Race only skin deep - S.J. STUDENTS DISCOVER GENETIC LINK

Mercury News ^ | Mon, Feb. 09, 2004 | Katherine Corcoran

[CobaltBlue]

More than half of the class at San Jose's Piedmont Hills High School, students from numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds, are linked in their DNA to the same ancestor, born more than 100,000 years ago in central China or Taiwan.

[CobaltBlue]

Juries are not systematically kept in the dark. That's a naive generalization from some very unusual trials like the OJ trial.

"Proof" that Africans have average IQs of 70 is a scientifically set up IQ test of Africans showing that Africans - by which I assume you must been those with lots of melanin in their skins. Link me the studies.

I wonder what causes the low IQ? Melanin? Curly hair?

[CobaltBlue]

When thinking about alternative histories for the Americas, consider this hypothetical - swap the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, and then think about how our development would have gone.

[CobaltBlue]

The "reparations" cases to date have made zero progress, but don't hinge on anything but slavery, which cannot be denied, and doesn't need alternative theorizing about race.

The biggest problems they face are statutes of limitation and repose. Slavery ended almost 150 years ago.

So, if you enjoy contemplating race and IQ that's not a good justification, sorry.

Personally, I think the concept of group IQs is meaningless. On the average, blacks don't play golf, but tell that to Tiger Woods. On the average, blacks don't vote Republican, but tell that to Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

On the average, Asians have higher IQs than whites. Should we whites give up and start cleaning toilets for Asians? Is that our pre-ordained fate?

On the average, whites commit more crimes than Asians and use more drugs. Does that make you a criminal drug-user?

[Ichneumon]

If you're impressed with Gould's work, fine.

I didn't say anything about his work one way or another. You're changing the subject, perhaps to try to avoid having to either try to support or retract that slander you posted about him.

If you disagree with his work, then feel free to critique it. But to try to smear him as a "Marxist", when he was not, is just tacky beyond words.

I've never found his obsession with equality to be founded on anything more than his ideology.

And I challenge you to demonstrate that he was actually "obsessed with equality" in the way you describe.

What I've seen in his writings is instead an analysis of how science (and also pseudoscience) has been too often misused so as to "support" people's racial, ethnic, or cultural prejudices. On this topic, and on more neutral topics as well, Gould points out that the lesson of history's mistakes is clear: It's too easy for some people to convince themselves that they're being "objective" and "scientific" when in fact they're just rationalizing what they want to believe. So a) when you find "results" supporting what you want to believe, double and triple check them (and get a second opinion) before you rush to judgment on their validity, and b) countless times people have "found" support for their racist notions which later turned out to be invalid (i.e. further work revealed that they were finding "differences" that weren't really there), so just how likely is it that the next "we were right after all" discovery is going to be the one that finally pans out instead of fizzles out?

Gould was saying that we must learn from history (including the history of the use and misuse of science/pseudoscience), lest we keep repeating it.

Races of people are simply different.

In visual ways, yes, since we base our "race" classifications on looks, primarily. But in other fundamental ways?

Some excel at some things, others at other things. I don't particularly care to go around dwelling on superiority or inferiority.

And yet, you seem to be talking about it here for some reason.

But the idea that with all the observable physical differences between the races, they would somehow manage to be absolutely equal in intelligence seems to me to be nothing more than an ideology.

So is the idea that they must be significantly different. Furthermore, please support your claim that anyone holds the idea that they must be "absolutely equal" in that regard.

No one has any problem admitting that some individuals have greater intelligence than others,

Because intelligence is an individual trait, and does differ from person to person.

but it's considered mandatory that we all recite as a mantra that, collectively, the individual members of each race added up would have the exact same group IQ.

Again, please support this apparent straw man -- who, specifically, says that a "group IQ" (whatever that is) must be "exactly the same", and when/where did they "mandate" it?

Given the huge gaps we observe everyday between individuals in many different areas (intelligence, initiative, personal conduct, strength, etc.)

Hold that thought, we'll come back to it shortly.

it would stretch credulity to think that each racial and ethnic group is collectively precisely equal to every other such group in all those categories.

First, it's rather unclear what it might mean to speak of "group equality" when talking about traits that are measured individually. What is a "group height", for example? Do we stack everyone vertically? That right there indicates you may be heading out of the realm of concrete concepts (i.e., how tall is George) and into some universe of fuzzily-defined, poorly-thought-out notions.

But secondly, since you've already admitted that there are "huge gaps" (i.e. variations) among individuals (presumably of the same "race"), what use is it then to discuss a "group trait" where the group median (to use one possible type of measure) will necessarily vary less between arbitrary groups than it statistically will between any two individuals? When individual differences are so large as to swamp any "group differences", so what?

Put another way, if the alleged average IQ difference between Asians and Caucasians is, say, 10 points, but the expected difference of the IQs of any two Caucasians (or Asians, or pick one from each) is 20 points, do we really care about the alleged "group difference"? In practice, if we're looking for someone smart for a job, won't we have to examine the candidates individually to find which one tops the pack instead of just randomly picking an Asian and hoping to get lucky thanks to that 10 point average "lead"? After all, by chance we might have ended up with a pool of candidates consisting of slightly above-average whites and slightly below average Asians, making it quite possible that *all* the white candidates were smarter than *all* of the Asian ones, even though "on average" there's a small difference between the "group" statistic.

In short, even as a practical matter (aside from the ethical ones) don't we have to take people as individuals anyway, without regard to some arbitrary "group", precisely *because* of the wide variation among individuals?

It's like arguing that while some football players are better than others, every football team is of exactly equal skill with every other football team.

And who exactly has argued such a thing? Be specific, name names, and quote them.

I don't pretend to have all the answers on this issue, but it's worth noting that it's the egalitarian side (Gould, etc.) who seem to want to stifle research into these issues.

Horse manure. Quote anywhere that you believe Gould has tried to "stifle" research. Instead, he has cautioned against the (many) mistakes of the past. He's saying a) if you're going to do it, learn from the past and do it damned carefully for a change, and b) for several reasons, like the one I present above, even if we find some sort of difference, how exactly does it really matter in real terms (other than to give racists an excuse to "confirm" their beliefs)?

People should be judged as individuals, but that doesn't mean we should expect just as many whites or East Asians to be in the NBA as blacks.

Of course we shouldn't. But neither should we presume without proper study and good evidence that the reasons are exclusively or even partially *racial*. For example it's well known that one reason there are so many blacks in sports is because of socioeconomic factors which more often give them an incentive to take sports seriously as a career (especially from a younger age) than whites do.

In a different culture, basketball may have been more the province of white athletes.

And it may be possible (shudder) that whites are simply better at some things as a group than other races.

And it may be possible that they are not. Possibilities are one thing -- presumptions are another.

That doesn't give whites the right to lord it over other people, or mean that other people are inferior as human beings.

It's... interesting that you would think about putting it that way.

But in all likelihood, there are things in this world which whites, on average, do better, which is a more logical explanation for what we see when we look outside at the real world than some theory that climate and terrain are responsible

...you say, without having read the book, or looked into historical differences and causes yourself...

So given your lack of background here, I think you should really explain exactly why you find innate white superiority "a more logical explanation" for the flow of history than some thesis you haven't even bothered to learn about.

Your move.

(though in our Politically Correct world the latter would be the one to earn a Pulitzer Prize).

Ah, yet another presumption based on your preconceptions, and not your research. Or is it your crystal ball which tells you that the book was not worthy to win such an award on its contents?

[Ichneumon]

Personally, I think the concept of group IQs is meaningless. On the average, blacks don't play golf, but tell that to Tiger Woods. On the average, blacks don't vote Republican, but tell that to Walter Williams, Armstrong Williams, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.

And for every physically gifted sports superstar like Michael Jordan, there's:

Again, variations between individuals is larger than any variation between groups.

[OldEagle]

Sorry, race has to be biological

More significant (to your point) than skin color is the distinct variation of physical build among the races.

[OldEagle]

However, look at somebody like Halle Berry ...

Halle Berry is not a good example. As I understand it, she is the child of one black and one white parent. So, is she black OR white or black AND white? And to complicate things, she had surgery to "allow her to appear more white" so that she could distinguish herself as a black actress.
Why isn't she considered a white actress?

[puroresu]

You apparently know very little about Gould:

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/oct02/gould.htm

I didn't try to "smear" him as a Marxist. Gould was popular among Marxists themselves. Just type his name into a search engine along with Marxism and you'll find plenty of links.

I never once stated that one race is superior to the other. Such matters are of opinion. One could make the argument that a primitive hunter-gatherer society is superior since it has no chance to blow up the earth. If that's someone's opinion, fine. But there are clearly differences between the races and clearly things certain races do better than others. Blacks are better basketball players than whites. Period. It has to do with genetics because they are on average built differently than whites. I have no problem saying that, because it's true.

I judge people as individuals. However, that does not mean that individual differences swamp group differences.

Men are on average taller than women, but some women are taller than some men. If I started a club for people over six feet tall, I'd end up with far more male members than female members.

If I started a basketball team, I'd end up with more black players than white (assuming it was in an area where both races are present).

But what if I started a physics lab and ended up with more whites than would be matched by the general population? Might it be possible that whites are better at physics than blacks? Or, for that matter, that Asians are better at it than whites? I'm not afraid to say that it's a distinct possibility.

The reason that's important is that we live in a world where allegations of racism are thrown around with impunity. Or more often, they're implied with a snide smirk, such as your "it's....interesting that you would think about putting it that way" remark.

When our children are being bumped from colleges and jobs because of affirmative action, it becomes important to know if racial differences in certain areas exist. If the races are precisely equal in all areas of human endeavor, then racial quotas are justified on the grounds that any failure to achieve racial balance must be due to some outside factor.

I'm not afraid to investigate these things. Let the chips fall where they may. I will gladly treat everyone as an individual, but that is not what is being demanded of us, is it? What is being demanded are group entitlements, based on race, which are often promoted by the very people who deny that race exists.
Exactly where do you stand on racial quotas, affirmative action, and group racial entitlements? What if a racial group is 34% of an area population, but is 85% of highly paid athletes while only being 6% of highly paid executives? Do we racially balance both, or only one, via affirmative action? Do you assume discrimination prima facie in such cases?

You said it was a straw man to accuse anyone of believing each racial group has the exact same group IQ. But if I said otherwise, you'd call me a racist. Or, more likely, you'd say "it's....interesting that you put it that way."

You can't have it both ways. If individuals are different, then it seems odd to maintain that entire races are identical other than superficial external differences.

I just accept that people, races. and cultures are different. I love the Japanese. I love their differences from us and respect them. If they're better at some things than we are, so be it. And vice-versa. It would be a damned boring world if we were all the same, or had the exact same talents.

As for Jared Diamond, his book is an interesting theory and I have no objection to it being published or presented. I won't go nuclear on it, the way Gould did on Edmund Wilson for daring to speak of socio-biology, or the way the works of Shockley, Levin, Brand, Murray, and others have been castigated. He has some interesting ideas, no doubt, and he poses a theory for the wide differences in performance between racial and ethnic groups. Is it more reliable or workable than Murray's? I doubt it. The persistence of affirmative action, now disguised as "diversity" and locked in for another 25 years by Sandra Day O'Connor, leads me to think that very few preachers of egalitarianism actually believe it.

Treat people as individuals. But recognize that racial balances aren't going to naturally occur.

[CDHart]

Thanks--your explanation makes more sense than the article.

Carolyn

[Cronos]

Methane gas from their ancestor's cow caused global warming and my ancestors drowned in the flood. I want reparations, too.

err.. if your ancestors drowned in the flood, how come you're here????? The Grandfather paradox...

[Cronos]

there are illnesses that one race gets and the others don't

Nope, those are regional variations, not racial. Sickle cell anemia developed in areas prone to malaria.

[Cronos]

#####The concept of race is purely man-made. From a biological point of view, there is no more difference between a white person and an asian person than there is between a white house cat and a black house cat.##### Bad analogy. The right analogy would be between a Persian cat and a Siamese cat, which are, in fact, different.

Wrong. The analogy is external appearance only. The two groups are not different.

[Cronos]

How about Indians? Or Iranians? What race do they belong to?

Good point. Both are Aryans, in fact, to make Hittler even wilder "purer" Aryans than Germans. BUt they are dark skinned. Japanese are fair to the point of being white.

[Cronos]

Caucasians are the perfect temperate-climate type; nothing too extreme in any regard, which is great for the cool winters and warm summers of temperate zones. Of course human migration has landed many of each type in climates to which they're not physically adapted.

Arabs, Persians, Indians. All Caucasians. All live in hot or tropical regions and have been doing so for millenia.

[Cronos]

Many parts of Asia are much warmer than Europe, so I'm not sure if this holds up.

Agnes falls for the mistake of using the term Asian. That's a bogey word. There were only 2 continents in the old world -- Eurasia and Africa. When Agnes said Asian, she means Mongoloid groups. Arabs, Persians, indians, Mediterraneans etc. live in warmer climes than say Mongols, but are Caucasian.

[Cronos]

BEfore 64 we used the concept of race -- the wrong one. Now it should be open to all who have hte skills we need, regardless of where they come from.

[Cronos]

If the Japanese had settled England, it would today have an Oriental culture. Even if everyone else in Europe had remained white?

most Japanese are "white" in color......

[Cronos]

Look here, there's more difference between two breeds of dogs or cats than between two "races" of human beings. Hence any comparison is wrong.

[Cronos]

It wasn't so long ago that a person whose ancestry was 1/32nd African was black by law, and couldn't marry a white person in much of the South. That was finally outlawed circa 1970 by a much-hated "activist" Supreme Court.

And you saying that it should still be outlawed??

[Cronos]

That makes no sense. How can a black person have lighter skin tones than a white person?

How can a Black, NEGROID person have a lighter tone than a white, CAUCASIAN person? well, some South Indians, all of whom ar caucasians are dark in skin tones and may be darker than some negroids.