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

[EgalitarianJay]

I think the idea that non-white people are intellectually inferior in some peoples' minds is a groundless hangover that's persisted from slavery days when Europe was technologically more advanced and urbanised than those born on the African/Indian continents.

Yes, I think so too. I'm currently reading a book that details the history and development of the idea of race and racism from the Spanish Inquisition to modern times.

 

 

 

Amazon.com - The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

[Ten oz]

I think the idea that non-white people are intellectually inferior in some peoples' minds is a groundless hangover that's persisted from slavery days when Europe was technologically more advanced and urbanised than those born on the African/Indian continents.

I agree but think it is more than a hangover. People are still getting drunk. People use success and intelligence interchangeably. On top of that money is normally used as success' messuring stick. Yet money is something that is often inherited and our free market system does not ensure everyone an equal place. So prevassive is this notion that people with money are more intelligent that people who aren't viewed as intelligent but have money are regularly criticized as being unworthy of their wealth. For example criticism of athletes as over paid is very common while the critism of multimillionaire hedge fund managers is not. In college sports athletes are not paid at all even while generating billions in revenue. The attitude is that they should be happy just getting to go to school. The chance to be intelligent is weighed as far more meaningful than the fortunes they generate. Meanwhile coaches are paid great salaries. Athletic success is often attributed to luck, god given ability, or genes. Of course it is no coincidence that many of the most highly criticized athletes are minorities.

 

So in a world where there are still huge differences in standards of living around the world this adquating of intelligence, success, and money continues to stoke the idea that different races of people are inferior.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Let's turn the tables here:

 

Lets connect intelligence the gaining and having of, to the superiority of pure might, possessed by one race or another. Clearly we can now say that intelligence is in truth racial. And if such a position persist, then we can finally state that it will also be inherent.

 

This is the present day fact of the matter.

[Delta1212]

Let's turn the tables here:

 

Lets connect intelligence the gaining and having of, to the superiority of pure might, possessed by one race or another. Clearly we can now say that intelligence is in truth racial. And if such a position persist, then we can finally state that it will also be inherent.

 

This is the present day fact of the matter.

So if pure might is equivalent to intelligence, and the intelligence of a race is based on its relative might in the world, and the person currently occupying the most powerful position in the world is black, are you arguing that black people are clearly inherently smarter than white people? Edited February 2, 2015 by Delta1212

[Strange]

Lets connect intelligence the gaining and having of, to the superiority of pure might, possessed by one race or another. Clearly we can now say that intelligence is in truth racial. And if such a position persist, then we can finally state that it will also be inherent.

 

Firstly, I see no reason to equate intelligence with political strength.

 

Secondly, the most dominant powers at different times have been from different parts of the world and therefore of different "races". If anything, this would argue for those of Mongolian descent having the greatest "might" as they have had the largest empires.

So if pure might is equivalent to intelligence, and the intelligence of a race is based on its relative might in the world, and the person currently occupying the most powerful position in the world is black, are you arguing that black people are clearly inherently smarter than white people?

 

Putin is black !?

[Delta1212]

 

Firstly, I see no reason to equate intelligence with political strength.

 

Secondly, the most dominant powers at different times have been from different parts of the world and therefore of different "races". If anything, this would argue for those of Mongolian descent having the greatest "might" as they have had the largest empires.

 

 

Putin is black !?

Zing.

 

Although you've raised a point I hadn't thought of. If Putin is one of, if not the, most prominent white world leaders right now, does that mean that the falling price of gas is having a corresponding effect on the IQ of white people everywhere? Should I stop celebrating?

[CharonY]

One of the many issues, as has been noted before, is that skin color does not reflect well the genetic diversity found in human populations. A link between that and IQ would require something that influenced IQ as well as skin color (and a few other traits). One hypothesis that has proposed by Rushton and others is that after leaving Africa there were different selective pressures, specifically differences in temperature. It has been speculated that the colder winters, for some reasons, selected for IQ. whereas the associated decrease in UV exposure could explain bleaching of the skin. There were some studies that found indeed a correlation between temperature and IQ.

 

However, there are are a few studies that show that the temperature-dependency is actually independent of race. A relatively recent study from Pesta and Poznasnki (Intelligence 2014 p271/274) showed that in the US temperature strongly predicts intelligence (as well as religiosity and crime, among others), even when adjusted for race. Due to the short time frame non-natives lived in the US, evolutionary factors are unlikely to play a role. Thus, assuming that the associations are not spurious, other environmental factors related to temperature are affecting scores.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Over the span of recorded history, what race has came out with the most might collectively?. Now we connect this might to intelligence by means of factoring in the byproduct of having the most might into maintaining it, which equals educating their own or in layman terms, self preservation.

 

Now one can see how intelligence can become inherent. Secondly you pigeon hole race under political rule, my context is broader.

 

So if intelligence can be measured by education, then the ruling might (Power) provides the same to it's own, and thus intelligence takes racial proportions.

[Strange]

Over the span of recorded history, what race has came out with the most might collectively?

 

Mongols or Arabs, probably. What is your point?

 

But you haven't shown any link between race, "might" and intelligence so it is irrelevant.

[CharonY]

Also for the longest time whoever ruled over China (which does include Mongols for quite some time). Essentially up to modern industrialization. That is generally dwarfed by the time mankind spent in Africa, however.

So for the longest time the mightiest group would have been Africans by default. Of course the whole thing is just arbitrary and ultimately pointless.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I did say let's turn the table= for conversation sake.

[StringJunky]

So for the longest time the mightiest group would have been Africans by default. Of course the whole thing is just arbitrary and ultimately pointless.

Don't you think the time frames are too short for significant evolutionary separation on factors like intelligence? A quick Google in Wiki says 195 000 years for the earliest fossil record for Homo sapiens.

 

I'm inclined to think a greater variable temperature range forced/selected more adaptable behaviours to cope with it and local natural resource availability was much greater, allowing bigger communities to be supported. This closer proximity of more individuals increased information exchange and co-operation.

[CharonY]

In the reference I have given above the simple study suggests that. I.e. even if you look at very short time frames you can see stratification of IQ and other metrics that obviously cannot be explained by evolution.

[StringJunky]

In the reference I have given above the simple study suggests that. I.e. even if you look at very short time frames you can see stratification of IQ and other metrics that obviously cannot be explained by evolution.

So you could put it down to serendipitous environmental factors?

[EgalitarianJay]

One of the many issues, as has been noted before, is that skin color does not reflect well the genetic diversity found in human populations. A link between that and IQ would require something that influenced IQ as well as skin color (and a few other traits). One hypothesis that has proposed by Rushton and others is that after leaving Africa there were different selective pressures, specifically differences in temperature. It has been speculated that the colder winters, for some reasons, selected for IQ. whereas the associated decrease in UV exposure could explain bleaching of the skin. There were some studies that found indeed a correlation between temperature and IQ.

 

However, there are are a few studies that show that the temperature-dependency is actually independent of race. A relatively recent study from Pesta and Poznasnki (Intelligence 2014 p271/274) showed that in the US temperature strongly predicts intelligence (as well as religiosity and crime, among others), even when adjusted for race. Due to the short time frame non-natives lived in the US, evolutionary factors are unlikely to play a role. Thus, assuming that the associations are not spurious, other environmental factors related to temperature are affecting scores.

 

 

What Rushton proposed with his cold winter theory was that as humans migrated out of Africa they encountered the new environment of cold winter. According to Rushton this environment created a selective pressure for higher intelligence as humans were forced to adapt to harsh winter conditions by gathering and storing food, acquiring shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. He argued that survival in the tropical climate of Africa was less cognitively demanding than in Europe and Asia therefore Negroids had more primitive brains than Caucasoids and Mongoloids who developed larger and smarter brains. Mongoloids, according to Rushton, evolved in Siberia where it was even colder than Europe so they faced even harsher conditions and grew smarter as a consequence.

 

There are several logical problems with Rushton's argument. For one thing he ignores the fact that humans spent most of their evolutionary history in Africa where archeological evidence indicates that the evolution of the human brain took place (human brains are 3 times bigger than Ape brains). So before even leaving Africa humans were already smart. They didn't need to sit around waiting for evolution to increase brain size when they already had the cognitive ability to do all of the things that Rushton says humans in Eurasia needed to do to survive. Secondly, Rushton's hypothesis doesn't explain the lower average IQ scores of Native Americans. Native Americans are the closest derivative population of Northeast Asians so whatever selective pressure would have made Northeast Asians smarter would have also affected Native American populations. Joseph Graves dealt with Rushton's r/K selection generalizations and other scholars have pointed out that Rushton ignored the archeological record showing that human survival strategies were the same during the Pleistocene Epoch.

 

Rushton's cold winter theory amounts to little more than a just-so story of human evolution that doesn't have any scientific support.

 

Don't you think the time frames are too short for significant evolutionary separation on factors like intelligence?

 

I have asked this question my self as several scholars have stated that there simply wasn't enough time for human populations to diverge racially or in characteristics such as intelligence.

 

Here are two email exchanges I had with Chris Stringer and Joseph Graves on the topic:...

 

edited out by moderator - we would love distinguished academics to post here on the site but we cannot put their private correspondence up here without their knowledge.

Edited February 3, 2015 by imatfaal
to remove potentially private email exchange

[Strange]

I did say let's turn the table= for conversation sake.

 

Does that mean you are deliberately posting nonsense just for the sake of it?

[CharonY]

 

 

What Rushton proposed with his cold winter theory was that as humans migrated out of Africa they encountered the new environment of cold winter.

 

I actually think that it was originally proposed by Richard Lynn sometime in the 80s. Lynn emphasized the need for higher IQ to adapt to harsh winters, whereas Rushton focused initially on r/K selection theory (with a slightly weird focus on genital size and IQ). However the explanations were never particularly strong and he had then moved on to other physiological correlations. Especially in the newer papers (relatively speaking) there are fewer attempts at evolutionary explanations. Instead the focus shifted at providing more correlation data between various physiological measures to draw differences between proposed races and, sometimes in a roundabout way, IQ.

 

It should be added that the temperature/latitude IQ link has been found in various studies, but for reasons already mentioned adaptation seems to be an unlikely explanation. There are other factors, of course, with income being an important one. Heredity increases in well-off families, indicating more environmental constraints on scores for low-income people. There are other explanations trying to figure out whether UV-related vitamind D3 could, in some roundabout way influence IQ. So far, the existing data does not lead to strong conclusions, AFAIK. But then I have not been following this topic very closely.

Edited February 3, 2015 by CharonY

[EgalitarianJay]

 

I actually think that it was originally proposed by Richard Lynn sometime in the 80s. Lynn emphasized the need for higher IQ to adapt to harsh winters, whereas Rushton focused initially on r/K selection theory (with a slightly weird focus on genital size and IQ). However the explanations were never particularly strong and he had then moved on to other physiological correlations. Especially in the newer papers (relatively speaking) there are fewer attempts at evolutionary explanations. Instead the focus shifted at providing more correlation data between various physiological measures to draw differences between proposed races and, sometimes in a roundabout way, IQ.

 

I don't know who came up with it first but you a right that Richard Lynn also employs the same model. I believe that Lee Ellis also applied r/K selection theory to human Life History Variation and Rushton took his idea. Rushton boasts mapping the r/K scale on to human evolution via the Out of Africa model of human origins. Rushton wrote an entire book on these theories and as late as 2010 (in reply to Nisbett) he was still arguing in favor of his r/K Life History Theory.

Edited February 3, 2015 by EgalitarianJay

[Dr. Funkenstein]

If that was the case Strange, there is nothing you can do about it, under no circumstances, on any day of the week, so why the indignation?

 

However the question of racial intellect, can only be viable to me by the policy "Might" would provide a particular race, over the others, through self preservation, interest etc.

 

How climate, agricultural factors or anything other then dominance of force, is not be considered here is beyond me. Especially since that facts of history and wars speaks to might, and therefore the perks of the victor.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Egalitarian Jay - I have hidden your post with emails from two academics (I will edit them out when I have a second to reinstate your comments). Yet again I have concerns - this is private correspondence that the good doctors have a right to believe will be kept private.

 

It really would be much easier if you were to reply on your own behalf and link to published work that backs up your contentions if necessary

 

 

[mp][/mp]

 

OK - reinstated the main part of the post with the emails removed

[EgalitarianJay]

!

Moderator Note

Egalitarian Jay - I have hidden your post with emails from two academics (I will edit them out when I have a second to reinstate your comments). Yet again I have concerns - this is private correspondence that the good doctors have a right to believe will be kept private.

 

It really would be much easier if you were to reply on your own behalf and link to published work that backs up your contentions if necessary

 

 

[mp][/mp]

 

OK - reinstated the main part of the post with the emails removed

 

I need to review your rules because I seem to be violating a lot of rules for things allowed on other sites. Forgive me. I did have permission from the scholars to post their emails.

[taxonomy26]

Race is a social construct, not a biological one, and intelligence is generally defined as whatever one happens to put on that particular test. There are different forms and types of intelligence and few very good measures of it, which when stacked on top of the fact that race is a social thing and not a biological one makes answering your question in any reasonable way essentially impossible.

Really?

And Horribly disappointing vote results except for my single dissent.

First.. the 'Social construct' Nonsense.

 

NOVA | Does Race Exist?

with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race.

George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:

 

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."

[......]

Bones don't lie

First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!" My answer is that we can often function within systems that we do not believe in.

 

"The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."

Deeper than the skin

[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.

 

Seeing both sides

Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. ... Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have Shaped human Races with regard not only to Skin color and Hair form but also the Underlying Bony structures of the Nose, Cheekbones, etc.."

 

On political correctness

Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

 

How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"

Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?

[.......]

 

 

Trying to add independent New reply, but they all are add-on edits, or include a quote of this post.

Edited May 6, 2016 by taxonomy26

[Delta1212]

No one denies that there are geographically associated populations within which various traits are more or less common. The physical features are not the social construct. The social construct lies in where precisely the line is drawn around groups that place people in one group or another.

 

If you define a group based on physical characteristics shared by that group, then obviously you're going to be able to establish whether someone belongs to that group by their physical characteristics. That's practically a tautology.

 

But you can often distinguish geographically related sub-groups within a "race" by physical characteristics as well. An ethnic Norwegian and an ethnic Sicilian would both be able to characterize themselves as white, but you can still tell the difference with a fair degree of accuracy. Asians have marked variation by region, and Africans have more genetic diversity within the populations of their continent than everyone outside of it.

 

How broad and how granular, and which populations get groups with which other populations is the socially constructed part of race. In the real world, one regional population blurs into the next and there are no neat and tidy dividing lines.

[taxonomy26]

No one denies that there are geographically associated populations within which various traits are more or less common. The physical features are not the social construct. The social construct lies in where precisely the line is drawn around groups that place people in one group or another.

 

If you define a group based on physical characteristics shared by that group, then obviously you're going to be able to establish whether someone belongs to that group by their physical characteristics. That's practically a tautology.

 

But you can often distinguish geographically related sub-groups within a "race" by physical characteristics as well. An ethnic Norwegian and an ethnic Sicilian would both be able to characterize themselves as white, but you can still tell the difference with a fair degree of accuracy. Asians have marked variation by region, and Africans have more genetic diversity within the populations of their continent than everyone outside of it.

 

How broad and how granular, and which populations get groups with which other populations is the socially constructed part of race. In the real world, one regional population blurs into the next and there are no neat and tidy dividing lines.

Your post is full of Euphemisms and excuses to avoid the word 'race'.

From the real expert 'Jay'.

 

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

 

2. Race is a social construct and doesn’t exist.

 

Well, yes, race IS a social construct. But race does exist. Saying something is a “social construct” can be true and still yet not be really meaningful.

Think of it, the periodic table of chemical elements is a social construct. Do chemical elements then not exist? Or, much more relevant – in fact, exactly like race – Linnaean taxonomy is a Social Construct. Do kingdoms, classes, species not exist? Race is merely an extension of this.

In reality, genetic analysis can separate human populations into distinct groups. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity). At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt.....

Chimps have 4 subspecies/races. Gorillas have two Species, with several subspecies in each. Most have Less morphological diffrence, and about the same genetic distance as our ostensible one-race.

Your whole refutation attempt is based on the fact that we can divide the old '3 races' into more. Well Yes we can! That doesn't not refute the concept. We could use 3, 30, or probably a few hundred. It depends on where you want to draw the line on what ARE Biological differences, and differences, that if seen in Other species, Would constitute separate race/subspecies.

ie, Send your Blood into Natgeo's Genographic Project, and they'll tell you what Percent of each 'Indigenous people'/RACE you are (11).

`

the mechanics/coding/spacing of this board is Horrendous/UNUSABLE

Each Paragraph has to be re-coded for quote/indent etc,

Garbage. I'm outa here shortly

Love to continue but this is Garbage- on a 'science' board no less.

No wonder you had 10/all 'no votes. '

Edited May 6, 2016 by taxonomy26

[Ten oz]

@ Taxonomy26, assuming you believe in evolution you must realize that mitochondrial DNA and the chain of Y-chromosome show all humans alive today are related. Not only did we all originate from a single tribe but over time have migrated to and from different regions intermixing over and over again. If race were a thing how do you determine the base line for each race? What are the races and who(m) is puely asingular race in today's world?