Dr Watson's views on race seem very sensible.

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Lord Hillyer, Oct 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    These techniques are based on the premise that we all come from one race and follow known patterns of genetic drfit.

    e.g.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    There are many sociological differences between the minds of sociologically defined races in the US. There is no evidence that any of them are genetically based. The demonstration that almost all the difference in IQ test scoring between two racially distinguished groups can be made to go away simply by altering the sociological circumstances of the test administration is evidence against a genetically established racial IQ.
    Not only has it never been demonstrated, but there is no way to demonstrate it without genetically defining a "race" - and so far that hasn't been accomplished.

    All I know is what the DNA analysers report, and right now the best way to guess a person's race by DNA analysis is by using markers that tag a geographical area of origin. If a person has markers known to characterize the Yoruba people of Africa, for example, one can guess that that person is probably a member of the "black race" as sociologically defined in the US. The guess might be wrong - there are US-definition "white" people who carry those markers - but the odds are good.

    One central problem is that there are a great many genetic ways to have more-melanistic skin, and a much smaller but still fairly large number of ways to have less-melanistic skin.

    And no known correlation at all between any of those ways and any necessary genetic correlates of "intelligence", whatever they might be.

    Right now human races are sociologically defined, and based on very minor variations in a small subset of physical attributes - variations not known to correlate with any other sociologically independent attributes, or even with each other.
    Assuming you know what sociological racial groups are genetically linked, to begin with, is one way of closing your mind.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    I think whites are more intelligent than blacks but I don't think its really in the genes. Anybody can do anything with enough believe(at least most of it). I think it has to do with socio-cultural norm than anything. In sociology there is a little thing called domino effect. White people hear people say they are intelligent and they automaticaly are inclined to be motivatd to be intelligent, black people read threads like these time and again (coupled with the years of dark ages) and they gravitate towards anything but intelligence. People usually do what others like them are doing; monkey see monkey do. Black people are more Earthy, and thus are less inclined to see things from different points of view, which is very much unlike whites. But I really do think that Blacks would be a lot more intelligent if they break away from the norm and find the motivation to better themselves.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    If that's true, it's because we don't know how to do it yet. Not because the information isn't there. Indentical twins have the same hair, eyes, and skin tone. Why? Because they share the same DNA. So obviously the DNA carries that information. Hell, even their glasses prescription, while not identical, is damned close (sometimes a mirror reflection).
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    That's the flip side argument, though.

    If you start with two people who have the same hair, eye color, and skin tone, and assume they have not only the same DNA for that but a bunch of other identical genetics, you will be wrong most of the time.

    Almost every one of us has body doubles walking around somewhere - people we've never met who look just like us. They do not share our DNA.
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Who would assume that?

    Phenotype and genotype are not the same thing. The presence of recessive genes, for instance, means that you can never be sure if two people share the same genetics based on their outward appearance. And, of course, complex traits like intelligence no doubt are the result of many environmental and genetic factors interacting.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    Anyone who assumes a genetic basis for sociologically defined "races", is making exactly that assumption.
     
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    No they're not. People who's ancestry is based in Africa are black. People who's ancestry is based in Europe are white. People whose ancestry is from Asia are Asian.

    Many people, especially in the US, are a mix.

    We had a whole classification system (Kingdom, phylum, class, order,family, genus, species, variety) based on taxonomy. We are now finding out thru genetic analysis that some of our assumptions were incorrect. We placed certain animals in the wrong place or assumed they were related when they weren't.

    We are updating our classification of animals. The same could be done for humans. But it's been decided that that idea is racist, so no one's done it.

    That doesn't mean there is no genetic basis for race. It just means no one has come out and defined race in those terms, for political reasons.

    We're moving into an age of tailored medications. We already have treatments for glaucoma that works better in blacks than other races. The entire protocol for the treatment of glaucoma for blacks is different than for whites. More such treatments are likely to come. Why should a certain medication/surgical procedure work better for a random sociological grouping with no basis in biology or genetics?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,460
    All of us have ancestry based in Africa.

    Of course there might be a genetic basis for human racial classifidcation.

    It just isn't going to line up with the sociological "races" very well, probably. They are based on skin color. Wht do you think the odds would be of a genetic classification of dogs lining up with a classification based on fur color?
     
  13. Vindicator The Advocate Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    79
    "There is no scientific basis for what Watson was saying. Race is a social concept, it's not a scientific one, there's no evidence in our genetic code that would indicate there to be a clear demarcation that would separate humans into different race categories. It is absolutely clear to me that even the association of skin colour with medicine, the so-called race based medicine, is clearly misguided, and when you go to race based intelligence it just racist talk. It has no scientific basis whatsoever." - Dr Craig Venter, BBC interview
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Why does everyone latch onto only the skin color? The difference between whites and blacks is a lot, A LOT, more than just skin. What of the wide, flat nostrils? What of the kinky black hair? What of the heavy brow ridges? What of the yellowishness of the "white" part of the eyes? What of the thick, flabby lips?

    If two dogs were that much different, we'd have a distinct classification for them, wouldn't we? Yep. But with humans? No, we're too mamby-pampy and sensitive to admit something to perfectly obvious! ...for fear of hurting someone's tender little feelings.

    And notice .....if there are genes which give rise to the wide, flat nostrils; the kinky black hair; the thick, flabby lips; then why is it so difficult to believe that there are genes which also control the intelligence? Or are we just too mamby-pamby and sensitive to admit it for fear of hurting someone's tender little feelings?

    Baron Max
     
  15. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    It's already been proven that men are more intelligent than women... this may be related to head size....according to research published in the British Journal of Psychology:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm

    Read it and weep Turkey.
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, don't worry ....none of the liberal doo-gooders or mamby-pamby liberals in the world will accept that one either! They'll make some excuses for it, just you wait and see.

    Baron Max
     
  17. DeepThought Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,461

    Prepare for their wailings: "But what is intelligence?"
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    All this testosterone; move on plebians! Same wolf different sheep skin :zzz:
     
  19. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    What S.A.M, do you have conclusive evidence that demonstrates that all races, and both genders, are equally intelligent?

    After all, this is a science forum. You're required to back up your claims with scientific data. That includes backing up the assumption that all races and genders are 'equally intelligent'.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Sure, just define scientifically:

    1. intelligence
    2. an optimised standardised method of measuring it
    3. a gender basis for above.
     
  21. Zardozi Isvara.... . 1S Evil_Lau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    The female brain functions a differently than the male brain. Scientific American publised an article where they clearly stated that the men tend to perform better spatial tasks (ie-, imagining turning a 3-D object or altering the shape of it in some way) and math and science being their strongest subjects. Women on the other hand perform better with identifying, matching, pairing those kinds of things.
    I got curious and looked up successful women that have attributed to science. I came across Rebecca Richards-Kortum who is the chairmen of bio-engineering at Rice University. She said that women are less motivated in science classes and most times struggle to keep up or just end up dropping out. EEG tests have proven different patterns in Spatial matter of brain activity in sexes performed over *-edit-* patients. Hemispheric function, with males is i guess more strict
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2007
  22. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    S.A.M:
    Shifting the burden of proof logic fallacy. Although it's interesting to note that Satyr already gave a rather good definition of intelligence, and Zardozi mentioned different types of intelligence that have been measured by scientists.

    But that's incidental. You can't provide any scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates that all races and genders are equal in all forms of intelligence. So why do you continue to perpetuate such conjecture on a SCIENCE forum?
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Probably because I work in nutritional modification of genetic polymorphisms in chronic disease incidence and I can tell what the data means.

    I see a lot of people here looking at data models as conclusions. Data presentation in any of these genetic studies is meaningless without a direct relationship. To compare even two individuals let alone two "races" or "two genders" is a misapplication of the methodology.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page