Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[EgalitarianJay]

I agree, which is why (once more, with the track record of some hereditarian basis being plausible) I think it is premature, and incorrect, to say conclusively that there is no hereditarian basis for cognitive between-group differences (just as it is premature to say conclusively that there is) and call for an end to research done on this matter.

DNA testing would not necessarily provide definitive answers. There is a scientific basis for rejecting this research as I explained before. The call for an end to the research is mainly based on ethical concerns. I don't feel that it is a field of study that needs any attention and do believe it is socially harmful however I don't think it is helpful or practical to insist on banning such research.

 

[mike3]

There are plenty of people who do that, yes. But I disagree with such, excuse my pun, black-n-white dimensions. When it comes to "superiority" and "inferiority", apart from a very specific context, it muddies the water of comprehending nature at large. Whether or not genders, biogeographical groups, sub-ecotypical traits clustered to X gives probability for Y, I do not hold my view of human compassion on the false (and at times dangerous) myth that we're all equally endowed with the same stuff. For those that do, I can understand the importance of purporting such a myth. But I do not see why we can't strive for equality under the law of the land even though we may not be all equally big, tall, small, thin, smart, aestethically pleasing, loud, quiet, risk taking, careful, tempered, passionate etc.

I'm curious: you mention "equality under the law of the land" -- does this include also the having of laws that make it illegal for employers to discriminate based on race?

You also mention this issue as having "implications" -- what are some of them, namely social ones? Political ones?

 

[Jono]

I'm curious: you mention "equality under the law of the land" -- does this include also the having of laws that make it illegal for employers to discriminate based on race?

Race, gender, weight, height, intelligence, religion... as a general sense, yes. I said "general" because there are and/or might be cases were one would have to 'discriminate' or select (rather) based on one or several of the formentioned attributes.

You also mention this issue as having "implications" -- what are some of them, namely social ones? Political ones?

What do you mean? What is having "implications"? I didn't find the context telling enough.

 

[Jono]

DNA testing would not necessarily provide definitive answers.

I agree.

There is a scientific basis for rejecting this research as I explained before.

For rejecting at large? On the contrary. However, the are plenty of emotional and political reasons to reject the kind of research I've been noting on.

The call for an end to the research is mainly based on ethical concerns.

Indeed. As noted on in, for example, this article.

Furthermore, slightly side-off from this, I (just now) found a blog-article regarding this matter focusing on something refered to as the "Harvard email controversy". Anyone here familiar with it?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I emailed one of the authors of the Mismeasure of Science article from your first link some time ago and got the following response:

"As we state in the article, there is no reason to believe that cranial capacity is highly correlated with intelligence. Morton did not believe so; Gould invents that as a reason to use Morton's work as a straw man...

His purpose in measuring skulls and reporting data was to show that the groups of humans around the world were created separately by God

So Gould invents a straw man in accusing Morton of unscientific notions - when Morton actually thought that God did it!

When it comes to "superiority" and "inferiority", apart from a very specific context, it muddies the water of comprehending nature at large.

So why are 'scientists' trying to find a link between 'race' and 'intelligence'? Why not some other attribute such as hair color or blood type? Why even bother trying to link 'intelligence' to anything else?

I do not hold my view of human compassion on the false (and at times dangerous) myth that we're all equally endowed with the same stuff.

Straw man alert! Nobody here is saying that we are all 'equally endowed'. It's just that when someone cooks up research purporting to show that 'blacks' are 21% less 'intelligent' than 'whites', you have to wonder what it is they are trying to prove. Yes, everybody is an individual, with variations caused by both genetic and environmental differences. But to single out one cosmetic attribute such as skin color, and then use that as a guide to whether a person is 'intelligent' or not, is just wrong.

You can argue that scientists should be allowed to research whatever they like, and that excluding certain subjects unfairly reduces the breadth of our knowledge. But scientists are also people, so they tend to research subjects that will return useful results. What is useful? That is the problem.

Despite protestations that scientists should be free to go wherever the research leads them, what they actually study is more often determined by the desire for a particular outcome. When that outcome is harmful, we have pathological science. When research shows a purported correlation between one thing and another - whether or not it is significant or relevant - people will use it to validate their biases, politicize it, discriminate and marginalize. Any scientist who presents data purporting to show that "blacks are 21% dumber than whites" must know that it will be used by racists to validate their bigotry. So why do it? Because that's what they found, and facts are facts? Or because that's the result they wanted, and they know how to lie with statistics?

The fields of human genetics and anthropology are vast, and there is so much to discover that no scientist should have any trouble finding something of interest to study - but someone who concentrates on trying to find a link between 'race' and intelligence is only interested in one thing...

 

[EgalitarianJay]

For rejecting at large?

Yes, there is no scientific basis for assuming that the allelic variation related to intelligence is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. The hypothesis that it is is based on a fallacy therefore it doesn't matter how committed racialists are to proving that their views are true. It's a pseudoscientific exercise.

 

[Jono]

So why are 'scientists' trying to find a link between 'race' and 'intelligence'? Why not some other attribute such as hair color or blood type? Why even bother trying to link 'intelligence' to anything else?

Fyi, I find this question oddly surprising. Regardless, finding out why and how we are similar and different is kind of part n parcel with several academic fields. There doesn't have to be a predetermined, clear-cut practical or ideological reason for learning more about human nature (even though sometimes there might be).

Straw man alert! Nobody here is saying that we are all 'equally endowed'.

Your objection is irrelevant. I was making a point of clarifying my position. I wasn't talking about anyone here.

It's just that when someone cooks up research purporting to show that 'blacks' are 21% less 'intelligent' than 'whites', you have to wonder what it is they are trying to prove. Yes, everybody is an individual, with variations caused by both genetic and environmental differences.

I agree.

But to single out one cosmetic attribute such as skin color, and then use that as a guide to whether a person is 'intelligent' or not, is just wrong.

Not that 'race' is just skin-deep or just a 'social construct', but I do agree with what you say there.

You can argue that scientists should be allowed to research whatever they like, and that excluding certain subjects unfairly reduces the breadth of our knowledge. But scientists are also people, so they tend to research subjects that will return useful results. What is useful? That is the problem.

Well concerning results gained with the hopes of corporate profit or otherwise practically appliable for aid, in terms of intelligence and race I am not quite sure. The link of intelligence to aspects of the brain, heredity, variation, affects via enviroment etc are probably not the most crucial of ventures either, allthough learning more about how we function and what degrees of inner-to-outer stimuli we are affected by are avenues that should be understood better (regardless of what specific attribute, trait or such dips more on one side of the nature-nurture weave than the other).

The fields of human genetics and anthropology are vast, and there is so much to discover that no scientist should have any trouble finding something of interest to study - but someone who concentrates on trying to find a link between 'race' and intelligence is only interested in one thing...

I do not regard the research into human variations coupled with dependantly or independantly dispersed cognitive abilities to be so necessarily damned as to only be the enterprise of bigotts and racists (which is what I suspect you are trying to say? if not then I read you incorrectly).

 

[Jono]

Yes, there is no scientific basis for assuming that the allelic variation related to intelligence is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations.

Actually, the fact that it is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations is not contested (to my knowledge). What is and has been the subject of much scientific work is how and why it continous to be (through fluctations) different.

The hypothesis that it is is based on a fallacy therefore it doesn't matter how committed racialists are to proving that their views are true. It's a pseudoscientific exercise.

It's a pseudoscientific excercise to prove that, just by knowing a person's race, you also know their individual level or type of intelligence. Learning more about individual-vs-group frequencies of physiological attributes, including cognitive ones, are controversial yes but far from pseudoscientific (regardless of your own feelings on the matter).

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Actually, the fact that it is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations is not contested (to my knowledge). What is and has been the subject of much scientific work is how and why it continous to be (through fluctations) different.

It's not a fact that allelic variation is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. I'm talking about gene frequencies. You seem to be confusing that with IQ score variation. What I'm talking about is the claim that group differences in IQ have a genetic basis. There's simply no scientific basis for assuming that as I've explained before and as my sources, who are experts on genetics have explained.

This isn't my feeling on the matter this is a scientific statement.

 

[Jono]

It's not a fact that allelic variation is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. I'm talking about gene frequencies. You seem to be confusing that with IQ score variation.

I must've misunderstood you. I thought you ment that, e.g, the tested intelligence between different biogeographical groups are not unevenly differentiated (which they are, we just don't know why).

What I'm talking about is the claim that group differences in IQ have a genetic basis. There's simply no scientific basis for assuming that as I've explained before and as my sources, who are experts on genetics have explained.

There is no scientific basis to firmly conclude that it is definently so, I agree, but that's different from claiming that the idea of hereditarian basis of IQ inbetween human ecotypes are impossible and without any indications in support of it. The former is true, the latter is not. The fact is, we do not know.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

finding out why and how we are similar and different is kind of part n parcel with several academic fields. There doesn't have to be a predetermined, clear-cut practical or ideological reason for learning more about human nature

No, of course not. So if I was studying how different 'races' react to certain biological agents, you would have no objection? I am only doing pure research for no particular reason, you understand - and I would be shocked if someone tried to apply my findings to a race specific bio-weapon.

Not that 'race' is just skin-deep or just a 'social construct'

No, of course not. Otherwise, why would research show that Jews have higher intelligence than whites? We know it must be genetic because Jews have deliberately avoided breeding with whites in order to keep their race pure. Genetics is obviously the sole reason for the Jew's cunning nature, and no way could 'social constructs' have anything to do with it.

Similarly, the markedly lower intelligence of African Americans has nothing to do with their long history of being treated as less than human, and skin color is just a convenient marker. The actual genes responsible their lower cognitive abilities have not yet been identified, but we have no doubt that these genes will be unique to the black race - scientific proof of their inherent inferiority.

I do not regard the research into human variations coupled with dependently or independently dispersed cognitive abilities to be so necessarily damned as to only be the enterprise of bigots and racists

Of course not. It's only when they try to divide up those abilities along racial lines that I become suspicious. And when someone introduces categories such as 'black' and 'white', the alarm bells start ringing.

 

[Delvo]

So why are 'scientists' trying to find a link between 'race' and 'intelligence'?

They're not. The "link" is already a well known, familiar, obvious, undeniable, and undisputed fact. Research, of all kinds in all fields of knowledge, carries on after the point of merely finding out that the thing being researched simply exists.

What I'm talking about is the claim that group differences in IQ have a genetic basis. There's simply no scientific basis for assuming that

That's why nobody's assuming it.

 

[AlBell]

It's not a fact that allelic variation is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. I'm talking about gene frequencies. You seem to be confusing that with IQ score variation. What I'm talking about is the claim that group differences in IQ have a genetic basis. There's simply no scientific basis for assuming that as I've explained before and as my sources, who are experts on genetics have explained.

This isn't my feeling on the matter this is a scientific statement.

Hypothesis or Theory?

 

[EgalitarianJay]

Hypothesis or Theory?

Neither. It's a statement on the issue. What we know about human genetic variation makes racialist theories of a genetic basis for group differences in IQ unreasonable and the claim that such differences exist invalid.

 

[angrysoba]

So why are 'scientists' trying to find a link between 'race' and 'intelligence'?

They're not. The "link" is already a well known, familiar, obvious, undeniable, and undisputed fact. Research, of all kinds in all fields of knowledge, carries on after the point of merely finding out that the thing being researched simply exists.

I must have missed that memo. Are you saying that the "link" between "race" and "intelligence" is a "well-known, familiar, obvious, undeniable, and undisputed fact"?

If so, why are we "talking" in "scare quotes" and why is it that many people are not "familiar", or to some it is not "obvious", nor "undeniable" and that it is "disputed" often?

Is there some "irony" I am not aware of here?

 

[EgalitarianJay]

That's why nobody's assuming it.

There's no scientific basis for assuming or claiming that there is a genetic basis to racial differences in IQ. Jono's position seems to be agnostic on the issue of what causes the IQ gap between demographic groups such as White and Black Americans. My position is that environment can easily explain the difference and there may be multiple environmental variables at play but no genetic factor. My basis for stating that there is no genetic factor is that there is no scientific basis for assuming there is one.

In other words the scientific understanding of evolutionary genetics by scholars such as Joseph Graves indicates that the racial hereditarian hypothesis is invalid.

This quote summarizes the point well.

THE EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENT ON COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell-shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanistically why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982).

However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several "racial" groups have dark skin, including non-European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human "racial" groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with "racial" category.

To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.

SOURCE: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294

 

[Dancing David]

Neither. It's a statement on the issue. What we know about human genetic variation makes racialist theories of a genetic basis for group differences in IQ unreasonable and the claim that such differences exist invalid.

Yup, the variation amongst members of 'racial groups' is higher than the rate of variation between racial groups.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, the fact that it is unevenly differentiated across geographic populations is not contested (to my knowledge).

Then let us see the research papers, get us the data and don't just assert it, there is a plethora of research on it.

 

[AlBell]

Yup, the variation amongst members of 'racial groups' is higher than the rate of variation between racial groups.

As is the variation of measured IQ, right?

 

[mike3]

Race, gender, weight, height, intelligence, religion... as a general sense, yes. I said "general" because there are and/or might be cases were one would have to 'discriminate' or select (rather) based on one or several of the formentioned attributes.

What would be a case where you'd have to "discriminate" or select based on race?

What do you mean? What is having "implications"? I didn't find the context telling enough.

You said:

Of course, I don't disagree. Likewise, a few of the direct opposite of the spectrum have entrenched biases based on ideological preferences as well. It is hardly unsurprising that there would be very similar handicaps of rationale at both ends of such a wide range of content and potential implications. Burning someone for having been partly funded by the Pioneer Fund, though, is as stupid an argument to throw away a given study/paper as it would be to do the same simply because they were awoved marxists or funded by heavily politicized ends as so. I hope you agree on that note at least.

(bolding/underlining mine)