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

Again, these findings are outdated. Comprehensive tests using IQ-linked DNA tests and MRI's have not been done, and will not be demanded by politically-driven leaders in anthropology and psycholgy.

As very Left-leaning researches in these fields still cling to environmental effects as primary drivers to brain and behavioral development, it is important to ensure that all the human subjects in modern tests are healthy and (unlike the lab rats) have had normal environmental stimuli and were not locked in a dark closets during their childhood.

 

You and your fellows assume they have fully encrypted the human genome---and you'd be wrong. There are only "theories" that some 19,000 human genes are responisble to human expression---less than the amount needed for some worms to be worms. Humans are vastly more complex. Not only are human physical features obviously inherited, but so are personalities, tendencies for alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexaulity, and criminal activity---and of course IQ potentials.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/human-genome-shrinks-to-only-19-000-genes-21e2d4d5017e

There is no need to grow human feti in controlled labs or raise children in Orwellian societies to prove the impact of imagined environmental factors. All that is needed is to show strong correlations in DNA and brain structure to IQ---and that alone would shoot-down the theories of Sussman, Graves, Jarod Diamond & Co.

 

The last paper I read on a blind study of different dog breeds by their DNA, scientists were unable to tell what breed of dog's DNA from another breed.

 

My fellows? That has nothing to do with me.

But just because there is genetic variation between populations doesn't mean that that variation includes differences in human traits such as intelligence.

Such research could also validate their arguments.

 

You have already conceded that intelligence can be inherited. However, there exsists the natural continuum of intelligence traits that occur with normal patterns of distribution seen everywhere in nature. There isn't just those with Trisomy 21 on one end, with geniuses on the other---with everything inbetween at the mercy of the environment. There are likely dozens of genes that influence the shape of one's nose---that just by coincidence---follow "racial" patterns. Look at the trouble singer Michael Jackson took to have his redone.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/broad-nose

The last time I checked, the human brain is more complex than a human nose, and would likely be influenced by thousands of genes that follow the same genetic patterns for inheritance that the genes for noses follow.

You know darn good and well that all of your heroes hawking their views in the media will not lift a finger to risk exposing their psuedoscience by demanding modern, scientific DNA- and MRI-based IQ testing.

 

What happened to Graves EJ?

 

That was never in dispute. The argument is over whether large populations can have differences in a polygenic trait like intelligence.

Why don't the racialists get together with some geneticists, psychologists and neurologists to run your experiment?

He said that he would post but warned that he is busy these days. I will give him an email today.

 

Well...no one has ever been able to control or quantify intelligence in and of itself, only it's performance. The performance of intelligence can be modified by many things, like stressors- fear, hunger, pain, anxiety, lack of self-esteem, etc. Because of this, it is almost impossible to make a true comparrison between the actual intelligence of two people because their past experiences alone have created to different minds affected by different stressors which serve to inhibit the performance of intelligence somewhat clumsily quantified by tests.

Large populations definitely exhibit differences in the performance of intelligence. That cannot be denied. Traditionally impoverished or low-income communities have been shown to suffer academically. And this is not just urban populations, but rural agragrian populations as well. Some people take the presence of rich and poor nations as signs of racial distinction of intelligence, but you'd have to consdier that many of these nations receive international loands from places like the World Bank and the IMF that demand the money given be placed into economy and military, and that the money gained from the investment- if any- be taken from social areas like construction, education, health, and the like in order to repay the loans. Because these nations are often also told to open their economy to foreign business, much of the money earned winds up leaving the nation, meaning that it is all they can do to pay back fractions of the loan and so little development actually takes place to foster the conditions under which intelligence can be nurtured.

It's complicated...

 

The bias that exsists among these professions is what is holding back modern research. Not as bad as the fear and hysteria during witch trials in the past--but still evident. The technology for doing DNA tests is old. Way back in mid-80's in my ordinary college, we used test methods similar to these to find the large differences in genetic makeup in people:



When Jesus talked figuratively about the "four corners of the Earth" the Flat-Earthers had absoulte faith in their beliefs. Today, we can see bais, similar to what unenlightened people entertained, in the "sciences" you defend.

Moderen science has been deliberately overlooked by Sussman, Graves and Diamond. They are the ones that should demand DNA and MRI IQ testing to be done---even if it means being burned at the stake by their peers.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457786a.html

https://right.orain.org/wiki/Steven_Rose

 

That's a lie. It's one thing to say that you think modern tools should be used to test your hypothesis and another to say it's not being done because researchers are afraid of the results they will find. That is a baseless accusation. Sussman and Graves base their positions on genetic research. There's no scientific basis for assuming a selection based mechanism was operating only on one population that could account for racial differences in intelligence. And let's be real about something. Racists are the ones who are biased not Egalitarians. Racists like Rushton and Jensen had an ideological agenda. Their views are fringe for a reason.

Let's see what Sussman and Graves actually have to say about your proposal.

Why do you feel the need to edit on an alternative encylopedia and label scholars as "Jewish" as if their ethnicity says something about them?

Wikipedia already has a better article on Steven Rose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rose

 

We all evolved from monkeys, your argument is irrelevant. If you believe otherwise, the you are part of a cult following of the idea that modern science has no merit.

This is a very ironic notion, considering we are all typing on computers that science created.

 

Everyone today, especially in modern civilization, uses things that had their origins in different cultures. White supremacists might brag that white people were the scientists who invented those computers, but then we're all typing using Indian (not Arabic) numerals and a writing script that ultimately evolved from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs (its other derivatives including Proto-Sinaitic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek). Some of us may be snacking on food taken from all over the world: grains, beef, and pork from the Middle East; chicken and rice from Southeast Asia; corn, tomatoes, potatoes, chile, and turkey from the Americas; bananas from Melanesia; and watermelons and yams from Africa. And how many of us are aware that the rock, pop, hip-hop, and R&B music running on our iTunes can trace influences all the way back to ancient West African traditions?

Bottom line is, everyone in the world has to give credit to innovators outside their own culture.

 

Why has there yet been a cognitive test developed that shows equal inherent ability for Whites, Blacks and East Asians?

 

The test construction doesn't matter. The differences in nurturing environment between the groups is the reason for differences in score.

 

No it's not. This is an ideological bias. All the testing says: not really.

 

Nobody cares what the Chinese happened to do with a stick and some mud 4000 years ago.

 

The ideological bias is the position that there must be a genetic basis to racist stereotypes without an evolutionary genetic rationale for believing this.

 

What's the "evolutionary genetic rationale" for believing races are 100% identical in brain genes (most genes)?

And as usual you fail to understand we establish hereditary differences before evolutionary theorising.

 

How does a nurturing environment affect memory, mental math or reaction time?

Do you also have any proof, or is this more conjecture?

 

Natural selection for mental ability is uniform throughout the world.

See: Brace (1999) An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264

Without actual genetic evidence for hereditary differences in intelligence you need an evolutionary genetic rationale for why we should expect differences in the first place. This is why Rushton wrote Race, Evolution and Behavior. His research was based on his theory being true. It was refuted because Rushton's theory was testable and was falsified. No racialist has provided a valid rationale for why we should expect genetic differences related to intelligence to exist and no credible experiments have been conducted that validate their predictions.

Nurturing environment can affect all aspects of mental function. Plenty of research has been done to establish this fact.

 

Your assertion is made up from wholecloth sans reasoning. Even if it was true it wouldn't result in equal brains because of pleiotropic genes. Even if that wasn't the case random mutation and differing population densities wouldn't result in equal brains. And all of this is irrelevant since we establish hereditary differences before evolutionary theorising.

There is plenty of evidence for differences. Nobody "expects" differences, or that we are "the same". We observe differences, establish they are hereditary, then create evolutionary theories to explain them. Rushton has produced some solid data and a good applicable theory. Does anyone expect you to ever admit that? Your "arguments" here boil down to empty name calling and cheerleading and you have not engaged succesfully on any line of evidence.

 

In science, very few things can be considered 100% certain regardless of the subject. For example, I couldn't 100% disprove that we're not all plugged into a giant computer program feeding us virtual stimuli and can only be liberated by one dude who dresses and fights better than he can act. Therefore you'll find very few scientists worth their salt who would declare that anything is 100% impossible, even the scenario of racial differences in intelligence that you advocate.

That doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof has always been on the racialist side. You were the guys positing that African people were intellectually inferior to Europeans in the first place and that this disparity was genetically coded in the first place. You can try citing poverty in Africa or among Afro-Diasporans in Western countries as evidence for your proposition, but you'll still have to show this reflects genetic disadvantages rather than environmental factors. What you're doing is more like insisting that genetics must be a factor, so it's up to your team to find evidence for their assertion, not ours to disprove it.

 

Well you're completely wrong and the burden is on nobody. And then there is plenty of evidence and reasoning from the "some genetics" side, it's just the "we beez equal" side are too dumb to understand it or too politically or emotionally invested to admit it. Then naturally they project this onto the "oppressors" (scientists looking at evidence).

 

I have touched on what you said many times on this forum just because I have a problem with African Americans doesn't make me a racist first of all African Americans isn't a race it is a culture and its their culture i have a problem with not the black race. I have no problem with blacks that are raised in a different culture