Reaching out to racists

[Lord Zentei]

You should be careful of assuming that "race realists" base their conclusions on emotions alone and don't understand science. That kind of overconfidence can only lead to disappointment. Moreover, it pays not to be so confident that one risks being sloppy oneself.

So the racists still have the problem of showing race has biological meaning. Ultimately for race to have meaning, every time we compare say a Black man's DNA to a White man's and another Black man's, the DNA between the two Black people should be closer compared to the White person's every time. It isn't, because the features we associate with being Black and being white are only governed by a small porportion of the genes in the human genome. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza published these studies to that effect (ie the difference between within a population is larger than the difference between the means of population), and was quoted in the Suzuki debate.

What tthey will reply with is, that well if science can't tell race apart on a genetic level, its simply because we don't have advance enough science. My reply was to the effect - thats like saying the reason we can't create a square circle, is because our mathematics is not advance enough. Rather than the term simply being nonsensical. So just like the square circle not being definable in maths, race in biology isn't definable for the same reason. Its literally nonsensical. Race however has more meaning when we think about it as a cultural and social construct.

With respect mr friendly guy, that's a bait and switch. The fact that the majority of genes are held in common by all humans says nothing about the ability of science to predict continent of origin. Sciense IS able to do just that, and with randomly selected gene markers instead of specific ones.

Linka

Prediction of Continent of Origin using randomly selected SNPs
A new article in BMC Genomics discusses the issue of predicting continental origin using randomly selected markers. The pdf is freely available.

One of the arguments of those who deny the existence of biological races is that their reality is subjective. Some extremists have argued that race is totally socially constructed; this is, however, disproven by the fact that socially constructed race is correlated with physical characteristics. Thus, rather than being separated from biology, the social phenomenon of race is rooted in biology.

A different argument holds that race is correlated with biology, but the differences are "skin-deep", i.e., involve only superficial, visible, (and by some strange logic unimportant) characteristics. According to the proponents of this view, the idea of biological race places an undue emphasis on a set of traits: it is a result of the subjective choice of a set of traits as race-defining. Thus, the commonly recognized races of traditional physical anthropology are discounted as subjective organizations of the biological data: we could just as simply speak of a "lactose-intolerant race" according to this view.

In forensic science and admixture analysis scientists often discover and use polymorphisms which exhibit large inter-population differences. Decoding DNA isn't free, thus, it makes sense to use the most informative, most "biased" markers when one is trying to discover the origin of a biological sample. For example, if Africans have 55% of gene version A and 45% of gene version B, and Europeans have 53% of A and 47% of B, it makes little sense to type this particular gene, since it cannot really tell us whether a sample is European or African. A gene where Africans have 90% of A while Europeans have 5% of A would be much more useful. Race skeptics claim, as with the physical anthropological data, that to privilege such carefully chosen genes is to stress the differences between groups; the implication is that in randomly chosen genes these differences are minor.

The new paper is one of many (you can click on the Clusters label to find more) recent papers that have discovered that no matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their "informativeness", it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. Depending on the marker types (e.g., indel vs. microsatellite), and their informativeness (roughly the distribution differences between populations), one may require more or less markers to achieve a high degree of accuracy. But, the conclusion is the same: after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin.

Thus, the emergent pattern of variation is not at all subjectively constructed: it does not deal specifically with visible traits (randomly chosen markers could influence any trait, or none at all), nor does it privilege markers exhibiting large population differences. The structuring of humanity into more or less disjoint groups is not a subjective choice: it emerges naturally from the genomic composition of humans, irrespective of how you study this composition. Rather than proving that race is skin-deep, non-existent, or unimportant, modern genetic science is both proving that it is in fact existent, but also sets the foundation for the study of its true importance, which is probably somewhere in between the indifference of the sociologists and the hyperbole of the racists.

BMC Genetics

Geography and genography: prediction of continental origin using randomly selected single nucleotide polymorphisms


Dominic J Allocco et al.

Abstract
Background: Recent studies have shown that when individuals are grouped on the basis of genetic similarity, group membership corresponds closely to continental origin. There has been
considerable debate about the implications of these findings in the context of larger debates about race and the extent of genetic variation between groups. Some have argued that clustering according to continental origin demonstrates the existence of significant genetic differences between groups and that these differences may have important implications for differences in health and disease. Others argue that clustering according to continental origin requires the use oflarge amounts of genetic data or specifically chosen markers and is indicative only of very subtle genetic differences that are unlikely to have biomedical significance.
Results: We used small numbers of randomly selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)
from the International HapMap Project to train naïve Bayes classifiers for prediction of ancestral
continent of origin. Predictive accuracy was tested on two independent data sets. Genetically
similar groups should be difficult to distinguish, especially if only a small number of genetic markers are used. The genetic differences between continentally defined groups are sufficiently large that one can accurately predict ancestral continent of origin using only a minute, randomly selected fraction of the genetic variation present in the human genome. Genotype data from only 50 random SNPs was sufficient to predict ancestral continent of origin in our primary test data set with an average accuracy of 95%. Genetic variations informative about ancestry were common and widely distributed throughout the genome.
Conclusion: Accurate characterization of ancestry is possible using small numbers of randomly
selected SNPs. The results presented here show how investigators conducting genetic association studies can use small numbers of arbitrarily chosen SNPs to identify stratification in study subjects and avoid false positive genotype-phenotype associations. Our findings also demonstrate the extent of variation between continentally defined groups and argue strongly against the contention that genetic differences between groups are too small to have biomedical significance.

Followed by the PDF.

[mr friendly guy]

You should be careful of assuming that "race realists" base their conclusions on emotions alone and don't understand science. That kind of overconfidence can only lead to disappointment. Moreover, it pays not to be so confident that one risks being sloppy oneself.


With respect mr friendly guy, that's a bait and switch. The fact that the majority of genes are held in common by all humans says nothing about the ability of science to predict continent of origin. Sciense IS able to do just that, and with randomly selected gene markers instead of specific ones.

I will accept your rebuke, but I will point out the main issue I see with "race realists" still stand. That is you would think if race was useful biologically, the DNA of any randomly chosen person of a particular race, would be closer to the DNA of a randomly chosen person of the same race, than a person of a different race. But when we classify things taxonomically, isn't individuals in each grouping supposed to be more related to each other than individuals in a different grouping? Race classification (as it stands now) doesn't satisfy that criteria. Even if you find markers which occur in one race only, it doesn't follow individuals in one group will be less related to an individual in another race due to the majority of genes being held in common by all humans.

[Lord Zentei]

As I understand it, they're not so much ignoring the fixation index as maintaining that it's not the more important yardstick for determining racial groups. Though I haven't really immersed myself into the matter enough to say so in full. For all that, there are apparently a fair number of anthropologists and biologists who accept human "races".

But my deeper point was also this: positions on anti-racism should NOT be made contingent on any alleged scientific inability to determine race by genetics, nor by the inability to prove that some minor biological differences might actually be present. It should be based on the observation that human rights are UNIVERSAL. I mentioned this in the earlier thread you started on this topic a few months back and was flamed for it on the grounds that this approach might empower racists or some such nonsense. But here's the thing: racists will be racist regardless. For those who are not racist, it pays to base one's anti-racism on principles, not assumptions about what the science will or will not discover.

After all, consider the hypothetical scenario where the consensus shifts in the light of new evidence. Suppose that the scientific community comes out and says "whoops, our bad - races exist after all". Would you suddenly become a racist and start wearing white bedsheets? I rather suspect that being a decent human being, you would not. And you would then justify your anti-racism on some other, more philosophical, ground. But that implies that you should arguably have based it on that to begin with, and the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of races was a red herring, albeit a subconscious one.

Most likely, there are no meaningful differences in biology. But personally, I'm going for a Pascal's Wager type approach. If there are no biological differences between populations and the universality of human rights is asserted, then racism is bullshit anyway.

[EgalitarianJay]

Certainly the moral position that all people should be treated fairly regardless of differences (Egalitarianism) is not in any way threatened by any scientific theories
concerning racial differences. The concern of a lot of biologists and geneticists over whether racial categories are biologically meaningful is focused on distinguishing between valid observations of human genetic variation and the importance of real genetic differences vs. racial stereotypes erroneously believed to have a genetic basis. Even if racist theories about differences in mental characteristics were true I would still contend that Egalitarianism is the only socially acceptable moral principle to have on race-relations. The reason I think it is worthwhile to debunk these myths is because belief in such theories encourages racism which is socially harmful.

Most advocates of "race-realism" are not scientifically literate and are only parroting the arguments of the scholars they cite without possessing the ability to objectively critique the research of the opposition to these theories. The more articulate amongst them have been able to fool naive observers who may or may not support racist ideologies but find racialist theories to be persuasive even if they don't fully understand the science or lack thereof behind their research methodology.

[K. A. Pital]

How do biological differences themselves even begin to justify racism? It must also follow that these biological differences are causing intellectual disparity or something like that for racism as a view to be viable. It must also follow that biological differences could not be overcome with conditioning, that those are really hard-wired properties. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any scientific evidence for that.

So genetic differences - big deal. Even if they determine psychological differences and various phenomena which I think is what science is on to now, one has to show that these differences are detrimental in a racist sense, that one race is indeed "inferior" - like animals being less intelligent than humans, for example. This is hardly a viable position.

[mr friendly guy]

As I understand it, they're not so much ignoring the fixation index as maintaining that it's not the more important yardstick for determining racial groups. Though I haven't really immersed myself into the matter enough to say so in full. For all that, there are apparently a fair number of anthropologists and biologists who accept human "races".

I haven't immersed myself that deep in the literature either, just enough so I understand the basics of what the "race realists" and their opponents argue, when they say "races" don't exist, or race is a social construct. If pressed I can also give cases where social factors outweigh biological factors in determining race. People can argue those social factors are stupid, but you can't deny they exist and people do use these factors. I am quite happy to accept race. I think its just classified more by social than biological, but obviously both play a part.

But my deeper point was also this: positions on anti-racism should NOT be made contingent on any alleged scientific inability to determine race by genetics, nor by the inability to prove that some minor biological differences might actually be present. It should be based on the observation that human rights are UNIVERSAL. I mentioned this in the earlier thread you started on this topic a few months back and was flamed for it on the grounds that this approach might empower racists or some such nonsense. But here's the thing: racists will be racist regardless. For those who are not racist, it pays to base one's anti-racism on principles, not assumptions about what the science will or will not discover.

My position is we should attack racists with whatever tools are available. I do agree with human rights being universal, and it is undoubtedly an important tool to attack the abhorrent views of racist. However IMO I find it satisfying destroying them with their own "internal logic" as it were. They will most likely still be racists, but if we can show they no longer have science on their side, it will be a blow.

After all, consider the hypothetical scenario where the consensus shifts in the light of new evidence. Suppose that the scientific community comes out and says "whoops, our bad - races exist after all". Would you suddenly become a racist and start wearing white bedsheets? I rather suspect that being a decent human being, you would not. And you would then justify your anti-racism on some other, more philosophical, ground. But that implies that you should arguably have based it on that to begin with, and the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of races was a red herring, albeit a subconscious one.

Then I would only be able to oppose it on philosophical grounds only, as opposed to both. That being said, saying that races exist as more biological construct than a social one, still would not be enough in itself to support the racists' arguments. For example, lets use an easy one - Phillippe Rushton points to the IQ differences between China and India, and attributes that to genetic differences. He (when the wanker was alive anyway) would still have to show that it was so, as opposed to the numerous environmental differences between the two countries, which an economists who easily tell you from literacy (due to education), nutrition, GDP / capita etc.

My point is, the racists don't even get past first base in showing that race is mainly biological as opposed to social, yet alone show a genetic link between the characteristic they want to highlight (usually intelligence, propensity to crime, er I mean more aggressive etc).

Most likely, there are no meaningful differences in biology. But personally, I'm going for a Pascal's Wager type approach. If there are no biological differences between populations and the universality of human rights is asserted, then racism is bullshit anyway.

Fair enough.

[Lord Zentei]

Then I would only be able to oppose it on philosophical grounds only, as opposed to both. That being said, saying that races exist as more biological construct than a social one, still would not be enough in itself to support the racists' arguments. For example, lets use an easy one - Phillippe Rushton points to the IQ differences between China and India, and attributes that to genetic differences. He (when the wanker was alive anyway) would still have to show that it was so, as opposed to the numerous environmental differences between the two countries, which an economists who easily tell you from literacy (due to education), nutrition, GDP / capita etc.

My point is, the racists don't even get past first base in showing that race is mainly biological as opposed to social, yet alone show a genetic link between the characteristic they want to highlight (usually intelligence, propensity to crime, er I mean more aggressive etc).

Indeed, the burden of proof rests with whoever is asserting that a difference exists, since the null hypothesis is that there is no difference. Though I have heard them claim several points of difference, including without limitation: different genetic recombination rates, different twinning rates, slightly reduced health for mixed-race children versus monoracial children, that the IQ gap persists among adopted children, etc. But again, I haven't immersed myself well enough into it, nor read the literature from the opposing side well enough to tell.

As for the opposing literature, that too can't be entirely trusted without question either, since liberal scientists are also capable of misrepresentation. I would have been skeptical of such until I witnessed the recent debacle of Stephen J Gould's seminal book The Mismeasure of Man being shown to be based on fraudulent and/or incompetent work. After I saw that, I could no longer be an ardent race-denialist, so now I'm more ambivalent, but leaning towards denial by default due to this position being the only logical null hypothesis.

[EgalitarianJay]

Then I would only be able to oppose it on philosophical grounds only, as opposed to both. That being said, saying that races exist as more biological construct than a social one, still would not be enough in itself to support the racists' arguments. For example, lets use an easy one - Phillippe Rushton points to the IQ differences between China and India, and attributes that to genetic differences. He (when the wanker was alive anyway) would still have to show that it was so, as opposed to the numerous environmental differences between the two countries, which an economists who easily tell you from literacy (due to education), nutrition, GDP / capita etc.

My point is, the racists don't even get past first base in showing that race is mainly biological as opposed to social, yet alone show a genetic link between the characteristic they want to highlight (usually intelligence, propensity to crime, er I mean more aggressive etc).

Indeed, the burden of proof rests with whoever is asserting that a difference exists, since the null hypothesis is that there is no difference. Though I have heard them claim several points of difference, including without limitation: different genetic recombination rates, different twinning rates, slightly reduced health for mixed-race children versus monoracial children, that the IQ gap persists among adopted children, etc. But again, I haven't immersed myself well enough into it, nor read the literature from the opposing side well enough to tell.

As for the opposing literature, that too can't be entirely trusted without question either, since liberal scientists are also capable of misrepresentation. I would have been skeptical of such until I witnessed the recent debacle of Stephen J Gould's seminal book The Mismeasure of Man being shown to be based on fraudulent and/or incompetent work. After I saw that, I could no longer be an ardent race-denialist, so now I'm more ambivalent, but leaning towards denial by default due to this position being the only logical null hypothesis.

I recommend looking at page 1 for starters. Check out this post:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9#p3666815

Most of the claims you listed come from Rushton's research which has been exposed as being complete garbage. As far as Gould is concerned there were some critics of his reanalysis of Samuel Morton's skulls by some Anthropologists who claim that he misrepresented Morton's researsh. I had a brief email exchange with some of those scholars who expressed concern and surprise when I told them that racists were using their study to claim that Gould was a fraud and that their work supported race-realism, a point which they strongly disagreed with. I think if you watch the videos I posted and read the studies I cited at the end of the Rushton Refuted video you should get a clear understanding of the fallacies of Rushton's theories and racialist research in general.

[Lord Zentei]

OK, thanks for the link. I'll look into it.

[OleBarnsey]

All racial differences are based on culture, structure, agency, and social engineering. People may say that racial equality should not make people refrain from studying race, but it is a statement that eats itself. Why do you need study race? There is near;y always a deeper political motivation behind it. that revolves around the idea of either marginalizing a group or taking away most of their human rights because you believe they are of a lesser ability.

The problem is the parameters of what constitutes intelligence are not that easily defined. I could say that a Western obsession with race is in itself stupidity and rooted round a ploy to prove some type of superiority they do not genuinely even feel. In the West we have an entire civilization not built on culture but on the idea there are racial differences. IQ is the biggest scam of all time. With speculated results for whole countries, or the fact in the West you can take them as many times as you like. I contend that IQ tests are an easy way for the least intelligent to pretend they have intelligence or are grouped with the cleverest amongst their so called race.

I don't believe all humans are equal, what I do believe though is that the idea one whole group can be lumped under some score is a farce. i never get a straight answer from the pro-IQ lobby. Who were tested in Africa? Where were they tested, what was the occupation of those tested, the age of those tested, the age etc.

The facts are nearly everyone who researches race lapses into pseudo-scientific theory because they have a theory they are looking to prove.
If the people who advocate IQ as a valid way of measuring intelligence cannot answer these very simple and straightforward questions. They should give up trying to pretend they can use this system to ascertain intelligence.

[PainRack]

Having met racists , the easiest way is to make them see how ugly their position is. It really depends on how and when but I find that a lot of people, in common banter don't realise they're being racists, at least, in an ugly manner.


Now. Try talking to a muslim who believes in Zionism and etc or the Great Satan stuff:D THAT..............................is tough.

[Lord Zentei]

All racial differences are based on culture, structure, agency, and social engineering. People may say that racial equality should not make people refrain from studying race, but it is a statement that eats itself. Why do you need study race? There is near;y always a deeper political motivation behind it. that revolves around the idea of either marginalizing a group or taking away most of their human rights because you believe they are of a lesser ability.a

There's legitimate criticism of bad research, and then there are blanket statements like this one. Obviously it is legitimate to do research into the biological differences between human populations, and not all people who do such research are out to get such-and-such a group of people.

Now. Try talking to a muslim who believes in Zionism and etc or the Great Satan stuff:D THAT..............................is tough.

The religiously indoctrinated are naturally going to be harder to convince than merely those who have arrived at their position due more mundane reasons and through lack of negative feedback from their peers.

[EgalitarianJay]

There's legitimate criticism of bad research, and then there are blanket statements like this one. Obviously it is legitimate to do research into the biological differences between human populations, and not all people who do such research are out to get such-and-such a group of people.

I think what OleBarnsey is talking about is the seeking of differences between races that are socially important. Often people who are looking for such difference have a ideological agenda for doing so. There's no question in my opinion that Rushton was a racist. The focus of his research was on arguing for a genetic basis to racist stereotypes with a fixation on Black people. People who support this position which they call "race-realism" argue that insisting that they not conduct this research is an unreasonable and emotional reaction to the research rather than a legitimate criticism of it.

I think it's important to recognize that many people rightfully consider racialist research to be offensive but also do not regard it as legitimate science.

You can criticize the work by arguing that it is both unscientific and socially harmful.

The religiously indoctrinated are naturally going to be harder to convince than merely those who have arrived at their position due more mundane reasons and through lack of negative feedback from their peers.

In my experience racists are just as hard to dissuade from their racist views as religious fanatics. Hardcore racism is ideological extremism and racists will cling to
their views as faithfully as members of a cult. It takes a rational mind with a legitimate value for moral standards to understand why views like racism are unacceptable in a civilized society. Most racists, no matter how articulate, are not rational individuals.

[mr friendly guy]

It would be great if we had a list of these racialists.

We have Rushton who has an obsession with the size of a black man's penis, as well as their brain sizes of course.

Richard Lynn who despite being only a psychologist loves to dabble in biology, even suggesting that Whites and Asians are smarter because of living in colder climates - I am sure the Neanderthals who survived the ice age will demonstrate their superior intelligence to homo sapiens sapiens, oh wait.

Arthur Jensen from what little I understand seems to be the least whacko of them, because I don't recall him trying to argue outside his field into the realm of biology.

[Lord Zentei]

OK, my comment to OleBarnsey was made against my better judgement, but it was just too knee jerk for me to ignore. Apparently, the thread lives on, then.

I think it's important to recognize that many people rightfully consider racialist research to be offensive but also do not regard it as legitimate science.

You can criticize the work by arguing that it is both unscientific and socially harmful.

I see where you are coming from. But I think that it's equally important not to maintain a diametrically opposite dogmatic viewpoint. Whether or not Ruston was a racist does not de-legitimize all researchers into the field of human biological differences. Neither does people's offense eliminate biological realities if they exist. My concern is that it is also unscientific and unethical for people to take the a priori stance that racial differences don't exist and that therefore, racial science is assumed to be false a priori and all people who do research of this kind must perforce be motivated by a harmful social agenda. Science does not proceed that way. Your stance (and OleBarnsey's stance) is itself motivated by a social agenda, albeit a well-intentioned one, it's nonetheless also potentially harmful in its own right.

It would be great if we had a list of these racialists.

See, this is what I'm talking about. A list, really?

[Lord Zentei]

Richard Lynn who despite being only a psychologist loves to dabble in biology, even suggesting that Whites and Asians are smarter because of living in colder climates - I am sure the Neanderthals who survived the ice age will demonstrate their superior intelligence to homo sapiens sapiens, oh wait.

Just a brief addendum. Neanderthals actually had slightly larger brain sizes than homo sapiens. Of course, whether they were actually smarter (large brains or no) is another question.

[mr friendly guy]

It would be great if we had a list of these racialists.

See, this is what I'm talking about. A list, really?

I don't know. Creationists, IDiots and Christian apologists get their own list, so why not racialists? I mean books which criticise such generally lists their main proponents then goes over explaining why their ideas are wrong.

Now I am not saying that anyone researching into race differences automatically go on such a list, but it seems a lot of race realists end up displaying racist behaviour, and you can't help but wonder whether race realism is just a facade for them to hide behind.

Richard Lynn who despite being only a psychologist loves to dabble in biology, even suggesting that Whites and Asians are smarter because of living in colder climates - I am sure the Neanderthals who survived the ice age will demonstrate their superior intelligence to homo sapiens sapiens, oh wait.

Just a brief addendum. Neanderthals actually had slightly larger brain sizes than homo sapiens. Of course, whether they were actually smarter (large brains or no) is another question.

I am aware Neanderthals had larger brain sizes. Like you say whether it translated into greater intelligence, which in turn translates into survival advantage is debatable. But this is the reasoning of racialists, for example Richard Lynn when he applies it to Africans vs Whites and Asians. So one wonders why he doesn't apply to Neanderthals - most probably because as a psychologist his knowledge on the history of human evolution is most probably close to zero.

[EgalitarianJay]

Your stance (and OleBarnsey's stance) is itself motivated by a social agenda, albeit a well-intentioned one, it's nonetheless also potentially harmful in its own right.

My stance is that while I believe the motives of racialist researchers are highly questionable I don't believe in censoring them. Their research should be subjected to rigorous critique to determine objectively whether or not it is valid science and whether or not racialist theories are valid. If you look at Suzuki and Graves debates with Rushton they came to similar conclusions but took different approaches, although one must keep in mind that both discussions were structured differently. For a good portion of Suzuki's presentation he lectured on ethical principles and that since research like Rushton's was proven to be unscientific and invalid it shouldn't be getting government funding. According to Suzuki scientists have a responsibility to society to uphold acceptable academic standards when they conduct research and since Rushton's does not he should not be able to enjoy the benefits that a professional scholar doing legitimate research does. Graves also held the position that Rushton's work was pseudoscience and supported racism but critiqued his evolutionary theory and its implications in detail while Suzuki chose not to address most of the data and instead pointed out the general fallacies and absurdities of Rushton's research.

I'm personally less concerned with who funds people like Rushton and whether or not they get to teach at Universities and more interested in seeing that such views do not go unaddressed by the scientific community. After all if there were no responsible scientists around to show people that pseudoscientific theories were wrong the laymen public could more easily be deceived in to thinking that they were true.

Just a brief addendum. Neanderthals actually had slightly larger brain sizes than homo sapiens. Of course, whether they were actually smarter (large brains or no) is another question.

Neanderthal were actually mentioned in Graves' written critique of Rushton's theory. Neanderthal had lived in Northern Eurasia much longer than Homo Sapiens by the time they arrived and co-existed with Neanderthal but archeological evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens had a more sophisticated culture (therefore greater intelligence) than Neanderthal and quickly replaced them to the point of Neanderthal going extinct despite Neanderthal being more cold climate adapted with larger crania. This is a real example of Rushton's theory on human evolution being put to the test and it completely invalidates it.

Rushton makes his entire argument about the nature of selective forces that lead to racial differentiation in life history features utilizing hypothetical arguments about the nature of the predictability of Pleistocene temperate versus tropical environments. The argument proceeds that the environments that existed in Europe and Asia required greater intelligence to survive than those in the tropics. Hence genotypes with greater intelligence left more progeny than those without. This in turn would lead to directional selection for greater intelligence at the cost of alleles contributing to early reproductive success. This, of course, is not an r~ and K-selection argument in reality. It simply asserts that intelligence is negatively genetically correlated with reproduction. He then proceeds to test his version of differential r~ and K-selection theory in early humans, utilizing data he gathers from modern human populations! Thus, in reality he is asserting with this method that all features of human life history patterns were fixed in the Pleistocene! This formulation is essentialist (as is the Linnean conception of race utilized to construct his argument). For this procedure to make any sense whatsoever it is necessary for density~dependent selection regimes facing human 'racial' groups to have remained constant, both temporally and spatially, over the range of years our species has existed (for Homo habilis through to Homo sapiens, about 1.75 million years). Such a proposition is absolutely ludicrous. If we assumed 30-year generation times (15 years to age of first reproduction, and 15 years to raise offspring), we could calculate between 4000 to 3000 generations have passed since the Pleistocene environments Rushton utilizes to found his thesis. In addition, what little we know about the evolution of 'intelligence' in hominids seems to argue directly against his thesis. It is possible that around 300,000 years ago Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were extant in different regions of the world, It is not clear whether these were true species, or geographic races of the same species (in ways that we do not have 'races' in modem Homo sapiens). The evidence seems to suggest that in Europe Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis coexisted between 40,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Most evidence suggests that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and when it invaded Europe it brought with it culture, art, wind instruments. record keeping, symbolic and ritualistic beliefs, and a constant pattern of organization and technical improvement. The contact between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis seemed to always lead to the short-term replacement of the latter by the technologically advanced former (Tattersall, 2000). Why does this observation contradict Rushton's thesis? Simply, because it was the Neanderthals who should have been living under Rushton's K-selection regime and the culture of the Homo sapiens resulted from the r-selected tropical environment. We know, for example, that the Neanderthals had larger cranial capacities than Homo sapiens (Neanderthal cranial capacities: 1524-1640 cc for males, and 1425-1270 cc for females, as opposed to around 1325-1166 for early Homo sapiens, in Poirer and McKee, 1999). We should compare these differences with the within-species values reported by Rushton.In his Chart 1 of the abridged version (1999: 19) he shows 1267, 1347, and 1364 cc for Blacks, Whites, and Asians respectively. This amounts to a 7.2 per cent difference between Blacks and Asians, while if we utilize the midpoint for Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens we would calculate a 15 per cent advantage for Neanderthals! These observations fly in the face of two of Rushton's predictions:

first that harsh winter climates should select for greater intelligence, and secondly that cranial volume should be correlated with intelligence. All available evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were less 'intelligent' than modern Homo sapiens that had smaller crania and evolved in the tropics.

Source: What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131-154

[Lord Zentei]

My stance is that while I believe the motives of racialist researchers are highly questionable I don't believe in censoring them. Their research should be subjected to rigorous critique to determine objectively whether or not it is valid science and whether or not racialist theories are valid. If you look at Suzuki and Graves debates with Rushton they came to similar conclusions but took different approaches, although one must keep in mind that both discussions were structured differently. For a good portion of Suzuki's presentation he lectured on ethical principles and that since research like Rushton's was proven to be unscientific and invalid it shouldn't be getting government funding. According to Suzuki scientists have a responsibility to society to uphold acceptable academic standards when they conduct research and since Rushton's does not he should not be able to enjoy the benefits that a professional scholar doing legitimate research does. Graves also held the position that Rushton's work was pseudoscience and supported racism but critiqued his evolutionary theory and its implications in detail while Suzuki chose not to address most of the data and instead pointed out the general fallacies and absurdities of Rushton's research.

I'm personally less concerned with who funds people like Rushton and whether or not they get to teach at Universities and more interested in seeing that such views do not go unaddressed by the scientific community. After all if there were no responsible scientists around to show people that pseudoscientific theories were wrong the laymen public could more easily be deceived in to thinking that they were true.

That's perfectly reasonable. I am only concerned that critics of pseudoscience remain consistently academic in their approach. As an example of that I admit that I was not terribly impressed by Dr Suzuki in the first video. A layman sitting on the fence and desiring an informative debate to clarify the matter might even be prone to believe that Rushton was the one being academic and that Suzuki was merely ranting and more interested in bullying and silencing the opposition than showing why Rushton was wrong (although he started to do that about halfway through his talk). This kind of approach is a terrible strategy, IMHO. Not only can it backfire, but can cause vitriol to spill over on those who are actually doing legitimate research and cause skeptics to reflexively assume that anyone who speaks of such matters is promoting pseudoscience. Potentially, this might even risk anti-racists ignoring science in turn.

As an aside, the Suzuki video also had links at the end, but I have had some trouble finding copies viewable by the public. Do you have links for some of them?

Neanderthal were actually mentioned in Graves' written critique of Rushton's theory. Neanderthal had lived in Northern Eurasia much longer than Homo Sapiens by the time they arrived and co-existed with Neanderthal but archeological evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens had a more sophisticated culture (therefore greater intelligence) than Neanderthal and quickly replaced them to the point of Neanderthal going extinct despite Neanderthal being more cold climate adapted with larger crania. This is a real example of Rushton's theory on human evolution being put to the test and it completely invalidates it.

OTOH, the Neanderthals were also a different species of human, and thus their cold-adaptions were applied to a different evolutionary starting point. I'm not sure how relevant it is to generalize the supposed implications of the alleged K-vs-R selection of different groups of Homo Sapiens Sapiens too much outside of the species.

BTW, Neanderthals may have been underestimated in any case. Not that this changed their fate, of course.

[EgalitarianJay]

That's perfectly reasonable. I am only concerned that critics of pseudoscience remain consistently academic in their approach. As an example of that I admit that I was not terribly impressed by Dr Suzuki in the first video. A layman sitting on the fence and desiring an informative debate to clarify the matter might even be prone to believe that Rushton was the one being academic and that Suzuki was merely ranting and more interested in bullying and silencing the opposition than showing why Rushton was wrong (although he started to do that about halfway through his talk). This kind of approach is a terrible strategy, IMHO. Not only can it backfire, but can cause vitriol to spill over on those who are actually doing legitimate research and cause skeptics to reflexively assume that anyone who speaks of such matters is promoting pseudoscience. Potentially, this might even risk anti-racists ignoring science in turn.

I think Suzuki made a lot of relevant points about science and ethics but he was very emotional and hostile which can turn people off people expecting a dispassionate and objective debate even if his points are valid. He was basically trying to make two arguments:

1. This research isn't legitimate science and we shouldn't dignify it on an academic platform

2. Rushton's theory is not valid because of (insert various points).

As an aside, the Suzuki video also had links at the end, but I have had some trouble finding copies viewable by the public. Do you have links for some of them?

Make a list of the ones you can't find and I will upload them to a filesharing site from my harddrive.

OTOH, the Neanderthals were also a different species of human, and thus their cold-adaptions were applied to a different evolutionary starting point. I'm not sure how relevant it is to generalize the supposed implications of the alleged K-vs-R selection of different groups of Homo Sapiens Sapiens too much outside of the species.

BTW, Neanderthals may have been underestimated in any case. Not that this changed their fate, of course.

R and K selection theory was actually originally proposed for comparison of differences in reproduction strategies between species. Since Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal both derive from Hominids I don't think it makes a difference whether they are separate species or sub-species because either way they are derivatives of modern humans earliest ancestors. So they share enough evolutionary history that once they branched off any adaptive traits one has the other could potentially have. If the evolution of human intelligence is directed by increases in brain size and Neanderthal have larger brains then they should be smarter. I too have heard arguments that Neanderthal were smarter than some scientists give them credit for but if there are large differences in intelligence among human races based on the brain size differences that Rushton reported Neanderthal should be super geniuses by comparison.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I dont think pointing out explicit outliers of brilliance would convince a racist of...anything really. If the racist brings up Black crime in America, point out the destruction of the traditional family. They will agree and likely go on a short luttle rant. Point out that this wasnt a real problem until LBJ, Great Society and its initial bugs and the Chaos of the late 60s early 70s.



They will agree.


Here comes the reaching out slap in the face.


Point out the poor whites are currently undergoing the same shift in families. Point out that its oly the decentralization of the Meth epidemic that gives the illusion of it not being comparable to the crack epidemic.


Point out that in the worst areas, the breakdown in "morality" is essentially exactly the same.


Point out that, quite simply, regardless whether or not certain theories are true, that Black People are still, in fact people.

They are no less human than anyone else. And that quite frankly, his or her own kind isnt doing much better or id in fact heading down the same path.

Note:This only applies towards American Racism. If you are located in Asia, Africa or the Mideast, dont bother. You will undoubtfully just lose friends or maybe even your job. In extreme cases, maybe your life.

[EgalitarianJay]

To be honest I wouldn't waste time arguing with a racist in real life. Racism is an ideology that is appealing emotionally to the racist and talking down a racist is like talking to a religious fanatic. If you don't have to deal with that person then you don't need to waste energy on them. It will only cause you frustration. If that person is someone close and important to you like a relative that's one thing. I don't care about what my co-workers believe as long as their beliefs don't effect the job we have to do.

I only ever decided to debate racists on the internet to challenge myself in debate and show them that they can be refuted which I found to be empowering because I despise racism. If they ever turn from their racist beliefs they will have to do that on their own time, not my time. I invited several racists who comment on my Youtube videos about Rushton to come here if they want a debate but they always back down. Racists typically talk amongst themselves or troll websites where they want their opinions to be heard. They are rarely interested in legitimate discussion and they are not open to alternative viewpoints.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yep. Its partially why in order to argue against racism, the popular media goes for emotion instead of logic. For most people, they look at things like logic as something to use to feel more smug about their own beleifs.

[EgalitarianJay]

Yep. Its partially why in order to argue against racism, the popular media goes for emotion instead of logic. For most people, they look at things like logic as something to use to feel more smug about their own beleifs.

Racism is commonly addressed from a moral standpoint. It's immoral to discriminate against people based simply on what they look like. When most people think of racism they think of someone hating you because you have a certain skin color or other superficial biological characteristics. Racists try to rationalize their racism and the logical arguments they use can be persuasive to the naive observer.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yep. Its partially why in order to argue against racism, the popular media goes for emotion instead of logic. For most people, they look at things like logic as something to use to feel more smug about their own beleifs.

Racism is commonly addressed from a moral standpoint. It's immoral to discriminate against people based simply on what they look like. When most people think of racism they think of someone hating you because you have a certain skin color or other superficial biological characteristics. Racists try to rationalize their racism and the logical arguments they use can be persuasive to the naive observer.

Exactly. Racist argue that it is more than color and skull structure.

I would argue to them that it shouldnt matter anyways, and thus atleast try to get the bigot to stop the discrimination.