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

[Over 9000]

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

 

Operationalising a variable is scientific. It isn't "lying" to do that.

 

Here check it out

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

 

Demanding infinite precision in every variable is actually unscientific.

 

 

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.

 

Agreed.

[CharonY]

Also note that the discretization of colours is based on how our eyes work. If the visible spectrum for humans was shifted to longer or shorter wave length the bins would be very different. I.e. the categorization is again a matter of convention and convenience.

[Over 9000]

Also note that the discretization of colours is based on how our eyes work. If the visible spectrum for humans was shifted to longer or shorter wave length the bins would be very different. I.e. the categorization is again a matter of convention and convenience.

 

Hey yeah. That's one way the analogy breaks down. Colors are much less validly operational.

[Memammal]

Its begs the question as to whether there are colour differences in intelligence...just saying...

[Ophiolite]

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

 

 

400 metre hurdles?

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

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

 

 

 

If so, how would you operationalise this?

 

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

The point flew over the mod's head. Fst is irrelevant to whether race is a social construct or not.

 

That picture is an inaccurate characterization of how human variation actually is. It is clinal but it doesn't look like that. Think of a venn diagram with 5 circles or so.

 

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?

Sure, It's relevant because it is the topic of this thread. It is relevant to me personally because I like anthropology.

 

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:

 

 

In regards to your first link, Race is a correlation not a causal factor in anyway. Disease is correlated to geography but so is breeding isolation and lattitude which further correlates with morphological variations. There seems to be a misunderstanding.

 

That second link is particularly interesting, unfortunately there isn't a source for the east asian/american mental differences. It actually further demonstrates my point. Wouldn't Someone with the ability to fluently reason in all of those methods be more intelligent than the average east asian and american? Secondly, this article is far too vague, are some problem solving techniques or mental predispositions more accurate in their ability at finding solutions than others? If so which the more superior group in these facilities, east asians or americans? Do they mean white americans or just americans in general? if the latter, doesn't that seem like an arbitrary comparison?

 

 

 

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.

 

well the image is no longer there but it looks like it was a picture of mariah carey. It is well known she is a black/white mix. She even looks like it. There is possibly something else in there and i think it's mongoloid.

 

What's your point? I don't see how common descent disproves variation clusters?

 

"your ancestry doesn't double every generation, many ancestors are repeated multiple times on your tree, or else, the out of africa crowd should have been gazillions of people. That's the flaw in your reasoning. The other important flaw is that you assume that a person is just as likely to marry in his ethnicity, as he is to marry outside. Finally, geographical barriers. I'm pretty sure Cleopatra isn't the ancestor of pure australian aborigines or amazonian tribesmen."

[Delta1212]

You don't need everyone mating outside of their most immediate gene pool. You only need one outsider entering a gene pool and their ancestral line can proliferate throughout the entire gene pool in relatively short order.

 

It will take longer for an individual to become ancestor to everyone living than if there was completely free and random mixing throughout the entire gene pool, but it'll still happen, and happen within the timescales of human history.

 

England, especially historically, doesn't have a huge population, so there are surely a number of figures from history who are ancestors to every English person. All it takes is maybe a dozen Englishman intermixing with the aborigine population of Australia, a couple of centuries for their descendants to proliferate through the aborigine population and at the end those people who were the ancestors of every English person are also the ancestors of every Aborigine. Not as many times over, to be sure, but still present.

[Over 9000]

You don't need everyone mating outside of their most immediate gene pool. You only need one outsider entering a gene pool and their ancestral line can proliferate throughout the entire gene pool in relatively short order.

It will take longer for an individual to become ancestor to everyone living than if there was completely free and random mixing throughout the entire gene pool, but it'll still happen, and happen within the timescales of human history.

England, especially historically, doesn't have a huge population, so there are surely a number of figures from history who are ancestors to every English person. All it takes is maybe a dozen Englishman intermixing with the aborigine population of Australia, a couple of centuries for their descendants to proliferate through the aborigine population and at the end those people who were the ancestors of every English person are also the ancestors of every Aborigine. Not as many times over, to be sure, but still present.

So what?

[Delta1212]

So what?

So I was responding to the last paragraph of the previous post.

[Over 9000]

So I was responding to the last paragraph of the previous post.

What does it have to do with the thread topic?

[Delta1212]

Seems rather pertinent to me. You're free to disagree.

[Over 9000]

Seems rather pertinent to me. You're free to disagree.

How many times do I have to point out subspecies aren't isolated by definition? 9000? More?

[Delta1212]

How many times do I have to point out subspecies aren't isolated by definition? 9000? More?

What does that have to do with the thread topic?

[Over 9000]

What does that have to do with the thread topic?

What does asking you to stop posting garbage have to do with the topic? Nothing. But if you stop posting garbage the thread will be more on topic.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

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.

 

Cold winter theory is garbage. The majority of hominid encephalization occurred within africa and behavioral modernity was first to start there. A truly cold adapted hominid known as neanderthals were no match for us when we entered europe. A selection for g would be caused by a need to survive in changing environments not a particular one in general. r/k selection theory, by extension is utter garbage as well. DTM is responsible for the fertility patterns we see today, the most I've ever seen of genetic evidence showing differing fertility rates was an apparent discrepancy in twinning rates between different races. Before agriculture the most intelligent and socially powerful individual had the most children.

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2016/10/04/status-makes-sexy-seeking-likely-evolved/

 

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

 

You don't need everyone mating outside of their most immediate gene pool. You only need one outsider entering a gene pool and their ancestral line can proliferate throughout the entire gene pool in relatively short order.

 

It will take longer for an individual to become ancestor to everyone living than if there was completely free and random mixing throughout the entire gene pool, but it'll still happen, and happen within the timescales of human history.

 

England, especially historically, doesn't have a huge population, so there are surely a number of figures from history who are ancestors to every English person. All it takes is maybe a dozen Englishman intermixing with the aborigine population of Australia, a couple of centuries for their descendants to proliferate through the aborigine population and at the end those people who were the ancestors of every English person are also the ancestors of every Aborigine. Not as many times over, to be sure, but still present.

 

You're not wrong but it still doesn't falsify our claims that certain populations have differing levels of genetic similarity. 9000 is right it has nothing to do with the question at hand. I said at the very beginning of my posts that race was a semantic word game and only serves as a tool of obfuscation by denialists with an emotional agenda. There are agendas from all sides with no clear facts being presented. It's sickening that this thread has devolved into another bullshit circle jerk fest instead of an actual HBD discussion. People down voting like 3 years olds and simply hand waving evidence.

Edited November 1, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[Moontanman]

How many times do I have to point out subspecies aren't isolated by definition? 9000? More?

 

 

Some evidence other than your assertion would be expected at this point..

The point flew over the mod's head. Fst is irrelevant to whether race is a social construct or not.

 

That picture is an inaccurate characterization of how human variation actually is. It is clinal but it doesn't look like that. Think of a venn diagram with 5 circles or so.

 

Sure, It's relevant because it is the topic of this thread. It is relevant to me personally because I like anthropology.

 

In regards to your first link, Race is a correlation not a causal factor in anyway. Disease is correlated to geography but so is breeding isolation and lattitude which further correlates with morphological variations. There seems to be a misunderstanding.

 

That second link is particularly interesting, unfortunately there isn't a source for the east asian/american mental differences. It actually further demonstrates my point. Wouldn't Someone with the ability to fluently reason in all of those methods be more intelligent than the average east asian and american? Secondly, this article is far too vague, are some problem solving techniques or mental predispositions more accurate in their ability at finding solutions than others? If so which the more superior group in these facilities, east asians or americans? Do they mean white americans or just americans in general? if the latter, doesn't that seem like an arbitrary comparison?

 

well the image is no longer there but it looks like it was a picture of mariah carey. It is well known she is a black/white mix. She even looks like it. There is possibly something else in there and i think it's mongoloid.

 

What's your point? I don't see how common descent disproves variation clusters?

 

"your ancestry doesn't double every generation, many ancestors are repeated multiple times on your tree, or else, the out of africa crowd should have been gazillions of people. That's the flaw in your reasoning. The other important flaw is that you assume that a person is just as likely to marry in his ethnicity, as he is to marry outside. Finally, geographical barriers. I'm pretty sure Cleopatra isn't the ancestor of pure australian aborigines or amazonian tribesmen."

 

 

Actually yes they do count Confucius among their ancestors, what part of "Gene Pool" are you having problems with? Gene flow is not only in one direction...

Edited November 1, 2016 by Moontanman

[Over 9000]

Some evidence other than your assertion would be expected at this point..

 

I referenced Darwin's definition and asked where this was contradicted in the biology literature. Do you not bother to read the thread? Please read the thread before making ignorant and false accusations. Thanks.

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

Actually yes they do count Confucius among their ancestors, what part of "Gene Pool" are you having problems with? Gene flow is not only in one direction...

When did I say anything about Confucius? This doesn't mean the percentages of admixture are evenly distributed. The biological variances we see are more to do with a gene's expression than the gene's themselves so arguing that eurasian genes are subsets of african ones is irrelevant. I seriously don't understand what you are not getting here, race is simply a correlation with recent geographic ancestry. Are you going to address any of my other points? i asked you a few questions do you have viable sources for those studies?

 

This thread is going off the rails.

Edited November 1, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[CharonY]

You failed to address the most relevant point

What exactly is a "normal" subspecies? As previously stated they tend to be categories of convenience specific to particular organismal groups.

Just saying "ancestry" tells us nothing. Note that Darwin had provided even less of a distinction, as his main point was to anchor the species concept.

[Over 9000]

You failed to address the most relevant pointJust saying "ancestry" tells us nothing. Note that Darwin had provided even less of a distinction, as his main point was to anchor the species concept.

You're totally wrong. Ancestry based taxa predict a lot. They don't tell us "nothing".

 

You know, I'm really sick of these dopey race denial red herrings. We define race by ancestry. HBD scholars define race by ancestry. I'm unsure why you think you can impugn somebody else's definitions. Feel free to stop complaining about it, because I'm sick of the thread derailment. You don't like it fine. Stop posting.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Moontanman]

I referenced Darwin's definition and asked where this was contradicted in the biology literature. Do you not bother to read the thread? Please read the thread before making ignorant and false accusations. Thanks.

 

Well considering Darwin didn't think there were any human sub species, not that it really matters, he was not in possession of the ultimate truth, I don't see how Darwin is relevant...

When did I say anything about Confucius? This doesn't mean the percentages of admixture are evenly distributed. The biological variances we see are more to do with a gene's expression than the gene's themselves so arguing that eurasian genes are subsets of african ones is irrelevant. I seriously don't understand what you are not getting here, race is simply a correlation with recent geographic ancestry. Are you going to address any of my other points? i asked you a few questions do you have viable sources for those studies?

 

This thread is going off the rails.

 

 

I am sorry, it misspoke Cleopatra is indeed among the ancestors of everyone alive today...

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

 

Well considering Darwin didn't think there were any human sub species, not that it really matters, he was not in possession of the ultimate truth, I don't see how Darwin is relevant...

 

 

I am sorry, it misspoke Cleopatra is indeed among the ancestors of everyone alive today...

Sub species =/= race

 

Still isn't the point.

Edited November 2, 2016 by meLothedestroyerofworlds

[CharonY]

You're totally wrong. Ancestry based taxa predict a lot. They don't tell us "nothing".

 

You know, I'm really sick of these dopey race denial red herrings. We define race by ancestry. HBD scholars define race by ancestry. I'm unsure why you think you can impugn somebody else's definitions. Feel free to stop complaining about it, because I'm sick of the thread derailment. You don't like it fine. Stop posting.

It appears that you assume it is derailing because in your head it somehow makes perfect sense. I.e. there is some level of relatedness and if we assess these values e.g. by grouping frequencies of certain alleles magically you will have clear and distinct clusters of populations.

Those with even passing familiarity with the concept will note the issues with that as the stability of clusters is depending on the distance (dissimilarity) of whatever markers you use as well as the method to measure distance. Likewise, they will also know the basic issue that the outcome of the analysis is highly dependent on the factors you are looking for. Even looking at the species level, which presumes significant genomic distance the DNA data sometimes has issue to resolve geographic populations properly. It does not mean that there are no (geographically) isolated human populations that are distinct from the rest of the human population nor that, equipped with sufficient info, we may be able to resolve populations with almost arbitrary resolution.

However, the repeated claim therefore that a vague notion of ancestry can deliver clear, quantitative info that somehow negates the use of the more accurate term of "(geographic) population" is therefore presumptuous and betrays more a lack of nature of these types of investigations.

[Over 9000]

It appears that you assume it is derailing because in your head it somehow makes perfect sense. I.e. there is some level of relatedness and if we assess these values e.g. by grouping frequencies of certain alleles magically you will have clear and distinct clusters of populations.

Those with even passing familiarity with the concept will note the issues with that as the stability of clusters is depending on the distance (dissimilarity) of whatever markers you use as well as the method to measure distance. Likewise, they will also know the basic issue that the outcome of the analysis is highly dependent on the factors you are looking for. Even looking at the species level, which presumes significant genomic distance the DNA data sometimes has issue to resolve geographic populations properly. It does not mean that there are no (geographically) isolated human populations that are distinct from the rest of the human population nor that, equipped with sufficient info, we may be able to resolve populations with almost arbitrary resolution.

However, the repeated claim therefore that a vague notion of ancestry can deliver clear, quantitative info that somehow negates the use of the more accurate term of "(geographic) population" is therefore presumptuous and betrays more a lack of nature of these types of investigations.

You wouldn't come out with this nonsense if we subdivided herring gulls. Nobody is talking about "geographic populations" eg "people in London". We're talking about "ancestry related populations" and using the word race for that. Good call dismissing ancestry inference from genetic relatedness, ie phylogenetics, as "magical". What are you complaining about now? Not getting 100% perfect inference? All of your posts are essentially just negative waffle.

 

"in your head it somehow makes perfect sense...magically you will have clear and distinct clusters of populations..Those with even passing familiarity with the concept...a vague notion of ancestry...arbitrary resolution...presumptuous"

 

Why not just write "u r ignorant"?

 

The human race concept is somehow "not good enough". You provide no data, no comparison to other species, nothing.

 

Sub species =/= race

Still isn't the point.

It can do. It's just semantics really. Subspecies really means below species. In the narrow sense it's the level immediately below species. In the broad sense it's any level below, such as race, which is a subdivision of the subspecies sapiens sapiens.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

Sure, It's relevant because it is the topic of this thread. It is relevant to me personally because I like anthropology.

 

In regards to your first link, Race is a correlation not a causal factor in anyway. Disease is correlated to geography but so is breeding isolation and lattitude which further correlates with morphological variations. There seems to be a misunderstanding.

 

That second link is particularly interesting, unfortunately there isn't a source for the east asian/american mental differences. It actually further demonstrates my point. Wouldn't Someone with the ability to fluently reason in all of those methods be more intelligent than the average east asian and american? Secondly, this article is far too vague, are some problem solving techniques or mental predispositions more accurate in their ability at finding solutions than others? If so which the more superior group in these facilities, east asians or americans? Do they mean white americans or just americans in general? if the latter, doesn't that seem like an arbitrary comparison?

Using skin colour to classify humanity into groups, to further attempt to correlate such separate groups (typing these words give me the chills having grown up during Apartheid in South Africa) with IQ's and then saying that the NH "races" almost always (those were your words, which is a gross generalization) have higher IQ's than the SH "races" are hideously unintelligent and irresponsible. I am not sure if the matter of IQ as an accurate tool to measure intelligence, mental traits or cognitive ability has already been debated in this thread, but it has been raised numerous times in other similar threads and it is something that is being widely disputed. Which brings me to the reason why I inserted those two opinions/links (that you referred to above). These kinds of debates hold zero benefit for science or for society, it does not achieve anything, it is a waste of time, it is a poor reflection on those driving the race/intelligence agenda and it only serves to insult those implicated by vague allegations of different (read inferior) "mental traits". I will have no further part in this.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Memammal