The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea

You offer NO credible proof to defend your statements.

No DNA profile- linked IQ studies among major racial groups.

No MRI imaging studies to map similar patterns of brain structure and IQ among the major racial groups:

The research from Washington University targets the left prefrontal cortex, and the strength of neural connections that it has to the rest of the brain. They think that these differences account for 10 percent of differences in intelligence among people. The study is the first to connect those differences to intelligence in people.

Researchers took functional magnetic resonance imaging scans, or fMRIs, of participants while they rested passively. Their performance of tasks that tested their fluid intelligence (the ability to reason quickly and use abstract thinking) and cognitive control were conducted outside of the scanner, and researchers estimated on connectivity levels. The results of the tests were consistent with increased activity in the prefrontal cortex and higher levels of neural connectivity.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/goodbye-iq-tests-brain-imaging-can-reveal-intelligence-levels-241680

It's high time modern tools are used to refute or substantiate the highly subjective, politically motivated and "Egalitarian" views on IQ and "race."

 

I clearly just provided you with statements from an evolutionary biologist explaining the fallacies of the racial hereditarian argument.

There's no evolutionary basis for your position.

That could be done but it isn't necessary.

Maybe you should email some scholars and ask them why they haven't done this sort of testing. Rushton and Jensen are dead so they won't be doing it.

In the meantime I am satisfied with the conclusions of evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and geneticists on this subject.

Race, Genomics and Intelligence: Slight Return




Joseph L. Graves Jr.

Joint School for Nanosciences & Nanoengineering,
North Carolina A & T State University & UNC Greensboro,
Greensboro, NC, US​

Abstract

The notion that genetic/genomic differences among racial groups are responsible for observed differences in measured intelligence is recurring. Certainly, genetics, race, and intelligence arguments have been advanced with each increase in the sophistication of genetics (Graves 2005a). Not surprisingly this has continued in the modern genomics era. The reader must be aware that are significant definitional issues that impact this argument. The first refers to the notion of race. The second definition that must be considered is the notion of intelligence. I refer the reader to Sternberg (2012) for a good review of the intelligence question. Surprisingly (not too surprisingly once we familiarize ourselves with the history of the race and intelligence debate; see Graves 2005b), measurers of intelligence have not effectively addressed racial definitions. In the main, they have focused their attention on differences between groups of people that are clearly socially defined, but not so clearly biologically differentiated in ways that would support their claims. Thus this chapter will first discuss and describe human biological genetic differentiation, specifically with how this variation impacts genetic causal factors that purportedly impact intelligence, and finally modern genomic approaches to the genetic influences on intelligence.

Full Article

 

Your quote simply asserts we cannot operationalize race or intelligence, which is false. Further the paper looks at IQ associated genes which differ between races, and dismisses each one as not differentiated by an arbitrary amount. This is not only false reasoning, but contradicts the earlier claim.

Joseph Graves is a well known biased pseudoscientific charlatan.

 

If he's well-known for pseudoscience then why hasn't he been widely criticized by the scientific community the way Rushton has?

 

Because only Whites get attacked as racist.

Further Graves' work is so poor it's generally ignored.

 

So now you're saying that Joseph Graves is a racist?! Based on what?

Oh really?



Over 200 citations for his book isn't being ignored. Receiving numerous honors, awards, invites for seminars, documentaries and TV appearances isn't being ignored.

http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gravesCV.pdf

 

Who cited Graves? Copy paste the first page of citations.

Google scholar reports 6 citations by what seem to be non biologists:

The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at theMillennium. New BrunswickAuthorsJoseph L Graves JrPublication date2001PublisherNJ: Rutgers University Press. GravesThe emperor's new clothes: Biological theories of race at the millennium2001Total citationsCited by 6

 

he Rise ofRecruitmentology'Clinical Research, Racial Knowledge, and the Politics of Inclusion and Difference

S Epstein(*)- Social Studies of Science, 2008 - sss.sagepub.comAbstract Recent debates concerning the biomedical meaning and significance of race have(*)paid relatively little attention to the practical implications of new policies in the US mandating(*)the inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities (along with otherunderrepresented groups') as(*)...Cited by 58(*)Related articles(*)All 6 versions(*)Cite(*)Saveconvdocs.org(*)[PDF]

[BOOK](*)A theory of race

J Glasgow - 2010 - books.google.comSocial commentators have long asked whether racial categories should be conserved or(*)eliminated from our practices, discourse, institutions, and perhaps even private thoughts. In(*)A Theory of Race, Joshua Glasgow argues that this set of choices unnecessarily presents(*)...Cited by 53(*)Related articles(*)All 4 versions(*)Cite(*)Savewashington.edu(*)[PDF]

From “Middle Class” to “Trailer Trash:” Teachers' Perceptions of White Students in a Predominately Minority School

EW Morris - Sociology of Education, 2005 - soe.sagepub.comAbstract This article explores how teachers perceived and interacted with white students in a(*)predominately racial/ethnic minority school in Texas. On the basis of ethnographic data, the(*)author found that different teachers expressed different views of the family and class(*)...Cited by 56(*)Related articles(*)All 8 versions(*)Cite(*)Savewashington.edu(*)[PDF]

“Beyond the Pale”: Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization

A Stubblefield - Hypatia, 2007 - Wiley Online LibraryThe aim of the eugenics movement in the United States during the first half of the twentieth(*)century was to prevent the degeneration of the white race. A central tactic of the movement(*)was the involuntary sterilization of people labeled as feebleminded. An analysis of the(*)...Cited by 48(*)Related articles(*)All 6 versions(*)Cite(*)Save

Plessy as “passing”: Judicial responses to ambiguously raced bodies in Plessy v. Ferguson

M Golub - Law & Society Review, 2005 - Wiley Online LibraryThe Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is infamous for its doctrine of(*)''separate but equal,''which gave constitutional legitimacy to Jim Crow segregation laws.(*)What is less-known about the case is that the appellant Homer Plessy was, by all(*)...Cited by 29(*)Related articles(*)All 7 versions(*)Cite(*)Savewiley.com(*)

HTML:

[HTML](*)Ethnic/racial influences on the physiologic health of cancer survivors

PN Schultz, C Stava, ML Beck… - Cancer, 2004 - Wiley Online LibraryBACKGROUND Improvements in early detection, treatment, and general supportive care(*)allow more people to survive cancer. Information regarding the long-term health impact of(*)cancer and cancer treatments on these survivors of adult-onset malignancies is gradually

 

His book is mostly cited by scholars in relation to the subject of race. The fact is that he has not been ignored by the scientific community. He was only ignored by Rushton because Rushton didn't know how to refute his arguments.

 

Why can't you back that up with something other than an apparently fabricated image?

 

The image isn't fabricated. You can go to Google Scholar and look it up for yourself. And Rushton did ignore Graves because he couldn't refute his argument.

 

I did go to google scholar. Rushton said Graves ducked his data so didn't bother responding.

 

He didn't duck his data though.Graves refuted the general argument addressing r/K selection theory, brain size & IQ as well as hormone biology. When Rushton didn't know how to respond to an argument he simply ignored it and that's what happened with his debate with Graves.

 

All of these failed "refutations" have been thoroughly addressed.

 

By who?

 

On the forum, numerous times. Just like I responded and seriously damaged the same Nisbett quote you provided several times.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=382342&page=3&p=1064470734#post1064470734

I don't feel like trawling through the site looking for past refutations of Dr. Graves' arguments.

So why don't you begin summarizing his arguments and presenting relevant evidence in the same way I summarize Rushton's arguments and present relevant evidence?

 

To my recollection no rebuttal to Graves' work on this forum has been made and if you can't link to one there's no reason to believe that has been done. Graves has summarized his own work. All you have to do is read his articles and critique them if you think you can refute him.

1. What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

2. The Misuse of Life History Theory: J.P. Rushton and the Pseudoscience of Racial Hierarchy, in J. Fish (ed.) Race and Intelligence: Separating Myth from Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 

Yes these copy pastes have been addressed on multiple boards. Should we copy paste the response now?

 

Your ideas about race not exsisting are quite false, as government documents I fill out almost every day ask for race and ethnicity and primary language. I just got the US Census packet, and they ask even more pressing questions on race. Although the tiny variations on SNiPs may be insignificant to you and your crowd, they are enough that even small children can quickly identify them. In fact for $99 one can trace their race and ethnic ancestry. If these racial traits didn't exsist, then you should call the FDA to shut places like this down:


Family history is in our DNA. What's in yours?



Get personalized details about your ethnic origins. Discover more about your story with advanced DNA science from the experts in family history.

Now $99Get AncestryDNA
http://dna.ancestry.com/

The IQ tests done in past based on skin pigmentation are silly. Can you figure out the race based on skin color?


Again, it is up to Anthropologists like Sussman to demand that the latest tech be used to prove that race cannot be significantly linked to IQ. Not a peon like myself.

I don't think a "Nanoscientist" like Graves is the "go-to guy" for IQ and race studies.

 

Not entirely. Although race is based on ancestry it does correlate quite well with skin color in some places, especially the USA where West Africans and North Europeans mixed. And it's commonly assumed that supposed "discrimination" is at least partly based on skin color. So the finding that skin color correlates to IQ in the general population but not within sibling groups (where skin color is not a proxy for ancestry) is a blow to "discrimination" theory.

As you sensibly pointed out visual race identification is based on much more that skin color, and an experiment which compares correlations of IQ to both photograph estimated ancestry and DNA determined ancestry will solve this question.

This experiment has not been done.

 

Joseph "Nano/Race" Graves is the go-to guy for those who want to hear some science sounding stuff proving we all be equal in a real "science" kind of way.

 

In the past, skin color was one of the few parameters that could be measured, but now, with DNA testing, this is no longer an accurate means.

I just don't get it. For the life of me, I just can't understand why DNA-linked IQ studies are not being demanded.

Perhaps Eagle-Jay can press for funding from the Anthropological Societies to get these tests done. The results can be published in Sussman's Race Myth part II Revised Edition.

 

Sussman's Race Myth II: Reality Strikes Back.

 

If you have a rebuttal to those quotes whether old or new go ahead and post them.

Those are socially defined racial categories. Biologically defined races don't exist in our species.

Some genetic traits are indeed ancestry informative. But that doesn't mean that biological races exist. Those DNA companies will give you an indication of your genetic affinity to certain populations but they don't validate the existence of race as they have been biologically defined. Also there are problems with these genetic ancestry companies which Joseph Graves explained to me in a recent email.

It's not silly to use indicators of mixed ancestry when we know that a population is admixed such as African-Americans with significant quantities of European ancestry. We know for instance that Wesley Snipes is more African genetically than Mariah Carey or Halle Berry based on his skin color. Skin color is a weak proxy for mixed ancestry especially when it comes to more intermediate skin tones. Someone can have lighter skin and be more African genetically than someone with darker skin. But the totality of the evidence indicates that there is no relationship between European ancestry and high Black IQ in African-Americans. There were 5 different types of studies that reached these conclusions.

Again I do believe that DNA testing would be better than the available studies but it is still a significant finding.

But Sussman is not seeking proof that his position is wrong. The burden of proof is on the racialists. They are the ones who should be pushing to have such testing done because they are the ones trying to prove a point. Sussman is content with the conclusions he has reached based on the available evidence as am I as a researcher of the topic.

As an evolutionary biologist he does speak from authority on the evolutionary and genetic implications of Race & IQ research.

He is a credible scientist who hasn't been refuted on this subject.

If you want it done it's up to you to try to make it happen.

 

Another discussion I recently had with Dr. Graves concerned whether or not there was enough time for evolution to create racial differences in intelligence. This is a subject brought up by Chris Stringer in my email correspondence with him which Mikemikev and I have debated before.

This is what Graves had to say about the matter:

The paper he is referring to is Race, Genomics and Intelligence: Slight Return which I linked to previously.

This is why it is not necessary to do the type of test that Greataxe is demanding. There's simply no evolutionary basis to assume that human intelligence evolved differentially across geographic populations. What we know about human evolution and intelligence as a genetic trait indicates that the genes for intelligence are not unevenly distributed across populations. He's also correct that racialists have not proposed a valid explanation for why we should expect such intelligence differences to exist in the first place. Rushton and his colleagues tried to propose an evolutionary explanation but they failed.