The science of racism

On Watson And Racism

JulianTS1051918 wrote:William Saletan wrote a series of articles on Slate late last year indicating that the evidence actually supports what Watson said http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

There Is No "Cultural Phenotypic Comparative Intelligence"

No matter who William Saletan is and how many articles he wrote on "evidence" re comparative intelligence and where they are printed, There Is No "Cultural Phenotypic Comparative Intelligence". Plain and simple. There is no such thing. There cannot be such a thing.

Every scientist who practices scientism will tell you this. It is elementary biology. Watson simply does not know elementary biology, or is incapable of comprehending it.

Read the following quotation. Read it slowly, carefully and critically. Intelligence, like every "specific" physical property (f.e. specific weight or heat etc.,) is a specific cultural phenotype characteristic. Plain science....

Quote from http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=109

It's Culture, Not Intelligence, Watson...

Watson's statement is not backed by data and is scientifically incorrect. It could have been made by a chemist but not by a biologist. Intelligence and Culture are Biology, not chemistry.

A modern updated biologist can state that the Curtain that seperates between USA, China, Russia, Muslim, African world etc., is the Phenotypic Cultural Curtain, the primary darwinian striving of each phenotype to survive at all costs...

But it shall come to pass one day that humans will understand their biological nature and biological environments and cooperate rather than fight for survival...

Dov Henis

End quote

IsItNovemberYetTS1038682 wrote:

SusanneTS782085 wrote:What I find rather interesting - and digusting - about racism, is that racists tend to say that someone with, lets say, 1/8 african heritage is black. I think this is insulting, because they say that 7/8th of European blood is less important than the last 1/8th. And where do you think that that supposed "intelligence gene" ist going?
The whole idea is simply ridiculous.

Why is it an insult to be referred to as a race that one actually is? Whether it be 1/8th or not, one still is part of the race. I'm not African American, but if I was 1/2 Irish, 1/4 Scottish, 1/8 French, 1/8 african - I would be perfectly fine with someone referring to me by any of my hertiages. I hate to say but your post sounded a slight bit racist. To me your post says, that you are ashamed of your own hertiage. Racism sadly is still alive and well. What I believe has happened is that nowadays there is more of an unspoken racism, as racists are acting more PC in public.

Of course I do not know Susanne's motivation, but what I also find disturbing is that people are often beeing seen as how much the deviate from being white caucasian. This feature is then generalized over the more dominant inheritance.

Let me clarify this. Thus to use your example, being 1/2 Irish, 1/4 Scottish, 1/8 French, 1/8 african is called "political correct" Afro-american. I would say this person is at least 3/4 white caucasian (we do not underscore differences between Nigeran and Kenian roots either, and regional differences between Irish and Scottish are much less than those within Africa).
If someone had no African roots, than it is looked at his/her Asian roots, next their Latin roots, and finally only if all forefathers are white caucasian, someone is white caucasian - while only the latter group is often subgrouped ... .

This notion of of the predominant descent being black > asian > hispanic > caucasian implies racism,

albeit political correct in the American style.

But I could well envision that in fucture, we will look back at this race-calling being even more full of prejustice than currently political forbidden terms like blacks and negro.

To use a high profile example, Barack Obama is 1/2 white http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-grandmother22-weboct22,0,3825578.story and 1/2 black, yet is considered an Afro-american candidate and not a caucasian one.

From the biological point of view, influences would be equal. If there would be social - cultural - influences of skin colour in raising a child, his caucasian mother and grant parents, would dominate ...

...
So let's all vote for our white caucasian candidate: Barack Obama

John

"Intelligence, like every "specific" physical property (f.e. specific weight or heat etc.,) is a specific cultural phenotype characteristic. Plain science....

The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of "intelligence".

Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances only by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the extent and scope of intelligence."

Right, and it seems that people of East Asian and European descent, on average, do better on analytical tests that reflect the skills that are important in a first world globalized economy. For instance, these tests are strongly predictive of academic performance, and East Asians, on average, outperform europeans which is consistent with what the tests predict. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

Also, note the differences in maturation rates that have been documented. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians. Also, by adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-43536.html

Dov Henis wrote:"Intelligence, like every "specific" physical property (f.e. specific weight or heat etc.,) is a specific cultural phenotype characteristic. Plain science....

The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of "intelligence".

Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances only by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the extent and scope of intelligence."

Julian wrote:
Right

Julian wrote:
East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate

A continuum ???

Intelligence, like every "specific" physical property (f.e. specific weight or specific heat etc.,) is a specific cultural phenotype characteristic. Plain science....

The term "A continuum" in our this context is, IMO, indicative of an innate racist approach.
Specific is specific is specific per each cultural phenotype. Scientifically there cannot be a "continuum of specifics". Each specific is specific. Plain and simple...

Suggesting,

Dov Henis

The information on maturation rates is summarised from 'Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235-294.' You can download the paper from the following site:

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

Racism Is Racism Is Racism

When J.P.Rushton, even with the 'understanding' of E.O.Wilson, spends thirty years of research on RACE DIFFERENCES in cognitive ability or in any other ability, this is plain and simple RACISM and also plain and simple pre-Copernicus science:

- 21st century life sciences is genetics.
- Genetics is evolution of genes.
- Evolution of genes is driven and directed by culture.
- Human cultures are phenotypic groups within the human genotype.
- Extents of an ability are comparable WITHIN a single cultural phenotype, measured with the
specific phenotype cultural toolings.
- Extents of an ability in two or more cultural phenotypes are NOT COMPARABLE by
measuring with one cultural tooling. This is simply not scientific...

Dov Henis

(A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

"When J.P.Rushton, even with the 'understanding' of E.O.Wilson, spends thirty years of research on RACE DIFFERENCES in cognitive ability or in any other ability, this is plain and simple RACISM"

Rushton & Jensen are summarising the research. You consider it racist, but what is your point? Are you saying it is therefore incorrect? I note that they find East Asians (neither researcher is East Asian) have the highest average IQ. There is also research on differences in physical ability, see Taboo: Why black athletes dominate sports & why we are afraid to talk about it'. http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/straw_man_of_race.htm

"Evolution of genes is driven and directed by culture.
- Human cultures are phenotypic groups within the human genotype. "

Remember that a number of studies have also been done on interacial adoptions.

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2008logical-fallacies.pdf

So how do you think you can measure and compare an ability in certain areas?

You are invited to look at "More On Forces-Matter-Life Unified Theory"

on Oct/29/2008 in Evolutionary Biology

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/60/122.page#957

DH

Cheers, will have a read of that.

What am I?

This topic inspires such great responses. My work has been almost entirely in forensics for the last forty years or so. I am a Forensic Anthropologist and this discussion, this topic Is so very important and needs to be aired out in the public. Franz Boaz, the father of modern American Anthropology worked tirelessly for many years before his ideas on cultural development were accepted in the academic world. In 1903 he chaired the First chair in Anthropology at Columbia around 1903. Before that Anthropology was part of many programs, Anthropology in England is part of the History Department. The AAA American Anthropologist http://www.aaanet.org/issues/ (See $1,450,000 Ford Foundation Grant for the program: About RACE: A Public Education Project) Race has been very useful to some who hope to use it for personal gain. Stopping all racism is a huge task and may not be possible, at least in the short run.
The guidelines used in the science of facial recreations works from the forms of cranial development of the Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid persons and therefore make a good argument for typing of the three lines. The problem with this is that nature does not like to co-operate with a firm set of rules. The differences in the three skulls are significant and tell us a great deal about the persons who matched these sets. Once again this is not racial typing. After examination we place depth markers on the skull to represent muscle and skin thickness. At this point we have a drawing and start covering the skull with clay. It quickly begins to look like the person we drew as we make detailed adjustments. After a successful rendering we can notify local authorities that we have a case and that person is put into the newspaper. The oldest reunion I have done is 30 years. It was my first case and I did not know how the family would react. Later that day someone call and said, ‘‘That’s my Daughter.” She was approximately 19 years old and had been murdered with one shot to the back of the head. The family was very grateful and said they could have closure now.

Recently we discovered our 5300-year-old iceman, dubbed Oetzi,, had such unusual DNA that no one on earth presently could possibly be related. No possibility of race. We unearth such wonderful discoveries as Oetzi and the Kennewick Man in Washington State and spend ten years in court arguing whose relative he might be. He is another one we can't explain easily. AT 9600 years old we would still expect the man to be Native American or Mongoloid, from Russia over the Bearing Straits. Nope, he had a broken spear tip healed in his hip. He had a very muscular right arm from spear throwing. He also ate a diet rich in fish. The question or race still comes up but this guy was out of place no matter what. He was either from the Pacific Rim or perhaps even a resident of Ireland. How did this guy get here???? Some day we might know.
There are always life forms that don’t follow rules like Pirons. Just made from Proteins (No DNA). We don’t even know how these guys stay alive.
We discover Prions which seem to have no DNA. We also found bacterium that can live in deep volcanic submarine canyons which should not support life being in complete dark, very high water pressure and HOT!!!
Doing Taphonic and Histological detective work is still a thrill for me as I work backward to see what people were like and how they lived. I much too often end up with a mystery... or something that just can't be. Science will solve these mysteries later on; yet, I will still be pondering just how it is that we can date 140,000 years of Human history; yet, only have 5,000 years of recorded symbols and 3,000 years of script.

In America we have solved the mystery of sickle cell anemia and Valley Fever which are the results of racism. A objective view that speaks loudly is that white is superior to, not white. By relocating Africans and Native-Americans in slavery, we moved them to an environment where they had no immunity to these diseases that only Africans and Native Americans catch.
Another idea is that the Japanese are a species and all the rest of us a sub-species. This was the 20th Century Warrior ideal which allowed the subjugation of China, Korea, Burma and many other places. They were brutal too.
Then there were those Germans or the master race.

From a social value I think about my own 11 year old bi-racial Granddaughter, Karinda. Like most of my ilk, I think that bi-racial children are exceptional. My daughter is of Scot-Irish heritage and her Husband is of African descent. She is 5'8" 120Lbs and very athletic. I know she is just 11 but knowing she gets a hard time over being bi-racial gets to me. I tell her she is an American. And to be very proud of that fact.

I think that I have an idea how science will take on this quest of who am I and how I got to be like I am. I compare it to the scientific research of the greatest of mysteries... just how does an aspirin work? No one knows. I hope by the time they have figured that out we will have this race thing put to bed.

What Are We

PatrickTS759443 wrote:

What am I?

I think that I have an idea how science will take on this quest of who am I and how I got to be like I am. I compare it to the scientific research of the greatest of mysteries... just how does an aspirin work? No one knows. I hope by the time they have figured that out we will have this race thing put to bed.

With all modesty I suggest the following as science's updated understanding of What Am I:

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578

It ends all irrelevant-to-life 'pseudo scientific-sophisticated verbiages about many life-related subjects... The still persisting irrelevant preoccupations are due to humans', especially due to the Science Establishment's, inertia and conservatism and politics...

Suggesting,

Dov Henis

nullTS1019153 wrote:

Dov Henis wrote:"

A continuum ???

Dov Henis

Someone mentioned definitions. Surly I cannot be the only person who reads "scientific" stuff which becomes subjective pseudo scientific gobbledegook due to the lack of a consensus of a definition.
In respect of this silly idea that any particular race of people is less 'intelligent' than another I offer a definition from my soon to be free E-published explanation of The Universal Law.
*What is intelligence?
Any information received via the senses should be considered as experience.
Human beings have the wherewithal to experience as well as to hold memory of experience, it is this which facilitates learning, and anything learned becomes knowledge. The skill and success with which learning is used is indicative of intelligence.
Knowledge is no more than the result of experience.

All creatures have, to a greater or lesser degree, the wherewithal to experience as well as to hold memory of experience; it is this which facilitates learning, anything learned becomes knowledge. The skill and success with which learning is used is indicative of intelligence. This applies to all creatures from microbes, fruit flies and elephants.
Given that such creatures as maggots, crabs and apes have intelligence what is it that makes them different from you and me?
* What is the difference?

arthur..

Who am I ?

Being realized or not, human being living in this world as if were thrown out from the not-knowingness. Men do not know why they have to live as human being. Why must they born as certain ethnic, so that they have brown skin or black skin ? Why weren't they born as human being from other ethnical group with yellow or white skin ? Why must they born from a certain family so that they have a certain religion, which is different from other people from other family so that they have a different religion or have no religion at all ?

Also, why must they, for example, live a life as men and not as women, or on the other way round why must they live as women and not as men ?

There are still many other questions to ask, and it will be very difficult to get the satisfactory answers. Such questions arise from the not-knowingness, because in every human being there have attached his basic natures, namely forgetfulness, imperfect, and is always in the process of being. Human being is a not-yet finished reality, and is still in the process of being. Being what ? We do not know !

Then, Who am I ? The answer is : forget.

Gatot S Astari

Frankly, as a non-white scientist in America, I'm more affected and concerned about racism in science.

BobTS1052534 wrote:Frankly, as a non-white scientist in America, I'm more affected and concerned about racism in science.

I understand what you are saying. In Anthropology we call racism a cultural fiction. A belief that is created to subjugate other ethnic groups. Science should be last place where racism is promoted. Race simply does not exist. My granddaughter is African and Irish in heritage and I tell her she is not African-American... she is simply an American. This is Texas and I work for a good old boy white University. My son-in-law will not even return here after one visit.

The pressure of race and sexism is a product of a wish for profits unfairly keeping the wages of those low and chances few.

Good Luck!

Patrick

People clearly should be forgiven for attributing intelligence to race. The scientific community has done no one a service by ignoring those parts of the issue that are real and undeniable. The problem is, intelligence is NOT wisdom or even necessarily optimal behavior. That's the leveler, not whether we can devise more and more deadly weapons, for example. I've no faith in the community to deal with this given its history.

TONY132243 wrote:People clearly should be forgiven for attributing intelligence to race. The scientific community has done no one a service by ignoring those parts of the issue that are real and undeniable. The problem is, intelligence is NOT wisdom or even necessarily optimal behavior. That's the leveler, not whether we can devise more and more deadly weapons, for example. I've no faith in the community to deal with this given its history.

Trying to attribute intelligence to race is not the main problem and it is no longer a valid assumption from the scientific standpoint. However, using racial preference for hiring or promotion is still widely practiced because that is the method by a dominant ethnic group to artificially eliminate competitions by or exploit the minority groups for maintaining the economical and political clout of the dominant group. Racism in the modern day is practiced more for maintaining the staus quo of the powerful ethnic group and far less for simply discriminating based on any biological difference among different races or ethnicities.

"and it is no longer a valid assumption from the scientific standpoint."

No, but there do seem to be differences in group averages and the extent of these or cause is not yet fully understood. Steve Hsu comments in relation to the Risch & Tang paper:

"There are readily identifiable clusters of points, corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. (See, for example, Risch et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:268–275, 2005.) ...

This clustering is a natural consequence of geographical isolation, inheritance and natural selection operating over the last 50k years since humans left Africa....

We see that there can be dramatic group differences in phenotypes even if there is complete allele overlap between two groups - as long as the frequency or probability distributions are distinct. But it is these distributions that are measured by the metric we defined earlier. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

This leads us to two very distinct possibilities in human genetic variation:

Hypothesis 1: (the PC mantra) The only group differences that exist between the clusters (races) are innocuous and superficial, for example related to skin color, hair color, body type, etc.

Hypothesis 2: (the dangerous one) Group differences exist which might affect important (let us say, deep rather than superficial) and measurable characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, athletic prowess, etc.

Note H1 is under constant revision, as new genetically driven group differences (e.g., particularly in disease resistance) are being discovered. According to the mantra of H1 these must all (by definition) be superficial differences.

A standard argument against H2 is that the 50k years during which groups have been separated is not long enough for differential natural selection to cause any group differences in deep characteristics. I find this argument quite naive, given what we know about animal breeding and how evolution has affected the (ever expanding list of) "superficial" characteristics. Many genes are now suspected of having been subject to strong selection over timescales of order 5k years or less. For further discussion of H2 by Steve Pinker, see here.

The predominant view among social scientists is that H1 is obviously correct and H2 obviously false. However, this is mainly wishful thinking. Official statements by the American Sociological Association and the American Anthropological Association even endorse the view that race is not a valid biological concept, which is clearly incorrect.

As scientists, we don't know whether H1 or H2 is correct, but given the revolution in biotechnology, we will eventually. Let me reiterate, before someone labels me a racist: we don't know with high confidence whether H1 or H2 is correct.

Finally, it is important to note that any group differences are statistical in nature and do not imply anything about particular individuals. Rather than rely on the scientifically unsupported claim that we are all equal, it would be better to emphasize that we all have inalienable human rights regardless of our abilities or genetic makeup."

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

Are black-skinned people less intelligent compared to the white-skinned ones ? In analogy, are the color-skinned people less intelligent than the white one ?

The historical facts state : No !

- Munitioned cannon and paper were for the first time invented by people in Middle East. The West European people began learning to make munitioned cannon and paper after defeat in a war to seize Jerusalem in 11^th and 12^th centuries. In this war, it was proven that the weaponry of the Asian and African people ( Egyptian ) was more superior than that of the European.

The countries in West Europe got a great advantage from their defeat in that war concerning with the weaponry technology, science and philosophy, in which they motivated the progress of science in West Europe.

- The victory of Japan at the early Pasific War in 1941 till 1945 against USA and its Allies constituted hard evidence of Japanese superiority in technology and military strategy. Victory of the USA and its Allies in the Pasific War was due to a new technology invented by Einstein, the genius. Regarding the technology, up to this present time in early of the 21^st century, it is true that the Western people are undoubtedly superior. However, in the field of strategy, it has to be admitted that Western people still have to learn from Eastern people up now.

As a proof, in Military Doctrines of the Western Countries, there are still found some quotations from Sun Tzu's strategies ( Chinese ). Even, the American General, who led the military operation " Desert Storm " in Iraq in 1991 admitted firmly that his victory was due the fact that he applied the War Strategy of Sun Tzu.

- Output of research conducted by James Watson become one of the evidences, that the research results related to the micro element cannot directly be trusted as a result that has already been final.

It's not surprising Japanese technology was so good - remember there average is slightly above the white european average. Your point about Egyptians being African though is mistaken, that is an Afrocentric myth.

There have been literally hundreds of IQ studies of various racial groups from many different countries and they show the same pattern (although note these are group averages & do not imply much about individuals):

highest IQ: Ashkenazi Jews
next highest: East Asians (Mongoloids)
next highest: Whites of European ancestry
lower: American Indians and Latinos
lower still: American and European Blacks
very low: sub-Saharan Blacks
lowest: Bushmen and Pygmies

Rushton, J.P. and Jensen, A.R. (2005). Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294.