Time.com publishes an article in defense of scientific racism

[ApostateAbe]

I am in the middle of writing my own article in defense of scientific racism, as I would like to help kill the taboo against it and cast better light on the ridiculous and common delusion that race is not biological. So it came as a surprise that Time.com beat me to it, because I thought of Time Magazine as a brochure of boring unprovocative conventionality designed for waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. The article is based on a new book by the same author, Nicholas Wade, the former science editor of the New York Times.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

Even better is that the most popular critical review of the book is tempered and reasonable, not blasting the book for its conclusions but for its arguments:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

Nicholas Wade seems to get too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations, so the criticisms of the reviewer seem to hold up. Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murray, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, stayed general with their arguments, their arguments are very sound and not as speculative, they were eminent scientists, but not as diplomatic in their writings, and they were met with much more hostility from the public. Nicholas Wade's writing is diplomatic. Maybe this is a turning point, when scientific racism can be more tolerated by the public rather than shouted down.

 

[rousseau]

'Racism' is a loaded term that conjures a very specific meaning for most people, not usually positive. In some definitions of the word the term 'scientific racism' makes sense, but it's a poor way of referring to the process.

That said, the article was obviously very carefully worded and as far as I can tell danced around the truth. It seemed to try to emphasize the unity between races based on common genes, but under-stated the effect of variations in alleles. That's probably a good thing in terms of this article, but I suspect the whole truth won't be pretty, if that's where this is leading.

 

[ApostateAbe]

'Racism' is a loaded term that conjures a very specific meaning for most people, not usually positive. In some definitions of the word the term 'scientific racism' makes sense, but it's a poor way of referring to the process.

That said, the article was obviously very carefully worded and as far as I can tell danced around the truth. It seemed to try to emphasize the unity between races based on common genes, but under-stated the effect of variations in alleles. That's probably a good thing in terms of this article, but I suspect the whole truth won't be pretty, if that's where this is leading.

Yes, I think you are right. I use the phrase, "scientific racism," without shame, because I don't want to play games with words. When other phrases are used, like "race realism" or "racialism," they come off as euphemisms, because they really are euphemisms, and it is even harder to shake the baggage that comes with the word "racism" as soon as the association is made.

 

[Bomb#20]

Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson...

Where the heck did E.O.Wilson ever defend "scientific" racism? A person having been smeared as a racist by left-wing quacks is not evidence that he said anything pro-racism.

I use the phrase, "scientific racism," without shame, because I don't want to play games with words. When other phrases are used, like "race realism" or "racialism," they come off as euphemisms, because they really are euphemisms...

"Race realism" is not a euphemism for "scientific racism"; it's an accurate term for a different concept. To merely take note of the fact that H. sapiens like other species has observable taxonomic divisions below the species level in no way commits one to the opinion that members of one of those divisions are "inferior" to members of another. A concept having been smeared as racist by left-wing quacks is not evidence that it implies anything pro-racism.

 

[Perspicuo]

Uh-oh. Someone just spilled lighter fluid all over the floor... time to jump out of the window 'cause this is gonna catch fire!

 

[ApostateAbe]

Where the heck did E.O.Wilson ever defend "scientific" racism? A person having been smeared as a racist by left-wing quacks is not evidence that he said anything pro-racism.

I use the phrase, "scientific racism," without shame, because I don't want to play games with words. When other phrases are used, like "race realism" or "racialism," they come off as euphemisms, because they really are euphemisms...

"Race realism" is not a euphemism for "scientific racism"; it's an accurate term for a different concept. To merely take note of the fact that H. sapiens like other species has observable taxonomic divisions below the species level in no way commits one to the opinion that members of one of those divisions are "inferior" to members of another. A concept having been smeared as racist by left-wing quacks is not evidence that it implies anything pro-racism.

I have no big disagreement. I accept some of the vocabulary of the left-wingers so the disagreements can be focused on the ideas and not on the definitions of words.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no big disagreement. I accept some of the vocabulary of the left-wingers so the disagreements can be focused on the ideas and not on the definitions of words.

That's a bad idea. They use that vocabulary for the purpose of arguing for their ideas using equivocation fallacies. Accepting their vocabulary means letting them get away with it, which means leaving insufficiently attentive lay readers with the impression that they won the argument when in fact all they did was cheat. Focusing on the definitions of words is the only way to expose their subterfuge.

 

[rjh01]

I think this quote is interesting. It says we are very nearly genetically identical.

That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.

Consider also that 99% of our genes are also common to our closest animal relatives and that does not give much space for differences between human 'races.'

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think this quote is interesting. It says we are very nearly genetically identical.

That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.

Consider also that 99% of our genes are also common to our closest animal relatives and that does not give much space for differences between human 'races.'

I come to the opposite conclusion with the same evidence. There is only 1% genetic difference between ourselves and chimpanzees, but that 1% apparently makes a big difference physiologically between chimpanzees and humans when those genetic variations manifest. It means even very small percentages of genetic differences among the human races likewise amount to significant variations in the manifestations.

 

[Togo]

But the article doesn't support 'scientific racism'. It supports the idea that genetic differences between 'races' are tiny compared to overall variation. It's full of examples of ethnic groups rapidly changing their genetic makeup by virtue of their environment. All it's doing is taking existing ideas about cultural evolution and suggesting that genetics, far from establishing a different baseline for performance in each group, plays a wider role in the rapid environmentally driven changes in ethnic groups than was previously thought. The article is full of speculations that, if true, would render scientific designations of race a mere historical curiosity, with no effect on performance.

 

[doubtingt]

But the article doesn't support 'scientific racism'. It supports the idea that genetic differences between 'races' are tiny compared to overall variation. It's full of examples of ethnic groups rapidly changing their genetic makeup by virtue of their environment. All it's doing is taking existing ideas about cultural evolution and suggesting that genetics, far from establishing a different baseline for performance in each group, plays a wider role in the rapid environmentally driven changes in ethnic groups than was previously thought.

But the article asserts that different racial groups experienced highly different environments and different changes to those environments. Thus, if a group evolves rather rapidly in response to environmental factors, then it is essentially guaranteed that groups that evolved in different environments and experienced different environmental changes would have evolved biologically based differences in countless ways. This very much supports racial groups having different "baselines" or central tendencies around which members of each group vary, thus creating overlapping but still different distributions (IOW significant biologically based differences in the group means). The fact that the evolved differences lie more in allele frequencies doesn't change this and really isn't all that important to the fact of evolved biological differences that determine the frequency distributions for each group on a host of variables, and therefore create differences in the probability that any random member of each group would have a value on a physical or psychological variable at, above, or below, that of a randomly selected member of another group.

 

[ApostateAbe]

But the article doesn't support 'scientific racism'. It supports the idea that genetic differences between 'races' are tiny compared to overall variation. It's full of examples of ethnic groups rapidly changing their genetic makeup by virtue of their environment. All it's doing is taking existing ideas about cultural evolution and suggesting that genetics, far from establishing a different baseline for performance in each group, plays a wider role in the rapid environmentally driven changes in ethnic groups than was previously thought. The article is full of speculations that, if true, would render scientific designations of race a mere historical curiosity, with no effect on performance.

You seem to be saying that the article does not support X because the article is actually supporting X. Maybe you can rephrase, because there is a distinction I am not seeing.

 

[fromderinside]

'Racism' is a loaded term that conjures a very specific meaning for most people, not usually positive. In some definitions of the word the term 'scientific racism' makes sense, but it's a poor way of referring to the process.

That said, the article was obviously very carefully worded and as far as I can tell danced around the truth. It seemed to try to emphasize the unity between races based on common genes, but under-stated the effect of variations in alleles. That's probably a good thing in terms of this article, but I suspect the whole truth won't be pretty, if that's where this is leading.

Yes, I think you are right. I use the phrase, "scientific racism," without shame, because I don't want to play games with words. When other phrases are used, like "race realism" or "racialism," they come off as euphemisms, because they really are euphemisms, and it is even harder to shake the baggage that comes with the word "racism" as soon as the association is made.

So if one, as a scientist, dances around topics that suggest things that may be 'just so' in a scientific paper addressing jumps from those things may be 'just so' to genetics, one is writing a scientific paper? Let me join Perspicuo here, "run there's a liquid on the floor and it may explode".

Consider this. Species of plants and animals are know to pass genetic changes from the result of a triggering of gene modification by such as methylation due to some environmental condition level. You are buying in to this article by ones speculate about the effects of gene combinations on behavior in organisms who are black, white, etc, from such as adaptation to solar influences?

 

[Jokodo]

I am in the middle of writing my own article in defense of scientific racism, as I would like to help kill the taboo against it and cast better light on the ridiculous and common delusion that race is not biological. So it came as a surprise that Time.com beat me to it, because I thought of Time Magazine as a brochure of boring unprovocative conventionality designed for waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. The article is based on a new book by the same author, Nicholas Wade, the former science editor of the New York Times.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

Even better is that the most popular critical review of the book is tempered and reasonable, not blasting the book for its conclusions but for its arguments:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

Nicholas Wade seems to get too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations, so the criticisms of the reviewer seem to hold up. Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murray, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, stayed general with their arguments, their arguments are very sound and not as speculative, they were eminent scientists, but not as diplomatic in their writings, and they were met with much more hostility from the public. Nicholas Wade's writing is diplomatic. Maybe this is a turning point, when scientific racism can be more tolerated by the public rather than shouted down.

Why would someone who "would like to help kill the taboo against [scientific racism]" applaud an text that tries to defend it and in doing so gets "too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations"? Shouldn't you be more properly outraged at the fact that yet another yahoo is smearing the good name of "scientific racism" by publishing ridiculous claims under its cover, thus presenting an easy target for everyone opposed to the idea?

That's how I'd react if I had a scientific interest in defending a theory that's come in disfavour. Meanwhile, if my interest were primarily ideological, I might be tempted to say to myself "at least he's thinking right", which is what you seem to be doing here.

 

[jab]

I am in the middle of writing my own article in defense of scientific racism, as I would like to help kill the taboo against it and cast better light on the ridiculous and common delusion that race is not biological. So it came as a surprise that Time.com beat me to it, because I thought of Time Magazine as a brochure of boring unprovocative conventionality designed for waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. The article is based on a new book by the same author, Nicholas Wade, the former science editor of the New York Times.

http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/


Even better is that the most popular critical review of the book is tempered and reasonable, not blasting the book for its conclusions but for its arguments:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._nicholas_wade_s_dated_assumptions_about.html

Nicholas Wade seems to get too specific with the speculations about the influence of genetic variations on ethnic variations, so the criticisms of the reviewer seem to hold up. Previous authors defending scientific racism, such as E. O. Wilson, Herrnstein & Murray, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, stayed general with their arguments, their arguments are very sound and not as speculative, they were eminent scientists, but not as diplomatic in their writings, and they were met with much more hostility from the public. Nicholas Wade's writing is diplomatic. Maybe this is a turning point, when scientific racism can be more tolerated by the public rather than shouted down.

So, howcum you didn't post this purely genetically based bit of science in Natural Science instead of Social Science?

 

[Togo]

But the article doesn't support 'scientific racism'. It supports the idea that genetic differences between 'races' are tiny compared to overall variation. It's full of examples of ethnic groups rapidly changing their genetic makeup by virtue of their environment. All it's doing is taking existing ideas about cultural evolution and suggesting that genetics, far from establishing a different baseline for performance in each group, plays a wider role in the rapid environmentally driven changes in ethnic groups than was previously thought.

But the article asserts that different racial groups experienced highly different environments and different changes to those environments. Thus, if a group evolves rather rapidly in response to environmental factors, then it is essentially guaranteed that groups that evolved in different environments and experienced different environmental changes would have evolved biologically based differences in countless ways. This very much supports racial groups having different "baselines" or central tendencies around which members of each group vary, thus creating overlapping but still different distributions (IOW significant biologically based differences in the group means).

It doesn't. If genetics change rapidly in response to environmental conditions, then there isn't a genetic baseline at all. All you have to do is change the environment and the genetics changes to match. Hence all differences are environmental. Worse, the kinds of environmental conditions they are talking about are not just climate, but about living conditions and civilisation patterns, which means that the 'environment' they are talking about includes cultural factors. The idea that observed genetic differences could the result of cultural change is about as far from a genetic baseline as you can get.

The fact that the evolved differences lie more in allele frequencies doesn't change this and really isn't all that important to the fact of evolved biological differences that determine the frequency distributions for each group on a host of variables, and therefore create differences in the probability that any random member of each group would have a value on a physical or psychological variable at, above, or below, that of a randomly selected member of another group.

Agreed, although the article does emphasise that the genetic differences are so small that they are likely to be swamped by existing individual differences.

Racism, scientific or otherwise, is based on the idea that a particular racial groups has fixed differences to other racial groups that make real differences in their overall performance. This article argues that the differences aren't fixed, and have little if any measureable impact on performance.

 

[Anon13948132]

I think this quote is interesting. It says we are very nearly genetically identical.

That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.

Consider also that 99% of our genes are also common to our closest animal relatives and that does not give much space for differences between human 'races.'

Think about it this way. All life generally shares a lot of DNA. Percent of DNA shared with:

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

[source]

And the number for chimps is something like 98 or 99%.

Now, think about humans. Differences within the 1% DNA is (partly) what makes the difference between Mozart and persons normal variation retardation. Huge difference in mental capacity. The same 1% also makes most of the visual differences both within races and between them. Clearly it is quite possible that small amounts of DNA can have large effects. There are thousands of known genetic diseases that have their origin in a single loci difference. The rates of these in the population often changes depending on which race one is looking at. The textbook example is sickle-cell anemia/disease. It turns out that nature has been cruel again. Having one copy of that gene gives one resistance to malaria, but having two is fatal. As evolution has it, this gene can spread through a population IF malaria is a large problem which is also what is found.

There are other stuff like this, e.g. height-adaptations in races living in mountainous regions, milk digestion genes, and obviously skin color.

 

[rjh01]

I think this quote is interesting. It says we are very nearly genetically identical.



Consider also that 99% of our genes are also common to our closest animal relatives and that does not give much space for differences between human 'races.'

Think about it this way. All life generally shares a lot of DNA. Percent of DNA shared with:

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

[source]

And the number for chimps is something like 98 or 99%.

Now, think about humans. Differences within the 1% DNA is (partly) what makes the difference between Mozart and persons normal variation retardation. Huge difference in mental capacity. The same 1% also makes most of the visual differences both within races and between them. Clearly it is quite possible that small amounts of DNA can have large effects. There are thousands of known genetic diseases that have their origin in a single loci difference. The rates of these in the population often changes depending on which race one is looking at. The textbook example is sickle-cell anemia/disease. It turns out that nature has been cruel again. Having one copy of that gene gives one resistance to malaria, but having two is fatal. As evolution has it, this gene can spread through a population IF malaria is a large problem which is also what is found.

There are other stuff like this, e.g. height-adaptations in races living in mountainous regions, milk digestion genes, and obviously skin color.

None of which shows that intelligence is superior in any one group of humans. In fact it is environmental differences that determine such things.

 

[J842P]

None of which shows that intelligence is superior in any one group of humans. In fact it is environmental differences that determine such things.

Most traits are determined by complex interactions between inherited characteristics and the environment. So while it is true that a lot of the variance in "intelligence" is explained by environmental factors, it is pretty well established that inherited characteristics explain a significant proportion of what is left.

Now, if we compare any two non-random populations we would not expect those groups to have the same relative proportions of any given inherited characteristic. This would undoubtedly apply to whatever racial categorizations we come up with, and whatever inherited factors we find out influence intelligence, assuming we have some operational definition of intelligence that allows some sort of ordering relation to compare individuals and populations (such as the results of IQ tests).

After we have controlled for the effect of the environment, which is an academic assumption since we could never really do the sorts of experiments necessary on human populations as that would be unethical, I find it hard to believe that racial groups would have similar distributions of these inherited factors. What is even harder to believe is that whatever the results of such experiments would be, they would line up with the current prejudices that exist in the world.

 

[Anon13948132]

None of which shows that intelligence is superior in any one group of humans. In fact it is environmental differences that determine such things.

That has been known for 100 years or so. It is not really in doubt, only among the PC people. Of course, heritability of group differences is the active question as was it since 1969 when Jensen restarted the discussion after its slumber. Expert opinion is moving towards hereditarianism and in any case we will know for certain in the next decade when more g alleles are found. It's just a matter of counting them in different races. In fact, this was started months about by Piffer. Hereditarianism is in the similar evidential position as was evolution before DNA evidence. Very plausible, but not that much direct evidence.

The point of my previous post is not to show that you which talk about. The point is to make it clear that differences between races is very possible and in fact there are known examples.