Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[Jono]

Wouldn't we need a scientifically based and valid definition of "race" first? Does such a definition even exist?

I suppose it tends to boil down to semantics and popular misconceptions. The observed variations could be described using any number of words, which would do little to mussle or highlight the variations that are biologically real. As it is, while we have somewhat workable definitions of the term 'species', you noticed I did say that in plural? Even with the definition of 'specie', the issue is not one dimensional, black and white or what have you.

That aside, regardless of much of Montague's and Mead's ghost one has swalled (like Horgan in my OP), research on human variations, biology (whether calling groups race, ethniticites, ecotypes, biogeographical groups or just populations) and IQ could only be banned by a mind who cares less about 'what is' and more about 'what I prefer things should be'. In science, I don't see that mindset as a having much in the way of productive longevity.

 

[Jono]

I'm forced to agree. I've never seen any convincing evidence that 'I.Q' is a meaningful measure of anything.

Hold the phone. Now now, while it isn't a cut-n-dry yardstick way of measuring all that is cognitive abilities, I do not comprehend how it can be said that psychometric standardized IQ-tests are meaningless and measure nothing.

 

[azzthom]

Hold the phone. Now now, while it isn't a cut-n-dry yardstick way of measuring all that is cognitive abilities, I do not comprehend how it can be said that psychometric standardized IQ-tests are meaningless and measure nothing.

Fair enough. The problem is that 'cognitive abilities' are precisely what's supposed to be measured in such tests. If I.Q tests are not a "cut-n-dry yardstick", then what are they? I'm prepared to accept that many, many tests over a long period of time on a large number of people may tell us something about a general population, but for an individual? Not really.

 

[Delvo]

Aside from the abstract concept of what an affront to science itself it is to say that anything researchable is out-of-bounds for research, there's a simple pragmatic need for this particular kind of research.

There are real-world problems associated with race, and there are real-world problems associated with intelligence. These two sets of problems tend to overlap each other. Solving problems not only requires identifying their causes and how they interact with each other, but also requires monitoring attempts to solve the problems, to determine their effectiveness and investigate causes if they're not found effective enough.

Trying to solve a problem, without paying attention to its causes or to whether you're doing it right and actually getting anywhere toward a solution, is not actually trying to solve the problem at all. Thus, the only people who would be interested in stifling and hiding this crucial information would have to be people who don't actually want the problems solved.

 

[joesixpack]

There are real-world problems associated with race...

Could you name one?

 

[Dinwar]

Could you name one?

There are various health issues that have a racial component. Sickle-cell anemia is more common in sub-Saharan African groups than among, say, my pasty-white ancestors (my people get higher rates of skin cancer instead). There are also issues with certain treatments--for example, some medications can cause anemia in certain races, and not in others. All of the ones I'm mentioning are purely genetic, by the way--I'm not getting into the issue of socioeconomic concerns.

 

[spin0]

There is no need to explain the obvious, if you don't agree then it is not obvious to everyone, I take it back,

Good, as it certainly isn't by any means "obvious" to everyone, not even to me.

personally I would be extremely surprised if something as variable as IQ was identical between large groups, can you think of any other physical attribute that is identical in all 'races' ?

Do you really consider IQ as a "physical attribute"?

As to common physical attributes between specimens of homo sapiens sapiens theres plenty. You could start from the basic physiology like number of limbs or vertebra and then go further from that. And if you haven't had the chance yet to observe such obvious commonalities in our physical attributes they have been widely documented in the relevant scientific literature (sorry, no comprehensive link at hand).

 

[joesixpack]

There are various health issues that have a racial component. Sickle-cell anemia is more common in sub-Saharan African groups than among, say, my pasty-white ancestors (my people get higher rates of skin cancer instead). There are also issues with certain treatments--for example, some medications can cause anemia in certain races, and not in others. All of the ones I'm mentioning are purely genetic, by the way--I'm not getting into the issue of socioeconomic concerns.

Ah, I wasn't even considering medical issues. But I wonder where intelligence and medical issues overlap (except among those too mentally hindered to take their medicine without supervision). And I'm wondering what race issues and intelligence issues overlap as well.

 

[spin0]

There are various health issues that have a racial component. Sickle-cell anemia is more common in sub-Saharan African groups than among, say, my pasty-white ancestors (my people get higher rates of skin cancer instead). There are also issues with certain treatments--for example, some medications can cause anemia in certain races, and not in others. All of the ones I'm mentioning are purely genetic, by the way--I'm not getting into the issue of socioeconomic concerns.

Also the tolerance of lactose in diet varies both genetically and geographically. But I wouldn't call that a basis to declare a race within species.

 

[lomiller]

Yes. "Race" is synonymous with "subspecies".

No. It isn't. It's either an Infrasubspecific term like strain or has no biological meaning at all.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infrasubspecific

Yes. "Race" is synonymous with "subspecies". Whether or not Homo sapiens sapiens is dividable into subspecies is an open question

All living humans are already part of the sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. any division below this would be an infrasubspecific term that is not regulated by the ICZN. Anthropologists consider race a cultural term rather than a biological one which makes a great deal more sense.



Even redefining race as something that has scientific meaning like subspecies doesn't help your argument because it means there are no such things as separate races.

 

[Earthborn]

Science, to remain science, MUST be free to ask questions that are painful, even dangerous to societies.

Science, to remain science, MUST also try to use reliable means of measurement of objectively definable concepts. Especially if potential answers can be socially disruptive.

 

[lomiller]

That aside, regardless of much of Montague's and Mead's ghost one has swalled (like Horgan in my OP), research on human variations, biology (whether calling groups race, ethniticites, ecotypes, biogeographical groups or just populations) and IQ could only be banned by a mind who cares less about 'what is' and more about 'what I prefer things should be'. In science, I don't see that mindset as a having much in the way of productive longevity.

I'd argue that the people more concerned about the way "things should be" would be the ones who think there is a conspiracy to ban their theories that have simply been rejected as having no merit.


Better approach is to:

Not bother trying to bring "race" into the question and just look at what the impact of genetics is overall. Why bother bringing other pointless markers into the equation, what possible value could it add?

Second don't use IQ, because no one is quite sure if it means anything.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/05/29/science.1235488

See how real research in this type of topic works? Guess what, no one banned it but I'm guessing the fact that genetics has almost no impact on human educational achievement but I suspect this challenges how some people "think things should be".

 

[mutile]

Good, as it certainly isn't by any means "obvious" to everyone, not even to me.

Are you saying that if 7 billion people took an IQ test, you think the average would be exactly the same for all racial groups?

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, I wasn't even considering medical issues. But I wonder where intelligence and medical issues overlap (except among those too mentally hindered to take their medicine without supervision).

This is exactly the sort of question that this ban would forbid--a legitimate question based on sound data with the potential for practical applications, but forbidden because some people can't stand the thought that morons will abuse the results.

All living humans are already part of the sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. any division below this would be an infrasubspecific term that is not regulated by the ICZN.

I don't know of any other subspecies within the species, so I can't comment on that. But I did already mention that the term "race" isn't regulated by the ICZN.

Anthropologists consider race a cultural term rather than a biological one which makes a great deal more sense.

Not terribly. Not to me, anyway. I'm not a huge fan of having different terms for things that are not different. What I mean is, humans are a group within Animalia. If the rules are one way for every other species within that group, and there's no significant biological reason to use different rules for humans, I see no reason to change them. It merely confuses conversations between related disciplines.

I'd argue that the people more concerned about the way "things should be" would be the ones who think there is a conspiracy to ban their theories that have simply been rejected as having no merit.

I agree, but I don't see why you're bringing this up. The OP makes it clear that some people are advocating a ban on certain types of research. This isn't any sort of conspiracy theory, it's merely taking these people at their word.

Why bother bringing other pointless markers into the equation, what possible value could it add?

Some visual cues are genetic, and tied to less-obvious genetic differences. Thus, those "pointless" markers can actually be quite informative.

 

[joesixpack]

Are you saying that if 7 billion people took an IQ test, you think the average would be exactly the same for all racial groups?

I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't, but this sort of begs the question of IQ. Is it a pure measure of "intelligence" or is it skewed by cultural bias unwittingly built into the test?

 

[Craig B]

There is no need to explain the obvious, if you don't agree then it is not obvious to everyone, I take it back, personally I would be extremely surprised if something as variable as IQ was identical between large groups, can you think of any other physical attribute that is identical in all 'races' ?

Number of limbs. This is getting ridiculous. If there's obvious evidence of variation of IQ between "races" then please refer us to it. Your personal extreme surprise is not conclusive proof.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

While it shouldn't be banned, it's difficult to see the value of such research, given the hopelessly nebulous definitions of both "race" and "intelligence". Any conclusions would inevitably boil down to "people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group A perform better on a certain standardized test than people who self-report as belonging to Racial Group B".

Not arguing with the rest of this, but it doesn't have to be "people who self-report as..." whichever race. There are other methods of placing people into whatever categories the researchers are choosing to use for the purposes of a study (like genetic markers and so forth).

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Exactly this.

There's an IQ thread or two in this forum where the merits of IQ testing are debated. I don't see any compelling evidence to demonstrate that IQ tests measure anything besides cultural assimilation.

Some IQ tests are based entirely on abstract drawings of patterns and pattern recognition. I don't see how that would measure cultural assimilation.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I'm forced to agree. I've never seen any convincing evidence that 'I.Q' is a meaningful measure of anything. I don't think the research should be banned, I just don't think there's any value, or indeed point, to carrying it out.

There is evidence to indicate correlation between IQ scores and the capacity to learn. IQ strongly correlates with profession, indicating that there is something going on there that has real-world impact.

 

[lomiller]

I don't know of any other subspecies within the species,

Mainly because, as I already said, said there is only one living subspecies of human. There is an extinct subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu

But I did already mention that the term "race" isn't regulated by the ICZN.

Which tells us the term is at best infrasubspecific or the ICZN would oversee it the way they do with sub-species...

Not terribly. Not to me, anyway. I'm not a huge fan of having different terms for things that are not different.

Yet you keep insisting on incorrectly using race as a different term for subspecies.

If the rules are one way for every other species within that group, and there's no significant biological reason to use different rules for humans,

There is no reason to believe there are different rules for humans, unless you believe groups of humans are much more different than either biology or genetics says they are. TBH you seem to be staking out a position that can only be described as racist