Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are there intellectual differences among different races? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zürich)
    So why do different groups have different average heights? Its a reoccurring phenomenon and is obviously biological.
    For the sake of simplicity, I'll pretend height is exclusively genetic and it is the only variable under consideration. I'll also use your Dutch/Japanese example. If the criterion is height, and there are only average differences between the heights of Dutch and Japanese people, how have you concluded that every member of each group is genetically different from the other group in terms of their height? How does the average for the group influence the individual's genetic profile? Why must you rely on group averages if there is, apparently, an inherent genetic difference between every member of each group? Would it not be the case that the short people are genetically different to the tall people, irrespective of their group membership?

    The notion that "there are inherent differences between the two", but they are only different "on average" is paradoxical.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    For the sake of simplicity, I'll pretend height is exclusively genetic and it is the only variable under consideration. I'll also use your Dutch/Japanese example. If the criterion is height, and there are only average differences between the heights of Dutch and Japanese people, how have you concluded that every member of each group is genetically different from the other group in terms of their height? How does the average for the group influence the individual's genetic profile? Why must you rely on group averages if there is, apparently, an inherent genetic difference between every member of each group? Would it not be the case that the short people are genetically different to the tall people, irrespective of their group membership?
    There is variation within groups as well as between groups.
    There is more than height to it. A tall Dutchman is more similar to a tall Japanese than to s short Dutchman in one respect. But he's also quite likely to share blue eyes, fair hair which literally no Japanese person has. If you were shown pictures of any given Dutchman and any given Japanese you would be able to say with certainty and without exception which was which. Perhaps some of the Dutchmen would be unusually short, but something else would give it away. And yet you deny genetic variation between groups?
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Zürich)
      Agree entirely. But its a common tactic among many to use the rejection of race to reject biological differences. It just doesn't follow.

      I don't really understand why its a controversial topic. An idiot is still an idiot, regardless of the intelligence of others of his 'ethnicity' and a genius is still a genius. I know what my own IQ is, if someone proved that Dutch people had on average a low IQ, then this would not impact me at all.
      Well, the concept of 'race' has been used for some very unsavoury political ends in the past so we should expect people to be sensitive its use, especially as the mainstream scientific position is to reject it as inconsistence with the actual evidence of human biological variation. Once you start putting people into such arbitrarily constructed 'race' boxes you can start making sweeping statements about them, lumping people together entirely illegitimately and easily for racist ends. If you're genuinely interested in the subject matter try searching out The Race Myth by Joseph L. Graves Jr or Man's Most Dangerous Myth by Ashley Montagu. There's plenty more been written on the subject but these two are probably a good enough starting point.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I think it's to do with culture and the way people are brought up to think.

      Plus, it's also about our up bringing. Parents from different countries may have different ways of doing so, without knowing that it isn't the best to do to their child or may not want to accept the fact.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      Well, the concept of 'race' has been used for some very unsavoury political ends in the past so we should expect people to be sensitive its use, especially as the mainstream scientific position is to reject it as inconsistence with the actual evidence of human biological variation. Once you start putting people into such arbitrarily constructed 'race' boxes you can start making sweeping statements about them, lumping people together entirely illegitimately and easily for racist ends. If you're genuinely interested in the subject matter try searching out The Race Myth by Joseph L. Graves Jr or Man's Most Dangerous Myth by Ashley Montagu. There's plenty more been written on the subject but these two are probably a good enough starting point.
      Well two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of science is surely unconditional truth. Trying to muddy scientific truth to achieve, often commendable, political or cultural objectives is something which needs to be condemned strongly.

      I agree that no intelligent person should make sweeping statements about a group, and definitely not about an individual based on his ethnicity. Of course many people will, but I dont see how acknowledging real differences between groups should cause this.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      There is variation within groups as well as between groups.
      How have you concluded that there are inherent height differences on the basis of average height differences? These are referring to completely different things. Continuing with the pretence of height being exclusively genetic, it is clear that the distribution of the 'height gene' does not correspond to the distribution of Dutch and Japanese people, so there is no basis to the claim that the state of being Dutch confers an inherent genetic height difference relative to any given Japanese person. The distribution of the 'height gene' is evidently independent of the Dutch and Japanese groups, so I still don't see how these variables are relevant.

      There is more than height to it.
      I used height to explain how 'inherent' and 'average' are incompossible claims.

      A tall Dutchman is more similar to a tall Japanese than to s short Dutchman in one respect. But he's also likely to have blue eyes, fair hair which literally no Japanese person has.
      And we can add an increasing number of criteria until we arrive at the individual. Either everyone is part of the same group (the smallest possible amount of refinement) or every individual belongs to their own 'group' (the greatest possible amount of refinement). The choice of criteria you use as the bases of refinement and any stopping point between the smallest and greatest refinement points are chosen arbitrarily.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sphinx_5494)
      I find what you are saying very interesting (and correct). Did you watch the poverty series on the bbc? It went into how european colonisation affected african economies and the problems with the current aid given to africa. It went into how the european capitalist model actually creates massive disparities in wealth and creates a far bigger gap between rich and poor. Apparently both colonisation, the african economies were far more inclusive and involved a far greater amount of the populations than what you found in europe. Can you reccomend any books about the information you previously mentioned. I want to read into the topic.
      I can recommend a few things for you.

      In terms of those who posited the capitalist economic explanation for European Imperialism you want to read the prominent writers. Important works include J.A. Hobson's Imperialism: A Study, Vladimir Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism and Rudolf Hilferding's Finanzkapital. It's worth looking at other arguments to. DK Fieldhouse is quite a notable one where he argues that imperialism wasn't really economically motivated because such gain could have been realised without this what we call 'new' imperialism. This is in his Myths and Realities of Modern Colonial Empires. Another interesting theorist on imperialism is Joseph Schumpeter.

      Other books that might appeal to you:

      Britan In Tropical Africa 1880-1960 Economic Relationships and Impact J Forbes Munro
      Imperialism and its Contradictions V.G. Kiernan
      Managing The Business of Empire Edited by P Burroughs and A.J. Stockwell (This is a collection of essays)
      The Geometry of Imperialism Giovanni Arrighi
      The Three Faces of Imperialism Phillip Darby

      Enjoy
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Zürich)
      If you were shown pictures of any given Dutchman and any given Japanese you would be able to say with certainty and without exception which was which. Perhaps some of the Dutchmen would be unusually short, but something else would give it away.
      What is your point? Show me a picture of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama and I would be able to tell which is which. If you give me a list of categories based on specific criteria, I am able to allocate anyone/anything to those groups depending on whether or not they possess those specific criteria. Reread the Zagefka (2009) quote.

      And yet you deny genetic variation between groups?
      I've stated on several occasions that everyone is genetically different.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      How have you concluded that there are inherent height differences on the basis of average height differences? These are referring to completely different things. Continuing with the pretence of height being exclusively genetic, it is clear that the distribution of the 'height gene' does not correspond to the distribution of Dutch and Japanese people, so there is no basis to the claim that the state of being Dutch confers an inherent genetic height difference relative to any given Japanese person. The distribution of the 'height gene' is evidently independent of the Dutch and Japanese groups, so I still don't see how these variables are relevant.

      I used height to explain how 'inherent' and 'average' are incompossible claims.

      And we can add an increasing number of criteria until we arrive at the individual. Either everyone is part of the same group (the smallest possible amount of refinement) or every individual belongs to their own 'group' (the greatest possible amount of refinement. The choice of criteria you use as the bases of refinement and any stopping point between the smallest and greatest refinement points are chosen arbitrarily.
      Seriously? Recurring biological traits between groups don't strongly imply biological variation? So Dutch people just happen to be generation after generation, taller than other groups? I've already said that variation exists within groups.

      The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Dutch people as a group are taller on average, this is a recurring and hence inherent trait.

      You're right about adding arbitrary traits until you arrive at the individual. But you have essentially conceded defeat, in that you have acknowledged that it is possible to identify biological differences between various identifiable subsets of the human race.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by NB_ide)
      That's not a valid approach, but yes adoption studies have been done and you can read about the results online. I won't like you to anything, to avoid bias.
      Of course it's a valid approach; how can it not be?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

      I know Oswy and whyumadtho mean well, but just stahp
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

      I know Oswy and whyumadtho mean well, but just stahp
      Lol, Wikipedia. Consult the three papers in my signature. I would also recommend Weiss and Long (2009).
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whyumadtho)
      What is your point? Show me a picture of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama and I would be able to tell which is which. If you give me a list of categories based on specific criteria, I am able to allocate anyone/anything to those groups depending on whether or not they possess those specific criteria. Reread the Zagefka (2009) quote.

      I've stated on several occasions that everyone is genetically different.
      The point is that it is nonsense to simultaneously deny the existence of two biologically distinct groups(based on an arbitrary set of criteria for membership), but yet be able to distinguish between these two groups without exception.


      Weaseling again. Of course everyone is genetically different, we have not been discussing that. Similarly family members tend to be similar to each other. Similarly those of the same ethnicity tend to be similar to each other. So if I give you a list of arbitrary criteria(and continue adding to it up until a biological limit, each criteria creating a new arbitrary group with the limit defining the largest possible group), you could acknowledge differences between two groups(not just individuals).
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Islander)
      Colonialism did NOT hold back Africa.

      Colonialism advanced Africa. Before Africa was colonised subs sharan Africans were living in the stone age.

      Colonialism introduced modern science, engineering, industry, technology, infrastructure, medicine, knowledge.
      Are you sure? Have you even heard about Timbuktu books and education? If you do a little research you will find that many colonized countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as those who remained free have evidence of ancient education. It's a shame that this is not taught in the UK. So many are brainwashed into thinking that Africans were unable to use or run their resources. Many medicines created in Africa thousands of years ago are still being used now.

      If what you are saying is right then the people in Afghanistan and many Arab countries would be living in worse conditions than the Africans. Research the Baghdad battery invented a thousand years before the Europeans did so, you will see that countries left without colonization did contribute greatly to what the world is today, however it is never talked about.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Zürich)
        Well two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of science is surely unconditional truth. Trying to muddy scientific truth to achieve, often commendable, political or cultural objectives is something which needs to be condemned strongly.

        I agree that no intelligent person should make sweeping statements about a group, and definitely not about an individual based on his ethnicity. Of course many people will, but I dont see how acknowledging real differences between groups should cause this.
        Huh? I've been pointing out that the groups generated by the 'race' concept are entirely arbitrary, they are made up. It follows that any generalisations about made up groupings is highly unscientific and potentially very dangerous. You seem completely unable to grasp the difference between clinal variation and discreet grouping. I don't know what else to say.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering

          I know Oswy and whyumadtho mean well, but just stahp
          Wikipedia? You should be embarrassed dude.
          Attached Images
        • File Type: pdfCONCEPTUALIZING HUMAN VARIATION article.pdf (101.5 KB, 26 views)
          Offline

          13
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Zürich)
          Seriously? Recurring biological traits between groups don't strongly imply biological variation? So Dutch people just happen to be generation after generation, taller than other groups? I've already said that variation exists within groups.
          Obviously not, which is why you must rely on averages and not absolutes (which is what 'inherent' necessarily entails). The distribution of tall/short individuals does not correspond to the distribution of Dutch and Japanese people.

          The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Dutch people as a group are taller on average, this is a recurring and hence inherent trait.
          The average is not the individual, so it is clear that there is not an inherent difference in an individual's height by the circumstance of being Dutch. There may be a difference by deriving from a certain lineage (which is not moderated by being Dutch or Japanese), but this difference is clearly not nationwide.

          You're right about adding arbitrary traits until you arrive at the individual. But you have essentially conceded defeat, in that you have acknowledged that it is possible to identify biological differences between various identifiable subsets of the human race.
          Reread the Zagefka (2009) quote. :yawn: We are all biologically different and it may be the case that we share some things with other people. The distribution of shared traits do not correspond with each other (e.g., the person who shares your height may not share your eye colour; the person who shares your eye colour may not share your hair colour; the person who shares your hair colour may not share the gene that codes for your skin tone, etc.).
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by whyumadtho)
          Lol, Wikipedia. Consult the three papers in my signature. I would also recommend Weiss and Long (2009).


          Abstract: The idea that all humans naturally belong to one of a few biological types or races that evolved in isolation was
          unchallenged for centuries, but large-scale modern studies failed to associate racial labels with recognizable genetic clusters. Recently, the conclusions of those studies have been questioned by authors who argue that racial classification has
          objective scientific bases and is indispensable in epidemiology and genetics. However, no classification is useful if the
          classification units are vague or controversial, and no consensus was ever reached on the number and definition of the
          human races. The available studies show that there is geographic structure in human genome diversity, and that it is possible to infer with reasonable accuracy the continent of origin from an individual’s multilocus genotype. However, clear-cut
          genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated
          mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far. On the contrary, allele frequencies and
          synthetic descriptors of genetic variation appear distributed in gradients over much of the planet, which points to gene
          flow, rather than to isolation, as the main evolutionary force shaping human genome diversity. A better understanding of
          patterns of human diversity and of the underlying evolutionary processes is important for its own sake, but is also indispensable for the development of diagnostic and therapeutic tools designed for the individual genotype, rather than for illdefined race-specific genotypes.

          http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/...nomics%204.pdf

          The first of the papers in your signature.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Oswy)
          Wikipedia? You should be embarrassed dude.
          Not if you check through the sources.
          Offline

          13
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Zürich)
          The point is that it is nonsense to simultaneously deny the existence of two biologically distinct groups(based on an arbitrary set of criteria for membership), but yet be able to distinguish between these two groups without exception.
          I can distinguish between anyone based on any given criteria. I can distinguish between you and your father without exception, so does this mean you are two different 'races'?

          Weaseling again. Of course everyone is genetically different, we have not been discussing that. Similarly family members tend to be similar to each other. Similarly those of the same ethnicity tend to be similar to each other. So if I give you a list of arbitrary criteria(and continue adding to it up until a biological limit, each criteria creating a new arbitrary group with the limit defining the largest possible group), you could acknowledge differences between two groups(not just individuals).
          What is your point? The Zagefka (2009) quote explains this: if you arbitrarily make the key criterion <1000kg, then I can construct a group comprised of objects that weigh <1000kg. If you comprise a group based on being taller than 187cm, I can construct a group comprised of people who are taller than 187cm.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.