Mikemikev Posted May 27, 2016 Author Posted May 27, 2016 I do miss being a child; everything so cut and dried and black and white Like "everyone is the same"?
DrmDoc Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 You are making an ad hominem argument. This is because you are incapable of addressing the question. If you've seriously investigated the mounts of DNA evidence tracing all humanity's ancestry back to Africa, there would be no question. However, you are avoiding my question. When last I looked, this was a the Psychiatry/Psychology Forum. So...what are your psychological issues?
Mikemikev Posted May 27, 2016 Author Posted May 27, 2016 If you've seriously investigated the mounts of DNA evidence tracing all humanity's ancestry back to Africa, there would be no question. However, you are avoiding my question. When last I looked, this was a the Psychiatry/Psychology Forum. So...what are your psychological issues? Your boring and pointless personal attacks have been reported. Feel free to redact them.
DrmDoc Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 Your boring and pointless personal attacks have been reported. Feel free to redact them. What is there to report, my responses have been succinct and cordial. Judging by your responses, you are either interested in dispensing hate or want to be hated by pursuing this indefensible line of discussion. So...which is it? 1
Strange Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 Known personal history and self identified race matches genetic race very well. Citation needed.
CharonY Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) Pretty sure it is a waste of time but there have been quite a number of studies looking at direct heritability of IQ with a focus on African Americans, as there has been a significant mix between them and white Europeans. A number of highlights: - Mixed parents: assuming that the IQ gap is entirely genetic, it should matter little which side of the parent is black or white in a mixed marriage. However, assuming that the mother is more important due to higher involvement in nurturing the child, one could expect differences differences, if one assumes that there different socialization strategies between black and whites. Willerman, et al (1974) found that children of white mothers and black fathers have a 9 point IQ advantage, indicating a strong influence of the upbringing (discounting all other environmental factors). -self reporting: by using known ancestry (i.e. declaring whether grandparent, great-grandparents etc. were either black or white) one would assume that under a genetic model African Americans with higher percentage of white ancestors would score better. Yet Jenkins (1936) found that among the high-IQ black children (125+) the likelihood of white ancestry was actually lower. -blood groups: another way to try to assess black ancestry (and here it should become obvious that it is actually quite tricky to accurately assign precise ancestry, regardless of skin colour) is using blood group characteristics that are more prevalent in either group. Again, the assumptions is that a higher indicator of European ancestry should correlate with higher IQ. And again a number of studies failed to find it: Scarr et al. (1977), Loehlin (1973). I should note that Rushton is one of the proponents of the IQ gap, yet I found that he tends to be rather selective in his papers. There are a number of key findings in newer research that can be summarized that a) the measure of IQ heritability is strongly correlated with social class. Generally, in groups with higher socioeconomic status heritability is high but low in those with lower status. However, comparisons between countries showed mixed result, indicating strong social/environmental influence. b) Genome-wide association studies failed to find strong candidates for genetic markers of intelligence (which is kind of expected) but also failed to show association between markers of relationship and IQ (which would be expected under a hereditary model). there was one study who tried to find it, but suffered from the fact that the identified SNP were actually unable to predict Africans within an European sample. Edit: if you read the paper carefully you will note that they created models based on microsatellites to distinguish the categories that were set up (the classic groups), while noting that especially the African Americans had strongly mixed ancestry, whereas the Hispanics had generally a mix of various groups. The fitted model was then used to distinguish the groups, which you obviously can if you take sufficient markers that are distinct in a given group. That does not mean that the groups are as a whole genetically distinct. For example using the whole set, they were unable to distinguish Chinese from Japanese groups, but by selecting only those groups and create a different set, they were able to do so. If you want to establish distinct races, the approach would generally be the opposite. You take all the genetic markers there are, and look what the variability is between groups. Large scale studies indicate that there at best moderate support for certain groups, usually those that are genetically isolated. To re-iterate the points that have been made numerous times on this forum here a) there are genetic differences between groups, but they tend not to be highly specific (i.e. you can find set of markers that are somewhat predictive, depending how you define your group) b) taking genomic data (or as much as we have) into account the majority of variability can be found within, rather between groups. It is not that the groups are entirely social constructs, as they may have distinct history that genetically more or less isolated them. Yet, in the grand scheme of things the differences are clearly not as clear-cut as it appears in common use. For example, African Americans have a continuous range of European ancestry and while it is still possible to find markers to assign them to the African American group, it would also be possible (though maybe less stable) to identify those that fall into the European group. Which would be the "correct" race? Based on colour? Or use a percentage cut-off? Edited May 27, 2016 by CharonY 2
Strange Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 Tang 2005 Which? Tang J, et al. (2005) The structural basis of recognition and removal of cellular mRNA 7-methyl G 'caps' by a viral capsid protein: a unique viral response to host defense. J Mol Recognit 18(2):158-68 High Court of Australia, Griffith University v Tang [2005] HCA 7 Development, testing, and applications of site-specific tsunami inundation models for real-time forecasting, L. Tang V. V. Titov and C. D. Chamberlin Integrated pest management models and their dynamical behaviour, Sanyi Tang , Yanni Xiao, Lansun Chen, Robert A. Cheke, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, January 2005, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 115-135
andrewcellini Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 (edited) Like "everyone is the same"? has anyone here seriously made this claim (aside from the poetic "we are the human race" thing, if you're to twist its meaning)? good strawman mate 10/10 Edited May 27, 2016 by andrewcellini 1
Spartan Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) I can't seem to post pictures (probably because i'm new), but the reason why racialism makes no sense with IQ is because if you take a look at any continent or large grouping of countries: you find they have considerably different average IQ scores. For example: Serbia, Albania and several other countries in south-east Europe have average IQ scores of 80-85. Scandinavia countries however are 100+, why should they be grouped together? Why should countries be grouped with others when there is up to a 20 point difference in IQ? This is why Rushton and Lynn's racial classification is pseudo-science: they group all European countries together as a "White race" when the peoples in this arbitrary racial group are heterogeneous, not homogenous - so it makes no sense to cluster them together. Edited May 28, 2016 by Spartan
StringJunky Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) I can't seem to post pictures (probably because i'm new), but the reason why racialism makes no sense with IQ is because if you take a look at any continent or large grouping of countries: you find they have considerably different average IQ scores. For example: Serbia, Albania and several other countries in south-east Europe have average IQ scores of 80-85. Scandinavia countries however are 100+, why should they be grouped together? Why should countries be grouped with others when there is up to a 20 point difference in IQ? This is why Rushton and Lynn's racial classification is pseudo-science: they group all European countries together as a "White race" when the peoples in this arbitrary racial group are heterogeneous, not homogenous - so it makes no sense to cluster them together. I agree, what about ostensibly 'white' people with a high percentage of Afro-Caribbean roots; what 'race' do they fall under? Edited May 28, 2016 by StringJunky
Daecon Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 I agree, what about ostensibly 'white' people with a high percentage of Afro-Caribbean roots; what 'race' do they fall under? Ooh, ooh, I know! It depends on what their IQ score is, right? Those with high IQs are "real" Scotsmen-- uh, I mean "real" white people, and those with lower IQ scores aren't really white due to their non-white IQs... uh, I mean, their non-white ancestry. That's how it works, right? 2
StringJunky Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) Ooh, ooh, I know! It depends on what their IQ score is, right? Those with high IQs are "real" Scotsmen-- uh, I mean "real" white people, and those with lower IQ scores aren't really white due to their non-white IQs... uh, I mean, their non-white ancestry. That's how it works, right? Absolutely, Sir! If one can see white skin one must be Caucasian and, therefore, intelligent. Edited May 28, 2016 by StringJunky
Spartan Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) There's been studies which show ethnic groups in China differ substantially in average IQ scores. Yet, racialists will group them all together as "Mongoloid". Even looking at Lynn's papers shows some of these marked differences e.g. Daur differ in average IQ by 9 points to Han; Ewenki, by 11 points (Lynn & Cheng, 2013). The issue is less with the heritability of IQ, but that racialists adopt an obsolete typological classification of three races ("White" or "Caucasoid", "Yellow" or "Mongoloid", and "Black" and "Negroid") which forces diverse populations into the same category. If Lynn, Rushton etc., just did their research on ethnic groups without arbitrarily categorizing them into oids, no one would have a problem. Also: Darwin and Blumenbach never defined race as just "ancestry". Mikemikev has a tendency to lie. Edited May 28, 2016 by Spartan
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 ! Moderator Note I think the rational responses here have covered the ridiculous premise outlined in the OP fairly well. I am closing this.Mikemikev, be aware that posting what essentially amounts to derogatory slurs against groups of people is prohibited by the rules you agreed to upon registering. You should also note that being abusive towards our members is not tolerated, nor is in allowed. You are toeing a fine line here. Do not tempt it again.
Recommended Posts