something, would anyone complain? There's already a bunch of research that says different racial populations show different levels of susceptibility to various diseases. That's a physical difference.

So, if we're willing to accept that there are physical differences, why is it so abhorrent to suggest that there might be physical differences between the brains, too, which manifest themselves in differing levels of skill with various forms of thought?

To give an idea how much social construction goes into it, I was reading a really old book, from the 20s or so, where even European ethnicities (Germans, Poles, French, etc.) were refered to as different races. It even attributed various genetic characteristics to them (apparently the Germans have a heavy, plodding character). So clearly, race isn't as cut and dry as people make it out to be if our classifications can change that radically.

And this is exactly the problem with scientific studies of "race" - how can you do a scientifically valid reproducable study, if two sets of researchers can't even agree what they are studying?