Just for context: The wider context for this post is what James White recently said about black people. However, I don't discuss White or his remarks in this post. Steve Hays and Peter Pike have already done so: Black abortion, Identity politics for me but not for thee, Victim mentality, Feedback loop, and As Huxley is to Darwin. Instead I thought I'd try to tackle a more basic question - what is race?
1. To my knowledge, the two major positions regarding race are (a) race is fundamentally a social construct or (b) race is fundamentally a biological (genetic) concept. I presume each of these could be further delineated.
A third position is race doesn't exist, but I'll leave that aside since it seems most believe race exists.
2. However:
a. If race is fundamentally a social construct, then (prima facie) that doesn't seem to explain group-distinctive physical features which are hereditary, from generation to generation.
b. If race is fundamentally a biological concept, then (prima facie) that doesn't seem to explain how there's typically more genetic variation within races than there is between races.
3. There are few higher authorities on human genetics than Francis Collins. I think Collins makes a sensible case for what race is from the perspective of a medical geneticist, though I'm not suggesting it's the final word or anything like that:
Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations, and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world...On the genetic side of the diagram, race is an imperfect surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which in turn is a surrogate for genetic variation across an individual's genome.
4. Suppose (arguendo) race is fundamentally a biological (genetic) concept. Nevertheless that still doesn't get us to the inference that races necessarily share similar mental, psychological, behavioral, and/or moral traits due to their genetics (e.g. IQ, work ethic). A further connecting argument would be needed.
Moreover, such similarities could be due to cultural and/or other factors.
"If race is fundamentally a biological concept, then (prima facie) that doesn't seem to explain how there's typically more genetic variation within races than there is between races."
ReplyDeleteI've never quite understood this argument. There is more variation is psychological traits within men than in women (most geniuses are men, proportionally more retarded people are men). There is more variation within dog breeds than giraffes.
"I've never quite understood this argument. There is more variation is psychological traits within men than in women (most geniuses are men, proportionally more retarded people are men)."
Delete1. The difference between men and women isn't fundamentally based on psychology alone. By contrast, the biological argument for race is said to be fundamentally based on biological differences (genetics).
2. Also, as I pointed out in my post, even if (arguendo) there are biological differences between races, that doesn't necessarily imply there are psychological (or other) differences between races. At a minimum, there would need to be a further argument. Presumably an argument that is able to succeed in demonstrating biological differences necessarily entail psychological (or other) differences.
"There is more variation within dog breeds than giraffes."
1. This isn't an analogous argument. For it to be analogous, you'd have to say there's more variation within one breed of dog than there is between dog breeds.
2. As far as variations in dogs, that's due to selective breeding of dogs (by humans). No one in their right mind seriously believes human races came about due to selective breeding.
"Also, as I pointed out in my post, even if (arguendo) there are biological differences between races, that doesn't necessarily imply there are psychological (or other) differences between races. At a minimum, there would need to be a further argument. Presumably an argument that is able to succeed in demonstrating biological differences necessarily entail psychological (or other) differences."
DeleteI think it makes it more likely. Whatever force you assume is responsible for variations in skin color, hair texture, muscular density, etc. would likely result in differences in psychological traits between groups. The genes for brain development have been found and they vary from race to race. A radiologist can look at a brain MRI and determine the race of the person.
And it's not a question of evolution vs. creation. Even if human beings have been around for 10,000 years that's more than enough time to have significant changes in traits due to selective mating. In 2006, Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame) and James Flynn (an egalitarian on race differences) debated at the AEI. Murray pointed out that 60% percent of black births were to mothers with lower than average black IQs. Flynn agreed that this was a problem and could result in close to 3/4 of a point in IQ per generation. Or consider that first cousin marriage results in lower IQ. 80% of marriages in Pakistan are between first cousins. It would be interesting to do genetic testing of Copts and Muslims in Egypt and test their IQs. Of course no one would fund such a study.
"The genes for brain development have been found and they vary from race to race."
DeleteIn fact, genes are involved in the entire physical development of a human being.
However, just because there are genes involved in a person's physical development including the physical development of their brain doesn't necessarily imply a person's psychological makeup is fundamentally determined by these same genes.
"A radiologist can look at a brain MRI and determine the race of the person."
Again, you're still missing a connecting argument: the existence of physical differences between races doesn't necessarily imply the person's psychological makeup is fundamentally determined by these physical differences.
"And it's not a question of evolution vs. creation. Even if human beings have been around for 10,000 years that's more than enough time to have significant changes in traits due to selective mating."
Well, I never claimed it was "a question of evolution vs. creation".
"In 2006, Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame) and James Flynn (an egalitarian on race differences) debated at the AEI."
I don't see where Murray made a successful case for a definitive causal connection between genes and IQ in the debate.
"Murray pointed out that 60% percent of black births were to mothers with lower than average black IQs. Flynn agreed that this was a problem and could result in close to 3/4 of a point in IQ per generation."
That still doesn't rule out non-biological (genetic) factors. For example, it could be the reason for this is because the majority of black children are born into single parent families (typically single mothers) and it's been shown children from two parent families (father and mother) tend to have higher IQs than children from single parent families.
"Or consider that first cousin marriage results in lower IQ."
1. A marriage between first cousins would mean a marriage between individuals in the same race (unless one comes from a racially mixed family). As such, this could be an argument in support of people having sigificantly different IQs due to non-racial reasons.
2. Suppose (arguendo) it's true first cousin marriages result in lower IQ children. That still doesn't necessarily imply it's due to genetics. For example, it could be due to their child having to deal with the social stigma of having parents who are first cousins. This social stigma could influence the child's intellectual development. Another example is children with parents who are first cousins tend to have higher than average rates of depression. Depression can similarly influence a child's intellectual development. Of course, social stigma and depression aren't mutually exclusive; it's possible for the same person to struggle with both.
"Again, you're still missing a connecting argument: the existence of physical differences between races doesn't necessarily imply the person's psychological makeup is fundamentally determined by these physical differences."
DeleteI never said it did. My point is that it makes it more likely. If some groups have larger (heavier) brains than others it's reasonable to believe that this influences IQ differences between groups because there is a correlation within groups between brain size and weight.
"I don't see where Murray made a successful case for a definitive causal connection between genes and IQ in the debate. "
We know from studies of identical twins separated at birth and adopted into different families that there is a connection between IQ and genes. Now if you want to argue that it's not "definitive" because we haven't found the genes for intelligence that's fine, but that's not the way we live our life. It was perfectly reasonable not to smoke based on the correlation of smoking to lung cancer even prior to the mechanism by which smoking caused cancer was discovered.
"I never said it did. My point is that it makes it more likely."
DeleteIt doesn't make it "more likely" at all if the argument itself doesn't work in the first place.
"If some groups have larger (heavier) brains than others it's reasonable to believe that this influences IQ differences between groups because there is a correlation within groups between brain size and weight."
1. Coarsely speaking, there's weak, moderate, and strong correlation. When it comes to brain size and/or weight and IQ, it's on the weaker correlation side.
2. The total data or evidence is inconclusive at best. Many studies disagree with many other studies. As such, one should be skeptical or agnostic about modern craniometry.
3. A better case for correlating brain and intelligence might be for the organization and complexity of the brain's neural connections or synapses, as well as its closely associated molecular and cellular network in general, but even that faces significant challenges and questions.
"We know from studies of identical twins separated at birth and adopted into different families that there is a connection between IQ and genes."
1. Here's the broader context. Nearly all behavioral traits (including intelligence) will show some degree of genetic influence and heritability. It would be easier to find a behavioral trait that doesn't show some degree of genetic influence and heritability.
2. Twins are from the same race/ethnicity. Hence, at best, this would show there's correlation between people of the same race and their IQs. Once again, you'd need a further argument to move from twins to other races. Of course, it's easy enough to think of possible arguments, but my point is you yourself haven't made this argument.
3. Correlations between twins and IQ don't rule out other possibilities. Such as the effects of early nutrition if both twins fed in similar ways (e.g. fed with similar milk formula). Such as the effects of early intellectual stimulation if both twins played with the same toys (e.g. Legos). And so on.
"Now if you want to argue that it's not "definitive" because we haven't found the genes for intelligence that's fine, but that's not the way we live our life. It was perfectly reasonable not to smoke based on the correlation of smoking to lung cancer even prior to the mechanism by which smoking caused cancer was discovered."
These aren't reasonably comparable. For one thing, there's a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer, whereas there's at best a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. For another, unless you're a materialist, physical metrics alone can't fully capture intelligence like they can with smoking and lung cancer.
"Coarsely speaking, there's weak, moderate, and strong correlation. When it comes to brain size and/or weight and IQ, it's on the weaker correlation side."
DeleteRacial hereditarianism doesn't rely on one line of evidence (such as brain size) but multiple, including regression to the mean, adoption studies, admixture studies, etc. Also it relies on the fact that there is no (or little) evidence to contradict it. If all groups have the same innate intellectual ability then you'd except all groups to have intellectual achievements, but for the most part they don't. There are no Aboriginal or African Newtons or Leibnizs. Even small European countries have produced Nobel prizes in science.
"Twins are from the same race/ethnicity. Hence, at best, this would show there's correlation between people of the same race and their IQs. Once again, you'd need a further argument to move from twins to other races. Of course, it's easy enough to think of possible arguments, but my point is you yourself haven't made this argument. "
That's the strength of the twin argument. Identical twins adopted into different homes wind up with generally speaking the same IQ. So the things that are used to explain, say, the black/white IQ gap in the USA (bad schools, bad parenting, etc.) cannot be the cause: they don't create a 15 point IQ gap.
"Correlations between twins and IQ don't rule out other possibilities. Such as the effects of early nutrition if both twins fed in similar ways (e.g. fed with similar milk formula). Such as the effects of early intellectual stimulation if both twins played with the same toys (e.g. Legos). And so on."
And they don't rule out the ether or astrology playing a role in IQ either.
"Racial hereditarianism doesn't rely on one line of evidence (such as brain size)"
DeleteYou were the one who brought up brain size in the first place. And I responded to you. In fact, I've responded to all your best arguments so far.
"but multiple, including regression to the mean, adoption studies, admixture studies, etc."
You're just using buzzwords without making an argument. In any case, there are plenty of reasonable responses to each of these if you simply Google. I'm getting tired of just responding to you only to see you move the goalpost again.
"Also it relies on the fact that there is no (or little) evidence to contradict it."
You must be joking. See what I've already written to you.
"If all groups have the same innate intellectual ability then you'd except all groups to have intellectual achievements, but for the most part they don't. There are no Aboriginal or African Newtons or Leibnizs. Even small European countries have produced Nobel prizes in science."
1. You keep moving the goalposts. Every time I respond to one of your objections, you raise a new objection.
2. Now your latest objection is race and winning Nobel prizes. However, just by searching on Triablogue, you've already made the same old objection in the past and others have already addressed your objection. For example, Steve Hays and Jeremy Pierce replied to you here. Your responses are far less (shall we say) intelligent. Anyone can read the thread and decide.
"That's the strength of the twin argument. Identical twins adopted into different homes wind up with generally speaking the same IQ."
That fails to respond to what I actually said.
"So the things that are used to explain, say, the black/white IQ gap in the USA (bad schools, bad parenting, etc.) cannot be the cause: they don't create a 15 point IQ gap."
I presume you're already familiar with the Flynn effect since you brought up the Murray-Flynn debate.
"And they don't rule out the ether or astrology playing a role in IQ either."
Now you're just mocking. I could just as easily say your arguments have been far closer to pseudoscience than science.
The Flynn Effect, if anything, provides evidence for hereditarianism. IQ gaps (at least the most studied ones) have stayed the same even as culture has converged. It's like the male/female gap staying the same as nutrition as improved for both.
DeleteSo what is your explanation for the persistent black/white IQ gap?
In fact, Steve Jackson, you've already used the exact same arguments you've used in the past and to which others have already responded. However, you evidently haven't ever let any of these counter-arguments sink in since you're simply repeating the exact same arguments you used in the past again in this post. For example:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/07/biracialism-in-scripture.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/iq-meritocracy.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-bell-curve.html
"The Flynn Effect, if anything, provides evidence for hereditarianism. IQ gaps (at least the most studied ones) have stayed the same even as culture has converged. It's like the male/female gap staying the same as nutrition as improved for both. So what is your explanation for the persistent black/white IQ gap?"
DeleteSee the previous posts I just cited. It looks like plenty of responses already.
"The Flynn Effect, if anything, provides evidence for hereditarianism. IQ gaps (at least the most studied ones) have stayed the same even as culture has converged. It's like the male/female gap staying the same as nutrition as improved for both. So what is your explanation for the persistent black/white IQ gap?"
DeleteThomas Sowell:
As it turned out, the research showed that the average IQ difference between black and white Americans -- 15 points -- was nothing unusual. Similar IQ differences could be found between various culturally isolated white communities and the general society, both in the United States and in Britain. Among various groups in India, mental test differences were slightly greater than those between blacks and whites in the United States.
In recent years, research by Professor James R. Flynn, an American expatriate living in New Zealand, has shaken up the whole IQ controversy by discovering what has been called "the Flynn effect." In various countries around the world, people have been answering significantly more IQ test questions correctly than in the past.
This important fact has been inadvertently concealed by the practice of changing the norms on IQ tests, so that the average number of correctly answered questions remains by definition an IQ of 100. Only by painstakingly going back and recalculating IQs, based on the initial norms, was Professor Flynn able to discover that whole nations had, in effect, had their IQs rising over the decades by about 20 points.
Since the black-white difference in IQ is 15 points, this means that an even larger IQ difference has existed between different generations of the same race, making it no longer necessary to attribute IQ differences of this magnitude to genetics. In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans' raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points.
In other words, black Americans' test score results in 1995 would have given them an average IQ just over 100 in 1945. Only the repeated renorming of IQ tests upward created the illusion that blacks had made no progress, but were stuck at an IQ of 85. But we would never have known this if some researchers had not defied the taboo on studying race and IQ imposed by black "leaders" and white "friends."
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2002/10/01/race-and-iq-n1000028
I like Tom Sowell but I don't know if anyone would say he's an expert on intelligence (for example in this piece he claims that Flynn discovered the "Flynn effect" which is inaccurate).
DeleteIncidentally, Flynn doesn't seem to agree that the Flynn effect is necessarily an increase in g. He reviewed educational journals over the years and couldn't find any evidence that teachers and scholars were noting that people were actually getting smarter. Do you believe that WWI was fought by morons?
DeleteI still don't see your evidence for your position (if it is your position) that all races have the same innate ability.
DeleteIt's also hard to argue with someone who rejects what in every other case would be considered evidence. If I were to say "The Dutch throughout history have always been on average taller than Italians" and "the offspring of a Dutch and Italian parents tend to her intermediate heights" would any reasonable person claim that doesn't constitute evidence that Dutch are innately taller than Italians?
Would anyone say it is a sufficient rebuttal to spectulate about Legos? Would anyone say "it could be baby formula" if extensive studies of baby formula indicate that different formulas cannot account for such a height disparity?
"I still don't see your evidence for your position (if it is your position) that all races have the same innate ability."
DeleteMy position was in my very post. I'm sympathetic to what Francis Collins said.
"It's also hard to argue with someone who rejects what in every other case would be considered evidence."
1. Speak for yourself.
2. It's hard to argue with someone who evidently keeps repeating the same old arguments for years and years despite many people having already responded to their arguments. That's in evidence with you on this very weblog. People can compare what you have said in this post to what you have said in past posts which I cited above. Your arguments are the same. However you act like no one has ever responded to what you've said.
"If I were to say "The Dutch throughout history have always been on average taller than Italians; therefore it is likely that there is a genetic component" would any reasonable person reject such an argument and bring up Legos?"
1. The fact that you reduce what I said to "bring up Legos" illustrates your dishonesty and arguing in poor faith.Like I said, it comes across as if you were just ridiculing my point. To be fair, I suppose it's possible you honestly thought your ridicule was appropriate because you simply weren't able to follow the argument.
2. My point was that twin studies don't rule out the possibility that there are other factors which can explain the differences. I mentioned early nutrition and early education as examples. Early education includes but is hardly reducible to "Legos". That is, pediatricians have long argued language facility and problem-solving are key indicators in children for future academic performance. "Legos" would be a means by which to test problem-solving in children.
"I like Tom Sowell but I don't know if anyone would say he's an expert on intelligence (for example in this piece he claims that Flynn discovered the "Flynn effect" which is inaccurate)."
1. Sowell never pretended to be an "expert on intelligence". He was simply rehashing what's already publicly available.
2. Sowell is an expert on race which is relevant in a debate on race and intelligence.
3. Sowell's academic background is in the social sciences. Just like Charles Murray and James Flynn. All three hold doctorates in the social sciences from prestigious institutions. As such, all three possess the education and tools by which to address intelligence. It's just that Sowell focused on race and other issues, while Murray and Flynn have become known for their work in intelligence. In short, when it comes to scholarly work on race and intelligence, there are more blurred lines than hard and fast boundaries.
"My point was that twin studies don't rule out the possibility that there are other factors which can explain the differences. I mentioned early nutrition and early education as examples. Early education includes but is hardly reducible to 'Legos'."
DeleteChildren conceived and birthed in the 44-45 Dutch famine had IQs only slightly lower than those birthed and conceived after. There is no evidence that baby formula makes that much of a difference.
"Children conceived and birthed in the 44-45 Dutch famine had IQs only slightly lower than those birthed and conceived after."
DeleteThat's like comparing apples with oranges.
"There is no evidence that baby formula makes that much of a difference."
So you say, despite the study I linked.
"Children conceived and birthed in the 44-45 Dutch famine had IQs only slightly lower than those birthed and conceived after."
DeleteA single year isn't a long enough period of time to draw any such conclusions. Not to mention studying a single population. Not to mention during war.
My original post was only about race - what is race? It wasn't about race and intelligence. Just like it wasn't about race and athleticism, race and beauty, race and ethics, race and religion, and so on. Rather, it was Steve Jackson who brought up race and IQ here. I guess that's because the relationship between race and intelligence is Steve Jackson's hobbyhorse, as can be seen by his past comments on Triablogue. See the links I cited above.
DeleteHowever, evidently Jackson's arguments haven't changed since the last time he commented on race and IQ on Triablogue. In fact, he keeps repeating the same old tired arguments that others have already dealt with but he acts as if no one has ever responded to him. That's odd behavior to say the least.
I don't deny that nutrition is important and can affect IQ. I deny your position that the black/white IQ gap in the USA can be explained by nutrition.
Delete"I deny your position that the black/white IQ gap in the USA can be explained by nutrition."
DeleteSince that's not my position, there's nothing for you to deny.
So what is your explanation for the black/white IQ gap in the USA?
Delete"So what is your explanation for the black/white IQ gap in the USA?"
Delete1. Agnosticism. We can't make a definitive call based on what we have at present.
2. Multifactorial. There are several explanations, but each explanation alone isn't terribly plausible, but in combination the whole is more credible. In this respect, the sum may be greater than its parts.
I suppose race as biology / race as social construct is a verbal dispute, like transgenderism. There is no disagreement about what Bruce Jenner did to his body, that he still has the same chromosomes, that even if he were thirty years younger he couldn't give birth, etc. Some people claim he is nonetheless a woman, others not.
ReplyDelete"I suppose race as biology / race as social construct is a verbal dispute, like transgenderism. There is no disagreement about what Bruce Jenner did to his body, that he still has the same chromosomes, that even if he were thirty years younger he couldn't give birth, etc. Some people claim he is nonetheless a woman, others not."
DeleteI think it depends on the specific argument you have in mind as to whether or not it's analogous to transgenderism.
"A third position is race doesn't exist, but I'll leave that aside since it seems most believe race exists." I guess the race as a social construct view is similar. But most don't go that far because, perhaps, it would invalidate racial quotes, affirmative actions and reparations.
ReplyDeleteThe closest thing to a socially constructed race is Hispanics, since a Hispanic is a person who is from a Latin American country or has ancestors who were. But if you ask Hispanics where their ancestors are from (Spain, Native American, Africa, etc) you still get accurate results.
"if you ask Hispanics where their ancestors are from (Spain, Native American, Africa, etc) you still get accurate results."
DeleteThat's consistent with what Francis Collins points out (quotation in my post).