Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

[Over 9000]

Talking of obfuscating... So what are you implying exactly? That the same environmental differences between the north and south that contributed towards different shades of skin colours also (almost always?) affected IQ's? What should we read into the relevance of IQ's? For me it is as (ir)relevant as skin colour...nada, zilch.

Environmental explanations are secondary to establishing hereditary traits. There were probably other factors than "amount of sunlight". Such as population density (mutation rate), development of agriculture is thought to be a major factor as it stabilised environments leading to K-selection, cold winters placing higher value on parental care and technical competence than fecundity/muscular-speed etc. (trade-off). All of this is pretty speculative and secondary to whether racial IQ (and other important behaviors such as creativity and openness, family stability, psychopathy, etc. etc.) differences are significantly heritable. I think they are.

 

Can you explain why you think IQ is of no importance?

 

PS. I don't quite get the question of the poll - Do you believe there are racial differences in intelligence? Gosh, that is such an unscientific question to start with?

 

Well we've been over why race is scientific. We can go over why IQ is scientific. "Scientific" doesn't mean "I like this".

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

^ I already posed the question (as to the relevance of IQ) to the previous poster.

[Over 9000]

^ I already posed the question (as to the relevance of IQ) to the previous poster.

 

IQ is scientific because it predicts ability in various important fields and outcomes, and is a largely stable measure in adulthood.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[EgalitarianJay]

Talking of obfuscating... So what are you implying exactly? That the same environmental differences between the north and south that contributed towards different shades of skin colours also (almost always?) affected IQ's? What should we read into the relevance of IQ's? For me it is as (ir)relevant as skin colour...nada, zilch.

PS. I don't quite get the question of the poll - Do you believe there are racial differences in intelligence? Gosh, that is such an unscientific question to start with?

 

How is it unscientific?

[Ophiolite]

Here, this may help you understand the concepts involved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

 

Note that no "degree of genomic similarity" is referenced. This is just something you made up or parroted.

I do have a reasonable understanding of the concepts involved. My post was intended to politely demonstrate that you do not.

 

The "degree of genomic similarity" was not something I made up. It was, however, something I parroted. I took it from your post #194 where you defined a sub species thus:

 

They have the rigorous yet simple definition of shared ancestry or genomic similarity.

 

 

I found it difficult to take you seriously before. I find it impossible now.

[Over 9000]

I do have a reasonable understanding of the concepts involved. My post was intended to politely demonstrate that you do not.

 

The "degree of genomic similarity" was not something I made up. It was, however, something I parroted. I took it from your post #194 where you defined a sub species thus:

 

They have the rigorous yet simple definition of shared ancestry or genomic similarity.

 

You asked and I quote "What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to?" implying that there was a fixed value rather than a relative determination.

 

And then, if you knew it was relative, why did you ask the question?

 

I found it difficult to take you seriously before. I find it impossible now.

I share my ancestry with tomatoes. Does that mean we are subpecies?

 

That's a pity.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

How is it unscientific?

The word "believe" points to a subjective opinion.

How can the concept of "intelligence" (whatever is understood by it) have "racial differences"?

 

Look, these same issues have been dealt with in many different threads and in many different guises over and over. It is pretty pointless to try and instil rational, scientific discourse into topics that are very obviously (and sometimes blatantly) agenda-driven. Agenda's don't have a place in science. Let me leave you with these:

 

 

FROM: 2014: What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement? RACE by Nina Jablonksi

 

[sNIP] Clinicians continue to map observed patterns of health and disease onto old racial concepts such as "White", "Black" or "African American", "Asian," etc. Even after it has been shown that many diseases (adult-onset diabetes, alcoholism, high blood pressure, to name a few) show apparent racial patterns because people share similar environmental conditions, grouping by race are maintained. The use of racial self-categorization in epidemiological studies is defended and even encouraged. In most cases, race in medical studies is confounded with health disparities due to class, ethnic differences in social practices, and attitudes, all of which become meaningless when sufficient variables are taken into account.

 

Race's latest makeover arises from genomics and mostly within biomedical contexts. The sanctified position of medical science in the popular consciousness gives the race concept renewed esteem. Racial realists marshal genomic evidence to support the hard biological reality of racial difference, while racial skeptics see no racial patterns. What is clear is that people are seeing what they want to see. They are constructing studies to provide the outcomes they expect. In 2012, Catherine Bliss argued cogently that race today is best considered a belief system that "produces consistencies in perception and practice at a particular social and historical moment".

 

Race has a hold on history, but it no longer has a place in science. The sheer instability and potential for misinterpretation render race useless as a scientific concept. Inventing new vocabularies of human diversity and inequity won't be easy, but is necessary.

 

FROM: 2014: What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement? IQ by Scott Atran​

 

There is no reason to believe, and much reason not to believe, that the measure of a so-called "Intelligence Quotient" in any way reflects some basic cognitive capacity, or "natural kind" of the human mind. The domain-general measure of IQ is not motivated by any recent discovery of cognitive or developmental psychology. It thoroughly confounds domain-specific abilities—distinct mental capacities for, say, geometrical and spatial reasoning about shapes and positions, mechanical reasoning about mass and motion, taxonomic reasoning about biological kinds, social reasoning about other people's beliefs and desires, and so on—which are the only sorts of cognitive abilities for which an evolutionary account seems plausible in terms of natural selection for task-specific competencies.

 

Nowhere in the animal or plant kingdoms does there ever appear to have been natural selection for a task-general adaptation. An overall measure of intelligence or mental competence is akin an overall measure for "the body," taking no special account of the various and specific bodily organs and functions, such as hearts, lungs, stomach, circulation, respiration, digestion and so on. A doctor or biologist presented with a single measure for "Body Quotient" (BQ) wouldn't be able to make much of it. IQ is a general measure of socially acceptable categorization and reasoning skills. IQ tests were designed in behaviorism's heyday, when there was little interest cognitive structure. The scoring system was tooled to generate a normal distribution of scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

 

In other societies, a normal distribution of some general measure of social intelligence might look very different, in that some "normal" members of our society could well produce a score that is a standard deviation from "normal" members of another society on that other society's test. For example, in forced-choice tasks East Asian students (China, Korea, Japan) tend to favor field-dependent perception over object-salient perception, thematic reasoning over taxonomic reasoning, and exemplar-based categorization over rule-based categorization. American students generally prefer the opposite. On tests that measure these various categorization and reasoning skills, East Asians average higher on their preferences and Americans average higher on theirs'. There is nothing particularly revealing about these different distributions other than that they reflect some underlying socio- cultural differences.

 

There is a long history of acrimonious debate over which, if any, aspects of IQ are heritable. The most compelling studies concern twins raised apart and adoptions. Twin studies rarely have large sample populations. Moreover, they often involve twins separated at birth because a parent dies or cannot afford to support both, and one is given over to be raised by relatives, friends or neighbors. This disallows ruling out the effects of social environment and upbringing in producing convergence among the twins. The chief problem with adoption studies is that the mere fact of adoption reliably increases IQ, regardless of any correlation between the IQs of the children and those of their biological parents. Nobody has the slightest causal account of how or why genes, singly or in combination, might affect IQ. I don't think it's because the problem is too hard, but because IQ is a specious rather natural kind.

[Over 9000]

The word "believe" points to a subjective opinion.

 

Fascinating.

 

How can the concept of "intelligence" (whatever is understood by it) have "racial differences"?

 

You understand that if you have two variables, that when you look at one, it may not have the same value for the other at different points?

 

Here, we can demonstrate this graphically.

 

Here's how the concept of "month" has "temperature differences".

 

 

Look, these same issues have been dealt with in many different threads and in many different guises over and over. It is pretty pointless to try and instil rational, scientific discourse into topics that are very obviously (and sometimes blatantly) agenda-driven. Agenda's don't have a place in science. Let me leave you with these:

 

You didn't. Thanks for the popular magazine opinion links.

 

On tests that measure these various categorization and reasoning skills, East Asians average higher on their preferences and Americans average higher on theirs'. There is nothing particularly revealing about these different distributions other than that they reflect some underlying socio- cultural differences.

 

So that's argument by assertion unless I'm mistaken? Did they partition out White/East Asian Americans? National East Asians or racial East Asians? I can't tell since it's a magazine article rather than a study. If they didn't it's not even trying to look at racial differences.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

^ I was not talking to you. I now understand why the mods reacted the way they did. Go away, troll.

[EgalitarianJay]

The word "believe" points to a subjective opinion.

How can the concept of "intelligence" (whatever is understood by it) have "racial differences"?

 

Look, these same issues have been dealt with in many different threads and in many different guises over and over. It is pretty pointless to try and instil rational, scientific discourse into topics that are very obviously (and sometimes blatantly) agenda-driven. Agenda's don't have a place in science. Let me leave you with these:

 

 

 

 

I don't agree that my question is unscientific. You can have an opinion on a scientific topic and I don't believe that we should discourage debate on this subject regardless of anyone's agenda.

[Over 9000]

^ I was not talking to you. I now understand why the mods reacted the way they did. Go away, troll.

 

I'm not trolling. I genuinely don't see what objection you have to a relationship between two variables? Putting the variables in quote marks doesn't invalidate them.

[Memammal]

I don't agree that my question is unscientific. You can have an opinion on a scientific topic and I don't believe that we should discourage debate on this subject regardless of anyone's agenda.

I voted. The wording of the question made it easy. Intelligence simply cannot contain (have in it) racial differences and neither can there be racial differences (contained) in intelligence. That is a fallacy.

[Over 9000]

I voted. The wording of the question made it easy. Intelligence simply cannot contain (have in it) racial differences and neither can there be racial differences (contained) in intelligence. That is a fallacy.

 

Any reason at all?

[EgalitarianJay]

I voted. The wording of the question made it easy. Intelligence simply cannot contain (have in it) racial differences and neither can there be racial differences (contained) in intelligence. That is a fallacy.

 

The question is whether or not races differ in their innate intelligence not whether intelligence has racial differences within it. I personally do not believe that races differ in their innate intelligence or even that human populations diverged in to biological races to begin with but this is a legitimate question that while controversial has been discussed by the scientific community.

[Ophiolite]

^ I was not talking to you. I now understand why the mods reacted the way they did. Go away, troll.

Memammal, this is an open forum. Any member may respond to any post regardless to whom it is directed. Your behaviour in this instance is improper.

 

You asked and I quote "What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to?" implying that there was a fixed value rather than a relative determination.

 

And then, if you knew it was relative, why did you ask the question?

A rigorous definition, which is what you claim you have offered, demands specificity. This applies whether we are talking in absolute, or relative terms. This is both simple and fundamental. I asked the question because I presumed you would understand this and provide a measured (literally) response.

[Moontanman]

Exactly. It's a purely emotional position based on nothing but they need a thin veneer of "science sounding stuff" to obfuscate that.

 

 

Well, cmiiw, you think normal biological division doesn't apply to humans. What would you like me to call that position?

 

 

 

I would like to know if can tell me the race of this person:

 

 

There is a concept known as the genetic bucket chain, gene flow around the world is such that no human population is isolated genetically. For sub species to form would require genetic isolation for long periods of time.

 

You can count among your ancestors Confucius, due to this "bucket chain"

 

This video by an expert on genetics, it's a short video and very eye opening.

 

[Over 9000]

I would like to know if can tell me the race of this person:

 

I've no idea. She looks kind of Med with some possible Negroid ancestry. Has she had any plastic surgery? I think one would need a CT scan or at least a closer examination to call it. Her skull would be informative.

 

There is a concept known as the genetic bucket chain, gene flow around the world is such that no human population is isolated genetically. For sub species to form would require genetic isolation for long periods of time.

I take it you're not reading the thread. I guess you missed this.

 

 

Hereafter we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate gradations, whereas species were formerly thus connected.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html concluding chapter

 

and this.

 

A question for race denialists.

 

Do you agree we can operationalise this by labelling portions?

 

 

If so, how would you operationalise this?

 

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

Can you explain to me exactly when in biology the subspecies concept went from Darwin's conception of allowing for hybrids, to your conception of not? Is it some race-denial strawman you're parroting (ad nauseam) from somewhere?

 

This video by an expert on genetics, it's a short video and very eye opening.

 

 

Is this supposed to be funny?

 

Here I can write the next 100 posts on this thread about heritable IQ differences. Just copy paste it in to save time.

 

you define race by skin color we all have the same ancestry and some people are mixed and there is not enough divergence so you can't ask if races are not the same because they don't exist...it's science!

 

Great thread!

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

Memammal, this is an open forum. Any member may respond to any post regardless to whom it is directed. Your behaviour in this instance is improper.

With all due respect, I challenged a specific statement made by another poster. I never engaged with Over 9000. Any member may also choose to not respond to another. Over 9000 also made two sarcastic comments that were uncalled for in the post prior to my reaction.

 

The question is whether or not races differ in their innate intelligence not whether intelligence has racial differences within it.

The question in the poll, however, reads "Do you believe that there are racial differences in intelligence?" You do understand that, in a literal sense, the question should yield a "NO" vote?

[Over 9000]

The question in the poll, however, reads "Do you believe that there are racial differences in intelligence?" You do understand that, in a literal sense, the question should yield a "NO" vote?

 

Why?

[Prometheus]

Do you agree we can operationalise this by labelling portions?

 

 

If so, how would you operationalise this?

 

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

 

You could but why would you want to? By categorising a continuous variable you would make a less predictive model and have to make an arbitrary decision regarding the demarcations of the categories. Why introduce various types of error into the model?

[Over 9000]

 

You could but why would you want to? By categorising a continuous variable you would make a less predictive model and have to make an arbitrary decision regarding the demarcations of the categories. Why introduce various types of error into the model?

 

Because we don't usually have the resources to genotype everybody that walks into a psychology study?

 

You didn't answer my question. If you had to operationalise the genome plot, how would you do it?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Prometheus]

I have no idea what that genome plot shows - but it looks like it should be easy enough to model as a continuous variable. That is what i would try first, so i wouldn't discretise.

[Over 9000]

We could actually be discussing interesting things in this thread like this

 

http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

 

or this

 

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5974

 

But no. Just this

 

you define race by skin color we all have the same ancestry and some people are mixed and there is not enough divergence so you can't ask if races are not the same because they don't exist...it's science!

I have no idea what that genome plot shows - but it looks like it should be easy enough to model as a continuous variable. That is what i would try first, so i wouldn't discretise.

 

Of course you could model it as a continuous variable. If you had the genome data for each of your subjects in your study. That usually isn't the case. So studies tend to use major race categories (Black, White, East Asian). And they do use them. Do you expect everybody to be able to pinpoint their position in genetic space?

 

You don't seem to want to admit that the obvious first level operationalisation of that plot is Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid. You are simply avoiding my question.

 

"How would you operationalise this."

"I wouldn't".

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Raider5678]

Of course you could model it as a continuous variable. If you had the genome data for each of your subjects in your study. That usually isn't the case. So studies tend to use major race categories (Black, White, East Asian). And they do use them. Do you expect everybody to be able to pinpoint their position in genetic space?

 

You don't seem to want to admit that the obvious first level operationalisation of that plot is Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid. You are simply avoiding my question.

 

"How would you operationalise this."

"I wouldn't".

Yes. Skip the science and the truth and lets start talking nonsense. Always the way to go on a science forum.

[Prometheus]

 

"How would you operationalise this."

"I wouldn't".

 

 

Nor would i discretise the electromagnetic spectrum even though there are obvious qualitative bins such as red blue and green. If i absolutely had to i would use these bins with the caveat of stating it is a very poor model - a first approximation perhaps.

 

Let's talk in the abstract to avoid our political biases.

 

You can cut up a continuum any way you like - the labelling of the bins is a question of taxonomy rather than empiricism. However, certain ways of discretising might be more useful than others by having a greater predictive power. We might then say that certain choices of bins are more scientific: the more predictive the more scientific. But then we have agreed a continuous model is more predictive than any discrete model and so by our measure the most scientific.

 

The conclusion is then that the most scientific way to proceed, if available, is to ignore categorisation. A discrete model would be an inferior approximation which may have some utility in lieu of the continuous model.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Prometheus