Some comments about "race" and "intelligence"

Brad,

How many races are there?

The reason I ask is to determine if you are being rational or not. A person being rational who also champions categorization/classification by race will know how many races there are (at least within a very narrow margin-of-error). Not only will they be able to tell you how many races there are, but they will also be able to tell you why. A person being irrational while championing racial classifications, however, will not be able to tell you how many races there are -- because their thoughts are convoluted by their own personal emotions on the matter. Not having utilized reason in order to get into their epistemological position, they will not know how to use reason in order to explain it. They just have personal feelings on the matter, and we are supposed to acknowledge them. The thought of having to have a standard by which to judge or differentiate race may never come up to such a person.

An analogy might be to ask how many outcomes there are when rolling two dice. A rational person will not only be able to tell you how many outcomes there are, but will also be able to explain why it is that that number of outcomes is the real number of outcomes. You can get outcomes equal to two ("snake eyes") through twelve ("double sixes") -- and only outcomes equal to two-through-twelve. There are exactly 6 results for each die, and then there is the result of the combination of the dice. Being able to understand dice is what allows us to answer the question regarding how many outcomes there are. So ...

How many races are there?

Ed

Note: A recent review of 170 publications about 'race', 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry' discovered that not even one out of the 170 scientific publications defined the term 'race', 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry'. Now, if you have bunch of professionals who are using an undefined term, then you are likely inside a raging firestorm of idiotic, post-modern existentialism (where our feelings determine our thoughts). Imagine, for instance, scientifically studying God without defining what it is that God is. What kinds of results will you get from that kind of post-modern research?

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/28, 1:23pm)

Post 41

Saturday, April 28, 2012 - 3:07pm

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liberalcreationism.html

Ed,

If you understood evolution, you wouldn't anaologize subdivisions within a species to a geometrical object with a fixed shape.

If a creationist asks me to explain exactly at what point our supposed ape ancestor turned into a human, it would be futile to try to give an estimate of where, how, and why the line was drawn. Any answer I give would necessarily be vague and imprecise. Any answer I offer would just give the creationist reason to raise doubts and objections. My inadequate answer would, on his premises (that humans must have had an absolute beginning point), give him grounds to reaffirm his anti-evolutionary stance.

The creationist assumes that humans are set apart from animals, that we are exceptional. The sentimental attachments to that assumption are often too strong for reason to break. It's the same for humanistic creationists who cling to the assumption that all populations are created equal, that evolution stopped at the brain for 200,000 years while it operated everywhere else.

I'd suggest the following article by a rare individual who struggled with the contradiction between his sentimental predisposition for innate equality and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- that evolutionary variations extending to the cognitive apparatus have indeed occurred within populations that had been geographically isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years and that people carry the genotypes of their respective ancestral origins. He argues that those who believe in the moral and legal equality of all people can and should be willing to stop fighting the existence of natural racial differences.

Liberal Creationism by William Saletan

Post 42

Saturday, April 28, 2012 - 5:59pm

Brad,

It's funny how you claim I don't understand evolution, me having a college degree in Biology and all. You're basically hand-waving instead of taking the bait, muddying the water to make it appear deep. One reason for 170 scientific publications to use terms like "race" without ever defining race is post-modern emotivism (saying what you "feel" and assuming that everyone else around you must certainly understand).

Do you have another reason in mind why the 170 scientific articles got published without such basic, rudimentary scrutiny? And, if you don't, if these scientists are guilty of using wishy-washy, gut-feeling terms -- and expecting others to just know what they are talking about -- then who is to say that you, yourself, are not doing the same?

Ed

Post 43

Saturday, April 28, 2012 - 8:13pm

Ed,

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The study you cite is concerned with the "socio-ethical implications" of racial and ethnic terminology, scolds scientists for not including such considerations in their papers, and suggests they avoid using the term "race" to classify people.  I don't know whether you're prejudging every one of these 170 papers as deficient on the basis of this politically charged criticism, or if you have any specific objections to any of them individually on any scientific grounds, or if you're confused yourself about what you're trying to argue here. Should every journal article containing the term require a full definition and a contextual disclaimer about social ramifications?

What does any of this have to do with how human beings evolved differently in sub-Saharan Africa than they did in Asia and Europe?

Race is a pre-modern concept. It precedes all of genetics.  The concept was derived from observed phenotypic distinctions among populations as a way to name distinctive types within the species. It's under attack by post-modern deconstructionists -- concept obliterators, as I call them. I don't know if their sophistic sneering has confused you or if you're conscientiously one of them, but frankly I'd rather deal with Steve Wolfer's clear-cut moral dogmatism and his open hatred of me than than with your indecipherable pettiness.

This is about objectivism in the sense of being objective.  This is what the deniers of race have been viciously deconstructing: any information about race that is objective, such as skull measurements, that doesn't fit with the narrative of race as a subjective social construct. For an idea of the kind of fraud committed in academic research and the lies told about race objectivists as individuals by egalitarians to try to deconstruct their legitimate findinings, see:

The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071

The authors conclude: "The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved."

Post 44

Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 4:56am

"Reality is what refuses to go away when you do not believe in it, and progress in neuroscience and genomics has made these politically comforting shibboleths (such as the non-existence of intelligence and the non-existence of race) untenable." -Steven Pinker

Are We Still Evolving?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-we-still-evolving.html

This balanced article suggests that variants in brain genes among different racial groups may explain racial differences in intelligence. The science of identifying the specific genes responsible for intelligence is still somewhat speculative, but in the years ahead much of what's now merely hypothesized is likely to be proven. The sooner it happens, the sooner egalitarian creationism, and its institutional sanctification via political correctness, can be tossed into the dustbin of history.

(Edited by Brad Trun on 4/29, 4:59am)

Post 45

Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 8:07am

Brad,

Thanks for "answering" (by not actually answering) my crucial questions. You have shown yourself to be like the 'global warming enthusiast', recalcitrant to the basic requirement of debate known as: define-your-terms.

... but frankly I'd rather deal with Steve Wolfer's clear-cut moral dogmatism and his ...

Well, we do agree on something, then -- as I'd rather not deal with you, either. Good riddance.

Ed

Post 46

Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 11:12am

I've come to the conclusion that each individual is his own unique race. That is all.

Post 47

Sunday, April 29, 2012 - 3:53pm

http://io9.com/5822357/confirmed-all-non+african-people-are-part-neanderthal

Is the idea of innate equality in the cognitive meachanisms of phenotypically distinct humans whose respective ancestors evolved separately in adaptation to different climates in different parts of the world tenable in light of the latest science? I think that anyone who sets aside their emotions, their views on ethics and politics, and their views on me, and devotes one day of their life to focusing on the objective truth value of what's contained in the following sources, will be well-positioned to come to a fair conclusion.

As an introduction to the type of objectivity that is required on this subject, I invite you to view this 5 minute video:

Richard Dawkins: What Matters Is What's True
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRpGmvRyN_0

Here's the reading list:

Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal

Breeding with Neanderthals helped humans go global

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.000-breeding-with-neanderthals-helped-humans-go-global.html

Humans may have Neanderthals to thank for brains, U of C research suggests

http://chicagomaroon.com/2006/11/21/humans-may-have-neanderthals-to-thank-for-brains-u-of-c-research-suggests/

A skull that rewrites the history of man

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html#

DNA Turning Human Story Into a Tell-All

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-human-origins.html

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

Heritability of IQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf

Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence

http://www.govrel.vcu.edu//news/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-Big%20Brain.pdf

WHOLE BRAIN SIZE AND GENERAL MENTAL ABILITY: A REVIEW

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/pdf/gnes119-692.pdf

Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html

Best evidence yet that a single gene can affect IQ

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428613.900-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-can-affect-iq.html

Tiny gene change affects brain size, IQ: scientists

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7gYRMF5mYp-vUbSUIwAjx03IOdw?

Genes related to human head size identified

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/191070-genes-related-to-human-head-size-identified.html

GWAS and Anatomy�Pooled Data Fingers Genes Driving Brain Size, IQ

http://www.alzforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=3128

Boas, Bones, and Race

http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html

Post 48

Friday, May 4, 2012 - 11:50am

Coming out of a long lurkdom to repeat Teresa.... what's the point?

Brad,
What is your goal? What is it you expect Objectivists to DO should your theory be accepted? I daresay that neither Ed nor Steve are going to suddenly proclaim that a person dumber than they, regardless of race, has fewer rights or less morality. I know no Objectivist who is going to use IQ as a means by which to forcefully take someone else's property or freedom.

{Slinking back into lurkdom, be back in 3 years.}

Post 49

Friday, May 4, 2012 - 2:53pm

Ms. Delancey,

Thomas Jefferson said that although he suspected blacks possessed less brainpower than whites, "...it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others."

I agree with that, and maybe it would make people feel better if I emphasized that point more. But it is irrational, according to Objectivism, to try to derive or justify an "is" claim from an "ought" claim. That's why I stick mostly to the objective evidence for the evolution of racial variations. It is irrational to evade evidence for a factual claim out of emotional or moral revulsion at the purposes for which the fact could be used. It is irrational to reject what is in the name of rejecting human choices that shouldn't be.

I discuss the compatibility of descriptive inequality with moral equality and expose some of the dogmatic, sophistic, politically motivated opposition to the objective pursuit of truth on this subject starting at 6:08 in this presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TgKjTOr04s0#t=368s

Post 50

Friday, May 4, 2012 - 3:44pm

Surely you can see you are at a stalemate here. You are not going to sway the participants of this discussion, and they are not going to sway you. THAT is the "what is" of this discussion, so by your own logic you are irrational for continuing to argue the point.

That aside, I still want to know your objective. WHY are you pursuing this truth, objectively or otherwise? Supposing you had iron-clad evidence that blacks are not as intelligent as whites (or vice versa), what then do you propose to do with that knowledge?

I'm having a hard time imagining any way in which that knowledge could be used for good, but I can easily come up with a multitude of ways in which it could be used for very bad things indeed.

(Edited by Ms. Deanna Delancey on 5/04, 3:47pm)

Post 51

Friday, May 4, 2012 - 8:57pm

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise(typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Post 52

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 4:16am

Oh, good. Then surely Brad can outline the positives we'll all gain from badgering through his theories, seeing that one is accused of lying for failing to see them, or even questioning them. I can only conclude that this fallacy is meant to be used as a moral rationalization for evil, or that the designer of the fallacy was/is a moral intrinsicist/relativist who presumed all things good/evil were perfectly self evident to everyone. Or no one.

I don't see any difference between this kind of "inquiry," and one looking for a bastard in the family tree. No difference at all. The quest is negative in and of itself. This particular quest for "truth" from Brad is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias, not honest inquiry.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/05, 4:35am)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/05, 4:46am)

Post 53

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 6:05am

Further, Brad is very fond of using his unproven conclusions as part of his proof, which is a far more insidious use of fallacious argument styles. Totally dishonest to the core. Note how dissenting evidence and arguments are either ignored or the presenter is personally attacked.

Post 54

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 3:48pm

Teresa, your failure to grasp basic principles of logic and to understand what logical fallacies are is stunning: "I can only conclude that this fallacy is meant to be used as a moral rationalization for evil, or that the designer of the fallacy was/is a moral intrinsicist/relativist who presumed all things good/evil were perfectly self evident to everyone." Wow. I'm speechless. Perhaps someone else here can explain to her in a way that she might understand why consequentialism/pragmatism is rejected by Objectivists and other adherents of the correspondence theory of truth.

"The quest is negative in and of itself." Incredible! You bring a pre-Enlightenment mentality to philosophical discussions.

"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." -Thomas Jefferson
"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead..." -Thomas Jefferson

"...Brad is very fond of using his unproven conclusions as part of his proof..."

According to you, it would be inherently negative for me to seek or demonstrate proof for my conclusions in the first place! You can't rationally consider evidence for a conclusion that you've rejected in advance of the evidence. You've walled yourself off.

"Totally dishonest to the core."

Your hyberbolic charge isn't supportable by reference to any evidence that I've sought to evade reality or mislead anyone. Why don't you state simply that what I say makes you feel uncomfortable, if that's the case, instead of attacking me personally? I place a high value on honesty and don't think the reason my views provoke hostility is due to a lack of it, though it may be partly due to other personality flaws.

"Note how dissenting evidence and arguments are either ignored or the presenter is personally attacked."

When I submitted my essay for your consideration, you chose to attack me personally and ascribe views to me that I don't hold. You could have simply stated that you didn't think the article merited publication based on its actual contents (as judged by some defined standard). But objectivity was not exercised in your approach to the issue then and isn't being exercised now.

I've devoted countless hours to addressing opposing views on this forum, in spite of your efforts to restrict the areas in which I am able to address those views. You regard an argument for humans having developed different mental and behavioral characteristics in adaptation to different environments in their lineage as "negative in and of itself" -- irrespective of its demonstrated correspondence with what actually happened, objectively, in our evolution. So no argument I could possibly make would change your mind on the matter, anyway, correct?

(Edited by Brad Trun on 5/05, 3:50pm)

Post 55

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 4:11pm

What a sophomoric hack.

According to you, it would be inherently negative for me to seek or demonstrate proof for my conclusions in the first place! You can't rationally consider evidence for a conclusion that you've rejected in advance of the evidence. You've walled yourself off.

You've shown neither, but insist on offering your unproven conclusion that "human beings evolving at different times in different parts of the world" somehow proves they were EVOLVING at different times in different places. You're a hack, Brad. Go away.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof",

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/05, 4:24pm)

Post 56

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 5:48pm

Brad, Deanna is not committing the fallacy that you accuse her of, i.e., of arguing that the truth of an assertion is determined by its good or bad consequences. She is not saying that your facts are wrong, because the promulgation of your view could lead to undesirable consequences. She is simply suggesting that promulgating this racist view, whether true or false, could have undesirable consequences. Assuming you are correct, what do you propose to do with the information that one race is, on the average, superior to another? You know that it can and will be used by racists to stereotype people and to derive a sense of unearned self-esteem by identifying with the achievements of other members of their race, as well as an undeserved sense of guilt or inferiority by identifying with the shortcomings and failures of other members of their race.

This places the focus where it doesn't belong. Isn't it better to emphasize the importance of individual achievements and individual responsibility than to focus on racial achievements or on racial failures? By emphasizing the successes or failures of races, one takes the onus off of individuals and places it on the group or collective. This suggests that it is not individuals but their respective races that deserve credit for any successes or failures, which is not how people should view themselves or their relationship to others.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/05, 5:50pm)

Post 57

Saturday, May 5, 2012 - 10:29pm

William, I agree that a "what's the point?" objection isn't fallacious if it's not employed to deny or impugn the factual basis of the claim being made. I think Dean has legitimately made such an objection. He agrees that the racial differences of which I speak are real and biological in origin, but he isn't interested in coming to my defense because he doesn't think emphasizing racial differences is productive. His lack of interest in fighting for the truth in this area is disappointing to me, but that doesn't mean his choice to value engaging in other topics instead is objectively wrong.

What is objectively wrong is fighting the facts on the basis of emotion, moral pronouncements, anti-conceptual category denial, selective hyper-skepticism, or sophistic rationalizations of base prejudices against hereditary explanations. We've seen a lot of all of the preceding in this forum.

If racial differences are real, and if racial equalitarianism is false, then I would ask you...isn't it better to stop encouraging unrealistic expectations?...to take away the metaphysical foundation of racist egalitarian programs such as Affirmative Action?...to stop the "culture"/"racism" blame game for why racial differences exist, when the evidence shows that the differences are largely natural?

You object to racial identity tribalism, but I note that it is rampant today among groups of people who believe races are all equal. Belief in equality is no antidote to group tribalism.

Rhodesia was destroyed in the name of racial equality. Detroit was ruined in the name of racial equality. Ayn Rand fled a nation based on a dogmatic belief in the innate equality of people for one that practiced segregation. Blacks were better off in the segregated US, in Rhodesia, in apartheid South Africa, than they were in countries ruled by blacks. This isn't to argue for racially partitioned systems, but that there are far worse things to fear. They were paradises compared to the existing alternatives.

If denial of racial differences leads to all Western countries being overrun and ruled by low-IQ populations within 100 years, civilization as Rand romanticized it could cease to be. That's the risk. That's what's at stake. If you value Western civilization, then I think you ought to actively oppose the lie of race equality, not regard it as some kind of benign or benevolent myth.

I don't regard false premises as having any moral weight. What matters first and foremost is what's true objectively.

Post 58

Sunday, May 6, 2012 - 12:15am

Brad,

I think that what's really important in forming just societies is good ideas, not high IQs. There have been notorious injustices and abysmal failures in societies which you regard as populated by people having superior intelligence: Communist China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the nationalist regime under Chiang Kai-shek, Japan's savage military, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese communists and today, North Korea. These dysfunctional murderous regimes would rival any of the injustices and failures produced by ignorant third world kleptocracies.

You write,

Rhodesia was destroyed in the name of racial equality. Detroit was ruined in the name of racial equality. Ayn Rand fled a nation based on a dogmatic belief in the innate equality of people for one that practiced segregation.

Obviously, she didn't come here for the segregation but for the freedom.

Blacks were better off in the segregated US, in Rhodesia, in apartheid South Africa, than they were in countries ruled by blacks. This isn't to argue for racially partitioned systems, but that there are far worse things to fear. They were paradises compared to the existing alternatives.

That's true, but here again it is the bad ideas of the blacks who took over these countries, not their race itself that is to blame. You write as if bad ideas were somehow innate to the race of the people who hold them. If that were true -- if bad ideas were part of a person's genetic makeup -- there would be no hope of ever changing anyone's mind or of reforming unjust and tyrannical regimes. Philosophy would be a useless endeavor. I don't think you really believe that; otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to convince the people on this forum of the truth of your own ideas.

Post 59

Sunday, May 6, 2012 - 7:53am