The Biological Case Against Race

American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

[Sabertooth]

You'd better get here quick and prove you exist.

[Poohbah]

Twin studies show that genetics accounts for 97% of variability in fingerprints (duh!); 70% of IQ, 50% of sexual behavior, 50% of criminal activity and 40% of social attitudes.

Those same twin studies "prove" a genetic link to homosexuality. I question the twin studies that indicate such things, because the famous ones are based on severely flawed models.

Average IQ level of blacks is 15 points lower than whites.

The Stanford-Binet test does presuppose some cultural knowledge. Once you correct for socioeconomic factors, that 15-point gap vanishes to within the MOE.

Average testosterone levels are 10-20% higher in college-age black males than whites.

What was the sample pool for this study? How many blacks versus whites in college are "juicing up" with steroids to compete in sports?

IQ and testosterone levels are key ingredients in behavior among young males.

True enough. However, what factors outside of genetics influence these ingredients?

[Sonny M]

I personally believe their are mostly culteral differances, which are affected by enviormental conditions and historical affects. However, there is evidence of certain biological differances. Indians prefer spicier food, African-americans prefer fruitier drinks (magic johnsons company actually did the research that proved that one), etc. Then there is prone to types of disease, athletism. African americans are in general more athletic there any other type of black group in the world, orinetals generally are not size wise comparabel to europeans, etc. There are differences, we should do research into the whys.

[jlogajan]

Nicely put.

[Poohbah]

African americans are in general more athletic there any other type of black group in the world

I wonder how athletic the Masai are rated...their manhood ritual consists of hunting a lion with a spear. Now THAT is sport!

[Myrddin]

The prison population contains a disproportiate number of "supermales" with XYY genomes. They are less intelligent, more aggressive and have statistically higher criminal tendencies than normal "XY" males.

[RaceBannon]

Funny Guy!

Funny Place!! Where's that sign? "We Hire the Handicapped!"??

[Poohbah]

Isn't the "XYY" genome somewhat questionable? I seem to recall reading that the evidence is thin (and some would say anorexic), with a lot of controversy surrounding the interpretation of the evidence.

[RaceBannon]

It's all about Culture and religion. Christian nations thrive, pagan nations fall.

[ThePythonicCow]

Good God what a confused article.

Ok - first of all he presents some analysis of statistics that show that the DNA diversity between human races is less than that what biologists use to define races or subspecies. Fine, by that definition, humanity is one race. By that definition, fine -- so what?

From this he determines that the assumption that there is significant biological variation amongst groups of humans is false, and that racial categories are socially constructed. Baloney. One example that comes to mind is the difference between East and West African runners. One strong in the sprints, the other in long distances. Or I look at the big men in the NBA - a higher percentage of blacks than in the general population, even though I am one of thousands of white men who would have given our eye tooth to be there, but I'm too short and suffer from white man's disease: white men can't jump.

He goes on to deduce that it's just recent history and racial myth. And he equates thinking to the contrary with racial supremists, such as those who might think that Europeans stand at the pinnacle of perfection, using such thinking to make it legitimate to declare the African slave as chattel. Well, since no person would admit in this day and age to such racist thinking, the contrary position must be right -- that there are no statistically significant biological differences as a group. Baloney. There are clearly such differences, just not large enough to pass the threshold for a separate subspecies.

One way I like to put the point is thus. Say I task you with forming a winning basketball team, and I say you have a choice of two players, one black and one white. I refuse to tell you anything else about these two. In such a case, your best bet would be to pick the black player. Now it might turn out that the black player was Colin Powell, and the white player was Larry Bird. In which case you made the wrong choice, for lack of sufficient information. But given what information you had, you did the right thing.

From all these false arguments, he goes on to determine that racism can be easily deconstructed -- it's just a social disease. But he has changed the topic here entirely.

Racism is unfairly prejudging someone on basis of their race. Any competent basketball team wouldn't ask who's black and pick them, sight unseen. They would find out how well they had played, and how well they could play now. And Larry Bird would beat Colin Powell for such a position everytime, as easily as Tiger Woods would beat me at golf, or I would beat Tiger at computer programming.

However he is not taking racism as this, but rather taking it as any making of statistically significant differences between the human races, which he is saying is just a social confusion which we can easily deconstruct.

I'm not sure where he is going with these confusions, but they can't possibly serve us well.

[Irene Adler]

"The Stanford-Binet test does presuppose some cultural knowledge. Once you correct for socioeconomic factors, that 15-point gap vanishes to within the MOE."

I think the 15-point gap is pretty consistent over all the common IQ tests.

[ThePythonicCow]

I just wish I worked for the Lakers.

Me too, and I don't mean as water boy.

[tallhappy]

That race cannot be biologically defined is objective fact.

Animosity demonstrated here against this simple observation is very irrational.

What's y'all's problem?

[cornelis]

What's y'all's problem?

I reckon they's not likin' it.

[Heartlander]

Darwin outlined the basic reasoning that still stands today concerning the races of mankind. Darwin pointed out that if we used the techniques that naturalists used to identify race in nonhuman species, we would conclude that there really were no races in anatomically modern humans. Over one hundred and forty years of research have demonstrated that Darwin’s reasoning was correct.

OK. So a rose is a rose by any other name. Darwin, what a genius.

As I have stated before: if you take, “A Pygmy and an Eskimo”, and add, “walk into a bar” – you got the beginnings of a pretty good joke.
The punch line is Evolution…

[tallhappy]

sickle-cell anemia afflicts mainly blacks.

Yet not raced based.

It is based on proximity to malarial areas. Thus there are Asian populations prone to it and African populations not.

[ThePythonicCow]

That race cannot be biologically defined is objective fact.

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, I will take it you mean by this provocative remark that there are not clear boundaries between the human "races". As groups, they overlap, blend, merge and generally confuse themselves.

Just because two groups overlap doesn't mean that they don't have statistically significant differences. You present a paper tiger, to what purpose I know not, but not to one I trust.