Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Biological Case Against Race
American Outlook, publication of the Hudson Institute ^ | Spring 2002 | Joseph L. Graves Jr.

Posted on 06/04/2002 5:24:31 PM PDT by cornelis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: cornelis
What a pantload of PC at it's worst. In his next book he will prove that there is no difference between men and women and that our personal observations on that subject are completely in error as well.

Regards

J.R.

102 posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:11 PM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
I wouldn't say that person A is faster than person B because A is black. But I would say that the fastest humans in the sprints are of West African descent.

Let's take a different example. On average, men are bigger than women, right? If you disagree with this assertion, then skip the rest of this reply -- we are too far off the same wavelength to have a useful discussion on this.

Ok - still there? Good. Now is Tom Daschle bigger than Oprah Winfrey because he is a man? Well, no, he's smaller. Ok - is Colin Powell bigger than Condi Rice because he is a man? Well, he's bigger. But being a man doesn't make him necessarily bigger. Is the world's largest person (probably some Guiness book of records person) a man? I don't know, but likely, because at the fringes especially, the minor statistical difference in size results in a large difference in chances that the extreme individual will be of the group that tends slightly toward that extreme. But for any given person, except a few, there are larger and smaller individuals of both genders..

Another example of the fringes of a population most clearly showing the minor difference in an overlapping attribute - what's the chances that there will ever be a woman basketball player of the size and strength of Shaq? Damn slim, I'd say.

I'm not saying, given two individuals, that being black or male or this or that causes one of them to be more or less of this or that than the other.

I'm saying that given any two populations that have some distinction that is present at birth, there will be other distinctions, most visible at the extremes.

103 posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:32 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
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.

So because you don't like the results of one genetic study you will throw out the results of them all? Were you an OJ Simpson juror by chance?

MANY different studies have studied identical twins (monozygotic) raised apart and found a 0.70 correlation for intelligence. This is enormous.

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

Look up the Minnesota transracial adoption study. They found that the average IQ of black babies adopted by white couples was around 85, the average IQ of half black babies adopted by white couples was 95, and the average IQ of white babies adopted by white couples was 105.

104 posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:34 PM PDT by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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

In "The Bell Curve", the authors note that the average SAT for Blacks from upper-middle-class families are lower than the SAT for low-income whites

Also, given that IQ has a lot to do with the income level you wind up with, correcting for parental socioeconomic level also corrects for parental IQ.

105 posted on 06/04/2002 7:46:31 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Godel
Well said, Godel. Very well said. Thanks.
106 posted on 06/04/2002 7:47:57 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
In his next book he will prove that there is no difference between men and women

He's not proving there are no differences. It would be ludicrous to insist that. We are quick to conjecture. Remember Oedipus? Tiresias did it!

107 posted on 06/04/2002 7:48:27 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Godel
So because you don't like the results of one genetic study you will throw out the results of them all? Were you an OJ Simpson juror by chance?

No, I'm questioning the whole basis of many of these twin studies, because some of the more famous ones that get cited were "pre-loaded" to get certain results.

MANY different studies have studied identical twins (monozygotic) raised apart and found a 0.70 correlation for intelligence. This is enormous.

Great, if true.

Question: did they correct for the nurture end of things?

I've bumped into too many identical twins with very different overall temperments (intelligence, WHAT they're good at, personality, et cetera) to buy in that intelligence is that strongly determined by genetics. I have one rather smart sister, and two fair-to-middlin' brothers--and in mathematics, I'm the best of breed in my family. My sister and brothers are very coordinated; I'm something of a klutz. We're all over whatever charts you want to look at.

108 posted on 06/04/2002 7:48:53 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
"is Colin Powell bigger than Condi Rice because he is a man? Well, he's bigger. But being a man doesn't make him necessarily bigger." Sometimes people here "X because Y" to mean there's a necessary connection between X and Y. But that's not how we ordinarily talk or think about causation. For example, smoking causes cancer, but it doesn't follow that if you smoke then necessarily you'll get cancer. Let's pick a neutral idiom to avoid this sort of complication. Let's use the phrase "It's no accident". Now, if you point to a man and a woman and the man is taller than the woman, I'd say it's no accident that he's taller. If you point to a Scottsman and an Irishman and the Scottsman was taller I wouldn't make the same claim. The fallacy at the heart of the folk theory of race isn't that group A has statistical properties not shared by group B. It's the "it's no accident claim". Once you give it up, race becomes useless as an analytical tool becuase it's not doing any explanatory work.
109 posted on 06/04/2002 7:49:19 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
Why the disparity in behavior and outcomes? If we are all the same, then why do blacks - 13% of the population - make up only 2% of corporate executives and commit 50% of the crime?

Because their culture is severely messed up. You may also want to look at the comparative differences when you seperate Caribean blacks from American blacks.

Why has black student achievement lagged that of whites at the same rate for nearly 30 years - ever since the government has measured it - despite $billions of government money?

Because American black culture has picked up anti-intellectualism as part of it? Because those liberal programs that cost billions did nothing to address the underlying cultural problem? You are away that students in Harlem were able to rank second in the city before all those billions of dollars started helping them, right?

110 posted on 06/04/2002 7:49:40 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

Comment #112 Removed by Moderator

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
For something as straight forward as this, yes, there is presumably one or a few identifiable genetic factors that are responsible for this similarity.
113 posted on 06/04/2002 7:51:39 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

Comment #114 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
I donno ... Most people have always assumed that #1 is true, but I never believed in #2. I don't see why the two propositions have to go together.

As noted above, there are certainly very distinct differences in racial physiology. For example, there are specific racial settings/norms for breathing capacity tests. And for some reason the Olympic sprints are dominated by people of West African heritage.

As for character and morality, there's no particular reason to believe that there are not racial components, either. Compare, for example, the temperaments of golden retrievers vs. German shepherds. Although humans are more complex, why should we be immune to such things?

At any rate, it's interesting how a professor of evolutionary biology would tell us that subtle population differences between, say, silvereye birds is evidence of evolution; while simultaneously holding that significant physiological differences are somehow not evidence of evolutionary divergence between humans. This is not logical -- but it is politically correct.

115 posted on 06/04/2002 7:55:01 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mortin Sult
Therein lies the real basis of Darwin's argument. Real races can't interbreed without obvious mismatches.

You can breed a poodle with a terrier, and get viable offspring that have some mix of characteristics. This does not invalidate the concept of "breed" among dogs (or horses or other species)

Within a dog breed, you have definite characteristics of the average/typical member, which include physical appearance, temperment (anybody here who has ever known a pure golden retriever who was successfully trained as an attack dog, please let me know), and intelligence.

116 posted on 06/04/2002 7:55:07 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
     "The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age" of the species, Wood says. "That means you've got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation."

There's a pretty old hypothesis that explains the lack of genetic variation in humans: "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The more we learn the more we see evolutionist assumptions refuted by real science.

117 posted on 06/04/2002 7:56:26 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Mortin Sult
I would agree that the differences between the 'races' of humans are not as clear, distinct and non-overlapping as the differences between non-mating species.

Consider the differences between fat people and thin people. For many of us, it's not clear which group we are in. My doctor would probably call me 'fat'. I would differ, though I would grant that I am no longer thin.

What is so dang hard about the notion of overlapping groups, such that for the bulk in the middle, it is not clear that they belong to either group?

Y'all keep trying to recast what I'm saying into some claim that race is a black and white issue.

118 posted on 06/04/2002 7:57:42 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Consider the differences between fat people and thin people. For many of us, it's not clear which group we are in. My doctor would probably call me 'fat'. I would differ, though I would grant that I am no longer thin.

Your doctor doesn't understand your unique gravitational profile, that's all =:o)

119 posted on 06/04/2002 7:59:47 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
"The typical Irishman is more prone to alcoholism than the typical Swede. This does not mean that all Irishmen or drunks or that Swedes are all teetotallers, but is a valid generalization based upon observation of group tendencies." OK, let's start with your example. You've got a way of distinguishing between two groups, and you've observed there's a statistical difference between them. Question: Does the criteria by which you seperated the two groups figure in the explanation of the statistical differences or not? If it does, then those criteria are playing a causal/explanatory role. If not then it's just a random connection. The criteria you used to initially divide the populations have no place in a scientific theory of the statistical data you've observed.
120 posted on 06/04/2002 8:00:47 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Believe it or not, the son of wealthy black parents who engage in typically wealthy behavior will produce a score on a par with the white kid across the street, and that will be somewhat higher than the mean.

Not true. No matter what factor you'd like to hold constant: socioeconomic status, an intact family, educational quality, and on and on, the gaps persist.

If you could link to your source, I'd be pleased to read it.

121 posted on 06/04/2002 8:00:50 PM PDT by winin2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
It's no accident that Shaq is a black male.
122 posted on 06/04/2002 8:00:53 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
If humans had biological races, there should be some non-trivial underlying hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups, or possibly average differences that could be made sense of in some statistical way.

And what can these hereditary features be? The article looks only at genetic differences and completely ignores the profound differences found in expression patterns. It is those changes in expression patterns which account for the augmented variation between humans and chimps in such areas as physical, behavioral, and cognitive expression.

Furthermore, considering that we don't even know what genetic sequences in the human genome are meaningful and how (for instance, there is a 2-3 fold spread in opinion about how many genes are contained in the human genome), it is far too early to make a determination about the extent of the biological basis of racial differences. Yet, differences, even in genetic markers follow racial differences closely enough that ethnic identity markers can usefully group people into racial categories. This becomes important not only for disease markers, but also for targeting of pharmaceutical treatments.

(Nevertheless, under the law, we're all equal.)

123 posted on 06/04/2002 8:04:02 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
You are correct. To look at mankind’s intellect and compare it while missing how mans’ intellect came into being…
That’s like saying ‘monkeys beat man into space and this is proof of evolution’.
124 posted on 06/04/2002 8:04:18 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
I should add that control of expression patterns is contained in the genome but is not read as "nontrivial" differences as it is very small.
125 posted on 06/04/2002 8:05:44 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
"[quoting my use of the expression "folk theory of face"] Would you please explain". Sure. A folk theory of race is one any of the widely held views that makes claims of the form "X is F becuase X belongs to race Y." Or, to avoid tangents about causation and statistical relationships, "It's no accident that X is F and X belongs to race Y". I'd give examples, but you seem squeamish, so I'll leave it to your imagination. The target of the article is the folk theory of race. I'm not accusing you of holding that theory. I'm pointing out that no one who holds it can take any comfort in the observations you're making.
126 posted on 06/04/2002 8:06:06 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
it is far too early

This crossed my mind. It's always the case, isn't it? It certainly was far too early for the 19th and 20th centuries.

127 posted on 06/04/2002 8:06:45 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
What is it that you think is Shaq's skin pigmentation explains?
128 posted on 06/04/2002 8:08:23 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Billy_bob_bob
What a seriously rank load of hogwash. I'm no genetic scientist but I can look at Africa and see just what happens when the Europeans who built cities on that continent leave those cities behind to the natives.

Dig into history a little. Do you have any idea what the Germanic barbarians did to Rome when they finally got a hold of it? It took quite some time for what you think of as "European" culture took root across all of Europe.

Hmmm, some peoples build cities, some peoples tear them down. No, no difference between them at all.

That's a straw man. Of course there are differences. The question is whether they are cultural or genetic. The Europeans have done a great deal of both building and tearing down. You can witness the process at work in the Balkans.

Then I look here at formerly great cities like Detroit, populated with people who have been American citizens for generations. Hmmm. What do these examples have in common?

Do you think Europeans had cities forever? They didn't even invent the concept. There were cities in China, India, and the Near East over a thousand years before Europe had any. They learned how to build and maintain them.

129 posted on 06/04/2002 8:10:52 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
There's a pretty old hypothesis that explains the lack of genetic variation in humans: "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The more we learn the more we see evolutionist assumptions refuted by real science.

Actually, you missed a better parallel... That of the Flood.

I posted a thread on the "We Dodged Extinction" article HERE.

Which brings us sorta full circle, since the several chapters of Genesis after the Flood tell how the different races and ethnicities sprang from the sons of Noah.




130 posted on 06/04/2002 8:12:22 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
"There's a pretty old hypothesis that explains the lack of genetic variation in humans: "And God created man in His own image" Let's put the same hypothesis to work to explain the surprising lack of genetic vatriation between humans and apes.
131 posted on 06/04/2002 8:14:01 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Pap.

Traditional classification of species would not say that there are diferenet species of mankind; ala races.

Yet all IQ tests over the last 100 years indicate that average IQ DOES show statistically diferences between groups according to self identified race.

The low to high average is 17%. This means that on the average, certain self identified races score 17% higher on intellegence tests than other self identified races.

Traditional classification of species seeks to find identifiers that distinguish between species. Here it is.

The IQ differential is more than 100 years old, and continues to today. SAT scores, ACT scores, are reliable IQ indicators to get you into Mensa. Yet the racial gap remains. Read "the bell curve."

Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

132 posted on 06/04/2002 8:15:09 PM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
"That race cannot be biologically defined is objective fact."

This statement is an objective lie. That there are biological differences between the races is easy to determine by simply observing your neighbors.

More junk science, from wishfully thinking "scientists".

133 posted on 06/04/2002 8:16:20 PM PDT by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I always wanted to meet someone who really thinks there was a flood and an Ark and two of every insect, etc. How do you explain the greater variation in Apes? Maybe Noah messed up and brough a whole mess of Apes on the ark?
134 posted on 06/04/2002 8:18:28 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I would put forth that most "racial" variations of behavior are more due to cultural influences than genetic.

Then which came first, the chicken (race) or the egg (culture)?

135 posted on 06/04/2002 8:20:02 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Demosthenes
Don't be silly. There are no races so there cannot be any black men. We are all exactly the same.

< / sarcasm>

136 posted on 06/04/2002 8:20:28 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Let's test. Do all blue eyed people constitute a single race? How about all people to whom fennel tasts bitter? In either case, why or why not?
137 posted on 06/04/2002 8:20:49 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

Nope. Jews of Eastern European origin.

138 posted on 06/04/2002 8:21:21 PM PDT by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MonroeDNA
Oh yeah, I am not in the highest racialy scoring group. That would be Asians.

If this is so, why don't we live in a world dominated by Eastern Civilization. Why did Europe conquer Asia, Africa and the New World, rather than Asia conquering Europe, Africa, and the New World. Why isn't India and China more advanced than Europe and the United States?

139 posted on 06/04/2002 8:22:17 PM PDT by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
Not to mention differences between the tolerance of cold and heat. I have lived and worked the world over in many varied racial cultures/environments. For me to deny that there are at least superficial differences obvious even to my untrained eye would be self denial of my own observations.
140 posted on 06/04/2002 8:23:29 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Then why not Sephardic or Oriental Jews?
141 posted on 06/04/2002 8:24:20 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18
Places that develop quickly tend to have a lot of outside trade. Greece, for example, after they defeated the Penelopensian (?) navy and become a major trading nation. Europeans have a high degree of cultural variation within a geographical area the size of China. You get cross-pollination through trade, travel, war, etc.
142 posted on 06/04/2002 8:25:10 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Because their culture is severely messed up. You may also want to look at the comparative differences when you seperate Caribean blacks from American blacks.

You need to travel to Haiti and Jamaica and observe.

143 posted on 06/04/2002 8:25:54 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Are Jews supposed to be a racial group or a religion? Why would Jews from Eastern Europre than those from Western Europe. Are they different races? In fact, how many races are there- if racial differences are clear cut, then this question should be easy.
144 posted on 06/04/2002 8:26:20 PM PDT by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Beats me, to be honest.
145 posted on 06/04/2002 8:27:49 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
It's an error in salience. There are probably unrelated statistical differences between people to whom fennel tastes bitter and people to whom it does not. But that clustering of characteristics doesn't jump out at us the way skin pigmentation does. We'd have a hard time even thinking there's a non-random connection even after we convinced ourselves through carefull observation that the satistical differences were real. But when we see statistical differences between people with different skin pigmentation, for some reason, it stirkes people immediately as salient and it's hard for many people even to think it's an accidental connection with no deep explanatory or causal significance.
146 posted on 06/04/2002 8:28:07 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: William Terrell
Then which came first, the chicken (race) or the egg (culture)?

a most excellent reply!!

148 posted on 06/04/2002 8:29:46 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
His middle name.
149 posted on 06/04/2002 8:31:46 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
The expression "folk theory" is a handy one to have. There are folk theories about cold remedies, folk theories about unlucky days of the month and folk theories of race. What they have in common is that they are persisent and widely held despite being refutable and frequently refuted. More in a bit.
150 posted on 06/04/2002 8:32:13 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-331 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson