Racists standing up for accurate science

[ApostateAbe]

I can't simply ignore the fact the Rosenberg et al expressly state that 'Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of "biological race."'

I am perfectly willing to ignore it, but you don't have to. Just find other cluster analysis data that doesn't have that political imposition, and use that data instead to decide whether or not races exist. Don't base such a judgment on single-gene groups. Evolution doesn't work that way.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There is no accommodation for intermediates in the Konversationslexikon.

The clusters do not support the categories of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid: Several of the classifications described in the Konversationslexikon are refuted by Rosenberg et al's analysis: Papuans are classified as Negroid but Rosenberg et al shows they are quite distinct from African clines; American clines are shown as distinct from Asian clines, yet the Konversationslexikon classifies all Americans as Mongoloid.

OK, I am not familiar with the Konversationslexikon. If the Konversationslexikon classifies Papuans as Negroid, then my judgment would be that the Konversationslexikon is wrong, based on cluster analyses and modern phenotypic data. If the Konversationslexikon classified Native Americans as Mongoloids, then I agree, for the same reasons. The figure of the cluster analysis of Rosenberg et al shows a jump between "America" and the remainder of the "Mongoloid" categories, yes, but it does not follow that we must therefore split Americans off into another race, though we can. Adjacency in the cluster analysis is all that is required to classify races in any correct scheme.

 

[Bomb#20]

There really are spectral boundaries between the races, regardless of race scheme. If we were to divide the races into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, then the Uygurs could go into either Caucasoid or Mongoloid, as they are intermediate between the two groups. It does not follow that races are either non-existent or any less relevant, no more than colors on the color spectrum. See the  continuum fallacy for a fuller explanation of why.

There is no accommodation for intermediates in the Konversationslexikon.

The clusters do not support the categories of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid: Several of the classifications described in the Konversationslexikon are refuted by Rosenberg et al's analysis: Papuans are classified as Negroid but Rosenberg et al shows they are quite distinct from African clines; American clines are shown as distinct from Asian clines, yet the Konversationslexikon classifies all Americans as Mongoloid.

Dude! Why the heck did you even bring up the Konversationslexikon? That probably isn't the most bizarre argument I've seen on TFT, but it's right up there.

From your own post:

The 'major races'--Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid--are not supported by DNA analysis.

Compare the classification published in Meyers Konversationslexikon (1885-90) <snip>

Exactly which part of "1885-90" didn't you understand when you typed it? Are you next going to tell us Big Bang cosmology is pseudoscience because it's based on telescopes, and refute telescopy with a picture of Mars, as seen through an 1890-era telescope, showing canals?

 

[bigfield]

There is no accommodation for intermediates in the Konversationslexikon.

The clusters do not support the categories of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid: Several of the classifications described in the Konversationslexikon are refuted by Rosenberg et al's analysis: Papuans are classified as Negroid but Rosenberg et al shows they are quite distinct from African clines; American clines are shown as distinct from Asian clines, yet the Konversationslexikon classifies all Americans as Mongoloid.

OK, I am not familiar with the Konversationslexikon. If the Konversationslexikon classifies Papuans as Negroid, then my judgment would be that the Konversationslexikon is wrong, based on cluster analyses and modern phenotypic data. If the Konversationslexikon classified Native Americans as Mongoloids, then I agree, for the same reasons. The figure of the cluster analysis of Rosenberg et al shows a jump between "America" and the remainder of the "Mongoloid" categories, yes, but it does not follow that we must therefore split Americans off into another race, though we can. Adjacency in the cluster analysis is all that is required to classify races in any correct scheme.

It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science. There are many populations omitted from Rosenberg's data that are needed to see the full extent of the errors in that three-race scheme.

 

[ApostateAbe]

OK, I am not familiar with the Konversationslexikon. If the Konversationslexikon classifies Papuans as Negroid, then my judgment would be that the Konversationslexikon is wrong, based on cluster analyses and modern phenotypic data. If the Konversationslexikon classified Native Americans as Mongoloids, then I agree, for the same reasons. The figure of the cluster analysis of Rosenberg et al shows a jump between "America" and the remainder of the "Mongoloid" categories, yes, but it does not follow that we must therefore split Americans off into another race, though we can. Adjacency in the cluster analysis is all that is required to classify races in any correct scheme.

It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science. There are many populations omitted from Rosenberg's data that are needed to see the full extent of the errors in that three-race scheme.

On that logic, maybe we should also abandon the entire theory of evolution. Papuans and Americans were both correctly classified as Mongoloids long before any cluster analysis confirmed it, and the three-race scheme is still commonly used among forensic anthropologists, for good reasons.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Racists standing up for accurate science

Where? No one's denying that geographic isolation with genetic divergence is a precursor to speciation. What's disputed is that folk racial categories are therefore a precursor to speciation. Humans are an unusually genetically homogenous species - there is apparently more genetic variation in a typical chimpanzee troop than in the entire human race. And given our transportation technology, almost no population is isolated - certainly not the folk racial categories. Humans are piss poor candidates for speciation.

No one's denying the science. Rather, the so-called "scientific racists" are making an unwarranted extrapolation from it.

Because intelligence is a highly-heritable phenotype with a strong relationship to Darwinian selection pressures, such a thing as expecting that all races have equal genetic potential for intelligence would be like throwing fifty silver dollar coins in the air and expecting them all to land on edge.

Not at all. Where resources are more plentiful, populations typically expand until there is competition for them and smart use of them means reproductive fitness. What really would be like expecting fifty coins to land on edge would be expecting the vast range of environments occupied by Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (or whatever) people to conform to some IQ-engendering hierarchy.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Where? No one's denying that geographic isolation with genetic divergence is a precursor to speciation. What's disputed is that folk racial categories are therefore a precursor to speciation. Humans are an unusually genetically homogenous species - there is apparently more genetic variation in a typical chimpanzee troop than in the entire human race. And given our transportation technology, almost no population is isolated - certainly not the folk racial categories. Humans are piss poor candidates for speciation.

No one's denying the science. Rather, the so-called "scientific racists" are making an unwarranted extrapolation from it.

The argument at hand of David Duke is not about candidates for speciation. Maybe human races will progress toward speciation because of the new immigration pattern, maybe not, but one way or the other that's a different issue, as it is not any criterion for recognition of either biological races or subspecies. The point of contention is the denial of the biological existence of human races. On this particular point, David Duke has the apparent scientific advantage over the mainstream of American anthropologists. Because of the political ideology explicitly underlying their science, they handed David Duke that advantage, and he will use that advantage to full effect for the sake of his own politics.

Because intelligence is a highly-heritable phenotype with a strong relationship to Darwinian selection pressures, such a thing as expecting that all races have equal genetic potential for intelligence would be like throwing fifty silver dollar coins in the air and expecting them all to land on edge.

Not at all. Where resources are more plentiful, populations typically expand until there is competition for them and smart use of them means reproductive fitness. What really would be like expecting fifty coins to land on edge would be expecting the vast range of environments occupied by Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (or whatever) people to conform to some IQ-engendering hierarchy.

You may have in mind Rushton's three-race hierarchy of intelligence, and on that point I agree with you, as the reality probably isn't the hierarchy as Rushton modeled it, as two of the three races occupied widely diverse environments, but Rushton's samples were limited to current members of North America. A better model, in my opinion, is provided by Lynn & Vanhanen and Templer & Arikawa, who had a globally comprehensive and continuous model of races WITHOUT discrete racial divisions as opposed to Rushton's model, and the model shows a very strong correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among native populations, a negative correlation of -0.9. But, Templer & Arikawa still rightly credited the general explanation for this correlation to Rushton's theory (r/K selection of human races). Such a strong correlation would be expected if colder climates impose a Darwinian selection pressure for greater intelligence. Maybe you would disagree with that. Maybe you would instead expect that hotter climates would demand greater intelligence. Maybe that's reasonable. But, why should anyone reasonably expect that the Darwinian selection pressures for intelligence be exactly the same for all races everywhere? That would be the magical silver dollars.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The argument at hand of David Duke is not about candidates for speciation. Maybe human races will progress toward speciation because of the new immigration pattern, maybe not, but one way or the other that's a different issue, as it is not any criterion for recognition of either biological races or subspecies. The point of contention is the denial of the biological existence of human races. On this particular point, David Duke has the apparent scientific advantage over the mainstream of American anthropologists. Because of the political ideology explicitly underlying their science, they handed David Duke that advantage, and he will use that advantage to full effect for the sake of his own politics.

Then they haven't handed over any advantage since the scientific question is anything but settled. Not the question of whether race is biologically meaningful, but whether human folk racial categories are biologically meaningful.

As world authority and father of population genetics Cavilli-Svorza put it "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin."

Because intelligence is a highly-heritable phenotype with a strong relationship to Darwinian selection pressures, such a thing as expecting that all races have equal genetic potential for intelligence would be like throwing fifty silver dollar coins in the air and expecting them all to land on edge.

Not at all. Where resources are more plentiful, populations typically expand until there is competition for them and smart use of them means reproductive fitness. What really would be like expecting fifty coins to land on edge would be expecting the vast range of environments occupied by Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid (or whatever) people to conform to some IQ-engendering hierarchy.

You may have in mind Rushton's three-race hierarchy of intelligence, and on that point I agree with you, as the reality probably isn't the hierarchy as Rushton modeled it, as two of the three races occupied widely diverse environments, but Rushton's samples were limited to current members of North America. A better model, in my opinion, is provided by Lynn & Vanhanen and Templer & Arikawa, who had a globally comprehensive and continuous model of races WITHOUT discrete racial divisions as opposed to Rushton's model, and the model shows a very strong correlation between average skin pigmentation and average IQ among native populations, a negative correlation of -0.9.

But with way too many counterexamples and confounders to support the "scientific racist" view. As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam.

But, Templer & Arikawa still rightly credited the general explanation for this correlation to Rushton's theory (r/K selection of human races). Such a strong correlation would be expected if colder climates impose a Darwinian selection pressure for greater intelligence. Maybe you would disagree with that. Maybe you would instead expect that hotter climates would demand greater intelligence.

I'm pretty obviously arguing against any such facile explanation.

But, why should anyone reasonably expect that the Darwinian selection pressures for intelligence be exactly the same for all races everywhere?

They shouldn't for the same reason they shouldn't expect selection pressures for intelligence to be exactly the same for all members of any given folk racial category everywhere. What they should expect is a wash with all or nearly all the variance being within groups and any between-group variance swamped by environmental factors. That's why, when we break down the data into finer distinctions than folk racial categories, the hierarchy doesn't hold. Read the article you apparently failed to read in the other thread.

That would be the magical silver dollars.

Then so-called "scientific racists" should stop expecting anything so unlikely.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Then they haven't handed over any advantage since the scientific question is anything but settled. Not the question of whether race is biologically meaningful, but whether human folk racial categories are biologically meaningful.

As world authority and father of population genetics Cavilli-Svorza put it "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin."

I remember when you quoted Cavalli-Sforza, and I remember replying to it. You may have missed that reply, as you never acknowledged it, so I will repeat it below. Cavilli-Svorza's assertion is extraordinary except in light of politics of the sixties, because Charles Darwin took positions on human races that are most certainly biological and would be considered most taboo today, expressed in his book, Descent of Man. The assertion could just rest on the word, "classification," which means his assertion is probably not relevant to your argument from authority. The important lesson is to not merely rest on authority opinion. Use the direct evidence.

I investigated Cavalli-Sforza a little more, and the history of his opinions on race is interesting. He made a family tree of human "populations" in his 1994 textbook.

He was rightly criticized for this depiction because family trees of races are misleading at best. Such a tree may mislead viewers into thinking that a closer distance between two branches means a closer genetic relationship, but, as there is plenty of horizontal gene flow between two otherwise distant branches of the tree (i.e. between the caucasoid Indians and the mongoloid Chinese), they may be closely related in spite of distance branches on a family tree, and ANY such family tree is misleading. A better depiction of genetic racial similarities is through principal component analysis, which Cavalli-Sforza also depicted to his credit.

The illustration I most prefer is through cluster analysis, i.e. Tishkoff et al, 2009, page 1038.

Cavalli-Sforza's views on human races apparently evolved over his lifetime. His earlier writings assume the reality and validity of human races, but his later writings are more dismissive of it, and he instead uses the word "populations" in a way that means the same biological concept as "race." The reason for this shift is found in a quote of AWF Edwards in the 2010 paper by Neven Sesardic titled, "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept." The excerpt from Neven Sesardić's paper is as follows:

Oddly, even the scholars who have been at the very forefront of empirical research on race are prone to use fallacious reasoning in order to downplay the importance of that concept. For instance, Cavalli-Sforza, geneticist and the lead author of the path-breaking History and Geography of Human Genes (CavalliSforza et al. 1994), states in a book co-authored with Walter Bodmer: "Races are, in fact, generally very far from pure and, as a result, any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult" (Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza 1976—italic added). Is any classification of races imperfect? Yes. Difficult? Perhaps. But arbitrary? No, this certainly does not follow from the premise, "as a result".

Speaking about Cavalli-Sforza, it is interesting that he tried to defuse potential political attacks on his research by a simple and sometimes surprisingly effective rhetorical ploy. At one point he just stopped using the term "race" and replaced it with a much less loaded expression "human population", which in many contexts he actually used more or less with the same meaning as "race". On one occasion this terminological switch gave rise to an amusingly ironic development, as described in the following episode involving Cavalli-Sforza's collaborator, Edwards:

When in the 1960s I started working on the problem of reconstructing the course of human evolution from data on the frequencies of blood-group genes my colleague Luca Cavalli-Sforza and I sometimes unconsciously used the word 'race' interchangeably with 'population' in our publications. In one popular account, I wrote naturally of 'the present races of man'. Quite recently I quoted the passage in an Italian publication, so it needed translating. Sensitive to the modern misgivings over the use of the word 'race', Cavalli-Sforza suggested I change it to 'population'. At first I was reluctant to do so on the grounds that quotations should be accurate and not altered to meet contemporary sensibilities. But he pointed out that, as the original author, I was the only person who could possibly object. I changed 'present races of man' to 'present populations of man' and sent the paper to be translated into Italian. When it was published the translator had rendered the phrase as 'le razze umane moderne'. (Edwards undated, unpublished manuscript)​

AWF Edwards was thanked as a reviewer of this paper, and he is the author of "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy," which effectively struck down the most popular established argument against the biology of human races. He became much less considerate of modern misgivings about human races, apparently, than Cavalli-Sforza. The politics has caused games to be played with words. Since you are much less likely to get textbooks published and sold if you talk about "race" as though it is biologically significant, authors use different words to mean the same thing, and the needed science gets done, but it makes the science a confusing house of mirrors. Neven Sesardić's paper is one I highly suggest reading to clear the air.

 

[ApostateAbe]

But, why should anyone reasonably expect that the Darwinian selection pressures for intelligence be exactly the same for all races everywhere?

They shouldn't for the same reason they shouldn't expect selection pressures for intelligence to be exactly the same for all members of any given folk racial category everywhere. What they should expect is a wash with all or nearly all the variance being within groups and any between-group variance swamped by environmental factors. That's why, when we break down the data into finer distinctions than folk racial categories, the hierarchy doesn't hold. Read the article you apparently failed to read in the other thread.

That would be the magical silver dollars.

Then so-called "scientific racists" should stop expecting anything so unlikely.

"What they should expect is a wash with all or nearly all the variance being within groups and any between-group variance swamped by environmental factors."

All the silver dollars shatter into pieces as soon as they land, and maybe that solves the problems. Would we expect such a "wash" for racial differences in genotypic skin color? Genotypic height differences? Genotypic immune system differences? Genotypic lung size differences? If not, then why would we expect such a thing with racial differences in genotypic intelligence?

 

[untermensche]

Because intelligence is a highly-heritable phenotype with a strong relationship to Darwinian selection pressures, such a thing as expecting that all races have equal genetic potential for intelligence would be like throwing fifty silver dollar coins in the air and expecting them all to land on edge.

Intelligence is dependent on environment so I would expect a healthy human to approximate their models, usually a parent, many times not.

Who humans model towards very early in life has a lot to do with what they become.

Modeling simply meaning learning how one behaves and how one thinks and how one talks.

A child of a philosophy professor is going to be exposed to different modes of thinking than the child of a single mother who cleans for a living.

The child of the philosophy professor will approximate to the philosophy professor. It will understand the language and modes of thought and behaviors far better than the child of the single mother who finished high school but because of approximations made in her childhood didn't do very well.

There is evidence that the language capacity begins in the womb.

Babies only hours old are able to differentiate between sounds from their native language and a foreign language, scientists have discovered. The study indicates that babies begin absorbing language while still in the womb, earlier than previously thought.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/01/02/while-in-womb-babies-begin-learning-language-from-their-mothers/

The environment of the very early human, even before they can speak is vitally important. There are cognitive windows of opportunity that if certain ways of thinking are not acquired when introduced later will be to some like their native language but to others like learning a foreign language.

What we do know is that there are no difference in human groups in the ability to acquire language. There are only individual differences.

And when you say that "intelligence is a highly-heritable phenotype" what does that mean?

A child is a combination of two people. People many times mate based on levels of education and intelligence, maybe usually. So the environment can usually explain why children approximate the intelligence of their parents.

If there is a child with one parent with a very high IQ and the other with a very low IQ which parent will the child be more like? If we know it is inheritable we also know this for certain.

Human intelligence arises out of incredibly complicated interaction between billions of cells. And during development of the brain the neurons migrate and half die. This cannot be totally under genetic control. It has to be under the control of general rules and then chance movements and environmental factors. Human intelligence arises as the result of the activity of thousands of genes. And that is just half the story. There is the environment in which development takes place and the stimulations, the womb, including the language of the mother, so who knows what other cognitive processes are developing in the womb.

And of course the environment of the young infant which in terms of human thinking is limited to the people the infant has exposure to.

All these environmental factors cannot be waved away with the flick of the wrist.

Nobody has any idea what genes are involved in the creation of "human intelligence".

When that is known we will be able to say how much variation is possible due to genetic factors.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Intelligence is dependent on environment [and nothing else?] so I would expect a healthy human to approximate their models, usually a parent, many times not.

Who humans model towards very early in life has a lot to do with what they become.

Modeling simply meaning learning how one behaves and how one thinks and how one talks.

A child of a philosophy professor is going to be exposed to different modes of thinking than the child of a single mother who cleans for a living.

The child of the philosophy professor will approximate to the philosophy professor. It will understand the language and modes of thought and behaviors far better than the child of the single mother who finished high school but because of approximations made in her childhood didn't do very well.

There is evidence that the language capacity [what about general intelligence?] begins in the womb.

A useful debate over race has to begin with the relevant bare facts, and among other facts it includes the fact that variations in general intelligence are highly heritable, about h²=0.7. That means, one way or the other, intelligence differences within any race have a strong component of genotypic differences. You need to somehow relevantly explain how you would not likewise expect average genotypic intelligence differences among races, given that absolutely any genetic variant varies in frequency among races who evolved in vastly different environments and showed average genotypic variations of many other sorts. Or, yes, you can just ignore the basic facts, close your eyes and shout that genes don't matter, that it is all about upbringing for anyone and nothing else, but it does not contribute anything and it doesn't help anyone.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is this topic classed as pseudoscience? Can actual science not be done on this topic?

The admins/moderators decided to limit all of my topics related to race to the Pseudoscience forum, presumably until I agree with them on the subject.

They give no explanation as to why? To classify something as pseudoscience should require some sort of data analysis or at least an expert opinion. They classify your posts as pseudoscience just because they find what you say disturbing?

I find that in itself quite disturbing, and quite ironic on a board that calls itself talkfreethought.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The admins/moderators decided to limit all of my topics related to race to the Pseudoscience forum, presumably until I agree with them on the subject.

They give no explanation as to why? To classify something as pseudoscience should require some sort of data analysis or at least an expert opinion. They classify your posts as pseudoscience just because they find what you say disturbing?

I find that in itself quite disturbing, and quite ironic on a board that calls itself talkfreethought.

No explanation was given. "Freethought" and "skeptic" and "rational" are and have always been self-flattering words designed to preserve the core dogmas and taboos. They don't even think of them as dogmas and taboos. They are just obvious realities realized by anyone who isn't either a retard or a frothing Klansman. This forum is far more libertarian than typical among atheist communities. What is typical is to completely block, censor and exclude. For decades that has been how liberals have effectively fought for their side of the scientific race debates. It worked.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

Dogs may not be the analogy you want. Dog breeds do have demonstrable behavioural traits different between breeds. Some dog breeds are reliably docile or high strung or intelligent or prone to violence.

Humans have far less variation between races so this shouldn't be as pronounced, but does it exist? Maybe? Maybe not? Looking at actual research may give some answers. But to what end? How are these answers useful other than to fan the flames of racism? I'm not seeing the point and I wouldn't fund this research. But I also can't support censoring or forbidding it, or pretending it says something other than it says, or classifying it as pseudoscience with no basis of doing so.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

Dogs may not be the analogy you want. Dog breeds do have demonstrable behavioural traits different between breeds. Some dog breeds are reliably docile or high strung or intelligent or prone to violence.

Humans have far less variation between races so this shouldn't be as pronounced, but does it exist? Maybe? Maybe not? Looking at actual research may give some answers. But to what end? How are these answers useful other than to fan the flames of racism? I'm not seeing the point and I wouldn't fund this research. But I also can't support censoring or forbidding it, or pretending it says something other than it says, or classifying it as pseudoscience with no basis of doing so.

Genetic racial differences relate so closely to the core of objective human nature that I am always taken aback by the query, "What good can come of this?" As though it may be better to charge headlong into the age of genetic engineering wearing upside-down glasses. Using such knowledge, we could create a utopia, in which high intelligence is not merely the rare privilege of a few. Or, we can instead hate the science, and genetic racial differences can be widened further, along with a new racial division between the rich and the poor, to be entrenched forever.

 

[untermensche]

It is so easy to dispute this.

Look at dogs.

All the same species. Far more diversity in phenotype than humans.

It takes long periods of isolation to produce these subspecies.

Longer than humans have existed.

Dogs may not be the analogy you want. Dog breeds do have demonstrable behavioural traits different between breeds. Some dog breeds are reliably docile or high strung or intelligent or prone to violence.

Humans have far less variation between races so this shouldn't be as pronounced, but does it exist? Maybe? Maybe not? Looking at actual research may give some answers. But to what end? How are these answers useful other than to fan the flames of racism? I'm not seeing the point and I wouldn't fund this research. But I also can't support censoring or forbidding it, or pretending it says something other than it says, or classifying it as pseudoscience with no basis of doing so.

The only thing we use to judge dog intelligence is how well they follow the commands of humans. There is no "IQ test" beyond that

But intelligence is not following the commands of humans.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Dogs may not be the analogy you want. Dog breeds do have demonstrable behavioural traits different between breeds. Some dog breeds are reliably docile or high strung or intelligent or prone to violence.

Humans have far less variation between races so this shouldn't be as pronounced, but does it exist? Maybe? Maybe not? Looking at actual research may give some answers. But to what end? How are these answers useful other than to fan the flames of racism? I'm not seeing the point and I wouldn't fund this research. But I also can't support censoring or forbidding it, or pretending it says something other than it says, or classifying it as pseudoscience with no basis of doing so.

The only thing we use to judge dog intelligence is how well they follow the commands of humans. There is no "IQ test" beyond that

But intelligence is not following the commands of humans.

But, intelligence is performing tasks well.

 

[untermensche]

The only thing we use to judge dog intelligence is how well they follow the commands of humans. There is no "IQ test" beyond that

But intelligence is not following the commands of humans.

But, intelligence is performing tasks well.

For a dog the task is survival. And what that means is having some human serve them.

They are doing great at that.

Across many breeds.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I remember when you quoted Cavalli-Sforza, and I remember replying to it. You may have missed that reply, as you never acknowledged it, so I will repeat it below. Cavilli-Svorza's assertion is extraordinary except in light of politics of the sixties, because Charles Darwin took positions on human races that are most certainly biological and would be considered most taboo today, expressed in his book, Descent of Man. The assertion could just rest on the word, "classification," which means his assertion is probably not relevant to your argument from authority. The important lesson is to not merely rest on authority opinion. Use the direct evidence.

I investigated Cavalli-Sforza a little more, and the history of his opinions on race is interesting. He made a family tree of human "populations" in his 1994 textbook.

He was rightly criticized for this depiction because family trees of races are misleading at best. Such a tree may mislead viewers into thinking that a closer distance between two branches means a closer genetic relationship, but, as there is plenty of horizontal gene flow between two otherwise distant branches of the tree (i.e. between the caucasoid Indians and the mongoloid Chinese), they may be closely related in spite of distance branches on a family tree, and ANY such family tree is misleading. A better depiction of genetic racial similarities is through principal component analysis, which Cavalli-Sforza also depicted to his credit.

The illustration I most prefer is through cluster analysis, i.e. Tishkoff et al, 2009, page 1038.

Cavalli-Sforza's views on human races apparently evolved over his lifetime. His earlier writings assume the reality and validity of human races, but his later writings are more dismissive of it, and he instead uses the word "populations" in a way that means the same biological concept as "race." The reason for this shift is found in a quote of AWF Edwards in the 2010 paper by Neven Sesardic titled, "Race: a social destruction of a biological concept." The excerpt from Neven Sesardić's paper is as follows:

Oddly, even the scholars who have been at the very forefront of empirical research on race are prone to use fallacious reasoning in order to downplay the importance of that concept. For instance, Cavalli-Sforza, geneticist and the lead author of the path-breaking History and Geography of Human Genes (CavalliSforza et al. 1994), states in a book co-authored with Walter Bodmer: "Races are, in fact, generally very far from pure and, as a result, any classification of races is arbitrary, imperfect, and difficult" (Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza 1976—italic added). Is any classification of races imperfect? Yes. Difficult? Perhaps. But arbitrary? No, this certainly does not follow from the premise, "as a result".

Speaking about Cavalli-Sforza, it is interesting that he tried to defuse potential political attacks on his research by a simple and sometimes surprisingly effective rhetorical ploy. At one point he just stopped using the term "race" and replaced it with a much less loaded expression "human population", which in many contexts he actually used more or less with the same meaning as "race". On one occasion this terminological switch gave rise to an amusingly ironic development, as described in the following episode involving Cavalli-Sforza's collaborator, Edwards:

When in the 1960s I started working on the problem of reconstructing the course of human evolution from data on the frequencies of blood-group genes my colleague Luca Cavalli-Sforza and I sometimes unconsciously used the word 'race' interchangeably with 'population' in our publications. In one popular account, I wrote naturally of 'the present races of man'. Quite recently I quoted the passage in an Italian publication, so it needed translating. Sensitive to the modern misgivings over the use of the word 'race', Cavalli-Sforza suggested I change it to 'population'. At first I was reluctant to do so on the grounds that quotations should be accurate and not altered to meet contemporary sensibilities. But he pointed out that, as the original author, I was the only person who could possibly object. I changed 'present races of man' to 'present populations of man' and sent the paper to be translated into Italian. When it was published the translator had rendered the phrase as 'le razze umane moderne'. (Edwards undated, unpublished manuscript)​

AWF Edwards was thanked as a reviewer of this paper, and he is the author of "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy," which effectively struck down the most popular established argument against the biology of human races. He became much less considerate of modern misgivings about human races, apparently, than Cavalli-Sforza. The politics has caused games to be played with words. Since you are much less likely to get textbooks published and sold if you talk about "race" as though it is biologically significant, authors use different words to mean the same thing, and the needed science gets done, but it makes the science a confusing house of mirrors. Neven Sesardić's paper is one I highly suggest reading to clear the air.

C-S arrived at that conclusion through his groundbreaking research, having previously been of the contrary opinion regardless of political correctness. It's neither extraordinary nor anything to do with the 1960s and political correctness.

And of course you can dig up some contrary opinion, since - per my actual point - the scientific question is anything but settled. So I still don't know what advantage has been handed to racists.