Let's Talk About Race

[Dancing David]

My sweeping statement was made on the bssis of most sweeping statement: ignorance! I regreted it as soon as I posted it.I I for the sake of my learning curve don't edit my posts)
Thank You for calling me on my ignorance.
(I think it was based on some false perceptions in anthroplogy books that I had read)
Peace
dancing david

 

[Clancie]

Danish Dynamite,

Funny that you didn't continue the quote you chose to include the sentence that followed it:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them

Dancing David,

Someone who admits they're wrong so forthrightly and corrects it quickly is always, imo, deserving of respect.

 

[Guest]

Dancing David,

Someone who admits they're wrong so forthrightly and corrects it quickly is always, imo, deserving of respect.

Ditto.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Clancy:

Funny that you didn't continue the quote you chose to include the sentence that followed it:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them.

Why is that funny? I didn't include it because it makes no difference to what I said.

 

[Clancie]

Well, it should make a big difference to what you want to believe, since it renders the so-called concept of "race" scientifically meaningless.

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them

 

[JeffR]

Shouldn't we be able to list the races by name along with the characteristics that distinguish one from the other? I can't do this, but then I'm one of those dopey white guys who's an argument against white supremacy.

Once we've defined the races, we ought to be able to show that the differences in characteristics is biological and not cultural.

Sure we can do and have done this based on superficial traits like skin and hair color, but what good is it? Knowing someone's race only tells you what they probably look like, but nothing more. It just isn't a very useful concept.

 

[aerosolben]

Well, it should make a big difference to what you want to believe, since it renders the so-called concept of "race" scientifically meaningless.

It's entirely irrelevant to whether the concept of race is scientifically meaningless. I could say that there is more genetic variation within blondes than there is between blondes and brunettes, but that doesn't mean hair color is a myth.

Race classifies groups of humans by isolated regional ancestry (genetic pools that were entirely or almost entirely isolated from the remainder of humanity for signifigant periods of history). You could fairly say it is geographical and has no particular genetic root itself, though it may yield distinctive phenotypes. You could also say its impractical to use as any sort of classification system, but it is not "scientifically meaningless".

 

[Fade]

I am pretty sure nobody would deny that some dogs are more intelligent than others, or more loving, or more hostile.

However, humans don't breed like that. We looked for specific traits in dogs, and bred them to intensify them. Often, intelligence was a factor. For some things, a smart dog was great, for other things a smart dog was not great. So, you get what amounts to huge families of dogs. One family is going to be a little smarter, one family is going to be a little more hostile, one family is going to be a little faster, one is going to be taller, etc.

I am sure if we started breeding people like that, we'd end up with the same types of differences. We'd end up with people with exaggerated traits. Human breeding has always been more or less random, so I don't believe for a minute that there are significant mental or athletic differences between the "races" at all.

Anyway, I find the concept of race to be outmoded, for reasons stated here. What does it mean to be "black" exactly? What does it mean to be "white?" If you can't think of the answer, then isn't worth considering that these concepts are meaningless outside of the pure aesthetic values of them? I only use the concept of race when I am describing a person, simply because it's the most obvious feature anyone has. In a description, skin tone is the first thing I mention. It's like the background.

 

[Guest]

Shouldn't we be able to list the races by name along with the characteristics that distinguish one from the other? I can't do this, but then I'm one of those dopey white guys who's an argument against white supremacy.

Once we've defined the races, we ought to be able to show that the differences in characteristics is biological and not cultural.

Sure we can do and have done this based on superficial traits like skin and hair color, but what good is it? Knowing someone's race only tells you what they probably look like, but nothing more. It just isn't a very useful concept.

The White Nationalists use more mundane applications of race. What did you mark on the Census? Black, white, hispanic.

From the census data, crime rates and correlations to race are made.

You see what I mean? These are the kinds of arguments that need to be discussed.

So these must be handled on a macroscopic scale. Demographics, socio-economic factors, nutrition, urban rot, etc.

The only time that they get into the real nitty gritty scientific definitions of race seems to be in discussions about IQ.

edited to add: and those IQ debates is where I was the most clueless. Things like the size of brainpans and crap like that came up.

 

[Fade]

The White Nationalists use more mundane applications of race. What did you mark on the Census? Black, white, hispanic.

This makes me want to run over to stormfront and say people aren't being racist enough! I mean, we mix in the aryans in with all those whites in south africa or Israel or Austrlia

 

[Bjorn]

Human breeding has always been more or less random, so I don't believe for a minute that there are significant mental or athletic differences between the "races" at all.

Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

Could it be that the 'more or less random' human breeding has been more or less between people from the same 'race' and hence not so random after all?

I've seen people claiming that 'Asians' in the US are consistently scoring higher than 'whites' on University admission tests. If it is correct, how come?

 

[corplinx]

Just asking: Is the average man taller in some races (don't read skin colours) than others? Is that a 'significant athletic difference'?

There is some tribe in east africa I believe that has a very high average height. I would have to look in my old atlas which lists the "races" of man to find the exact name.

 

[Denise]

There is some tribe in east africa I believe that has a very high average height. I would have to look in my old atlas which lists the "races" of man to find the exact name.

Is it the Tsusis? Spelling?

 

[Denise]

Watusi's?

 

[bpesta22]

If you haven't read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you need to do so. He thoroughly refutes IQ testing, and give a great basis for understanding much of the problems with racist thought.

C'mon.

Citing mismeasure to "discredit" modern IQ science is like comparing someone to Hitler in an internet argument.

Why do skeptics defend this book so?

It really does suck

 

[Bjorn]

Is it the Tsusis? Spelling?

I don't know.

Pygmies are smaller than masais. There seem to be physical differences between human 'races', and few have problems aknowledging it.

What about other differences? Why should it be difficult to imagine it could be differences in the size of the outer ears, or the lenght of the feet, the colour of the eyes or the capacities of the brains?

I am not claiming that 'my' breed is more intelligent than others (in fact asians score higher than europeans in intelligence tests as far as I know) - I'm just surprised that it seems to be so very politically incorrect to even suggest it.

 

[bpesta22]

Is anyone familiar with the hick paradigm?

It involves looking at a bunch of light bulbs.

In one version of the task, three light bulbs turn on, and the subject has to touch the one lit bulb that's furthest away from the other two lit bulbs.

On each trial, you start with your finger resting on a home key. When the bulbs light, you remove your finger from the home key and touch the correct bulb.

Two Reaction Times are measured: 1) the time from the three bulbs going on, til you take your finger off the home key (considered to measure cognitive speed-- how long it takes to figure out which bulb to select).

2) the time from your finger leaving the home key til it hits the bulb (considered to be a measure of motor speed-- the decision is made, your arm/finger just needs to execute it).

Cognitive speed correlates strongly with two hour paper and pencil IQ tests (which include vastly different measures from the Hick task, like vocabuary and world knowledge / trivia).

Motor speed shows zero correlation with IQ.

Whites are faster than blacks on cognitive speed.

Blacks are faster than whites on motor speed (which is consistent with my observation that blacks on average are better athletes, but we can save this for another thread).

My Challenge to the IQ bashers (and to those who think mismeasure of man was an actual contribution to the science in this area), answer these questions:

1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?

3) What is it about black culture or enviornment that makes them fast motor-wise, but slow cognitive-wise. Why does this flip flop in white culture.

4) why is it that for all the social variables IQ predicts (income; gpa, social status, job performance, etc) there is NO differential prediction for blacks (though on average they score lower than whites, predicting for black subjects is just as accurate as it is for white subjects).

5) How is anything Gould wrote in mismeasure even remotely relevant to the modern, cognitive psych approach to intelligence (e.g., looking at the speed of neutral transmission as a candidate for "what iq is").

 

[Bjorn]

2) How can the hick task be culturally biased?

I have no idea. Can it?

Could it be that 'more intelligent' people move their finger from the 'home button' faster, but they are in fact still wondering where to put it next?

Whereas 'less intelligent' people wait, and move their finger at a faster speed because they are sure where to move it to?

Could this be a cultural difference?

 

[JeffR]

1) If traditional paper and pencil IQ tests dont really measure IQ, why do they correlate with basic information processing speed, as shown in the Hick task (indeed why do the correlate with every important social variable as well, and why do they correlate with the speed wich which a single neuron in the brain fires)?

Just out of curiosity, has a good argument been made that fast neurons are "better" when there is no time limit? In other words, what if the time limit on IQ tests was removed so that intelligence was measured based on whether or not the test subject can get the right answer rather than how long it takes to get it?

Also, has it been proved that neuron reaction time is genetic or is it possible that it is learned or trained over time and therefore could be effected by cultural influences?

Just asking. I haven't read the materials you are referring to but these are some of the questions that come to mind.

BTW, I work as an engineer and have several co-workers who are much faster on the uptake than I am, but in the end the work they produce is no better than mine (as near as I can tell, anyway). We all have a similar amount and type of experience doing our jobs. I know that they are faster at processing some information than I am, but are they really smarter? I don't know.

 

[corplinx]

Blacks are faster than whites on motor speed

This explains why I could never beat this little black kid at Mortal Kombat at the arcade. He could just hit those buttons faster.