I've been meaning to get to this post, and I shall now do so, my apologizes for the delay.
Quote:
|
No one is telling you to pretend that human genetic variation doesn't exist. Quite the contrary. I have not said that, none of those other anthropologists that you quoted said that, no one on TFP has said that. We have all said that it's very clear that such variation exists... that's not the problem. Repeat: biological evidence of human genetic variation (with clinal distribution) is a very clear fact, and no one is arguing about that.
|
Check.
Quote:
|
The problem is when people start assigning meaning to those genetic variations... intelligence, morals, values, abilities, etc. I think you'd even agree with me that this is stretching things. Phenotype has nothing to do with intelligence, morals, values, abilities...
|
I disagree, pretty much completely. Its been demonstrated by twin studies that phenotype has everything to do with intelligence. Identical twin studies prove it. Two identical twins raised in different families are almost identical in measured intelligence, FAR more so than fraternal twins raised by the same family (Bouchard, 1979). In fact it seems that intelligence no matter how you define it is almost completely defined by genetics. There is evidence with morals, values and abilities too. This is all phenotype as determined by the genotype. The order of importance for intelligence is Genetics > influences in womb > family.
Quote:
|
And that is where "race" becomes troublesome, as the AAA position paper points out most clearly. Race is a very heavily loaded word, going back to colonial times and earlier, when classification was used to denigrate particular groups based on their phenotypes, which were assumed to be linked directly to their intelligence, etc.
|
Its politically troublesome. I am not here to argue the political ramifications of racial prejudices, just the scientific aspects of the genetic variation. How race has been misused is not important to the discussion, its like saying you are an atheist because religion has been misused. Its a poor reason.
Quote:
|
. And that is just scientifically untrue, as social scientists and biologists since Boas have proven (although again, the Nazis tried to use the old definition to justify their extermination of "lesser" races); do you have any argument with that?
|
Assuming there are no racial differences to various types of intelligence is foolhardy. I would be far more shocked if there weren't differences. Again, because someone wants to claim such differences make them superior is no matter to me in this. Intelligence is hard to measure, so no real conclusions can be made but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Lets take a completely different example of a racial difference to explain how it can exist but be difficult to measure. There is the concept that black males have larger penises then other races. This is true, they have larger penises then Asians and slightly larger then Caucasians on average, key word being average. What is different is they are twice as likely to have an 'exceptionally' large penis as a white male. So while the average racial difference is minor the extremes are definitely in their favor, its just that its still a small enough number that it gets lost. There may well be more of one race at the top of the intelligence spectrum as compared to another, but such would be lost and meaningless to the masses.
Quote:
|
So unless you have an argument with that, I think the fundamental problem we have in this discussion is YOUR definition of "race," Ustwo... and others who have taken your position. Are you really talking *only* about human genetic variation, phenotypically expressed, when you say "race?" Or are you talking about race in the traditional sense, which is to assess intelligence and moral values based on whether or not a person has dark skin, shovel-shaped teeth, etc? (My impression is that it's the former, but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.)
|
Why are you asking this? It should be abundantly clear I'm talking genetics and phenotype. What I think your problem is you dont' seem to understand just how deep genetics goes into ones personality. It is your basic assumption which is wrong here, and demonstrably. Now can I say its been shown that such a race is more moral than another or more intelligent? No, but I'm not going to pretend that genetics don't play a part in both of those things. Not everything is as clear cut as lactose tolerance when it comes to racial genetics.
Quote:
|
The thing is, any random person who hears you use the word "race" wouldn't know what you really meant, unless they asked you. That's why the word itself is so problematic... it means so many different things to different people, which means it doesn't have much use as a valid, reliable descriptor. Using the more accurate, biological term of clinal variation, or human genetic variation, or ancestral DNA, etc... clarifies that you are not assigning meaning that isn't there.
|
I am not worried about what a random person thinks in this. This isn't a discussion for random people but people who have an understanding of genetics and heritable traits. I am painfully well aware of how politicians can misuse scientific data and twist it to their own ends due to a poorly educated public. What calling it something besides 'race' does is nothing but PC it, I am not doing a social crusade here.
Quote:
|
It doesn't mean you're ignoring human variation, quite the contrary. It means you are recognizing that there is more human variation under the sun than can possibly be described using the old Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid labels. And I think you've already admitted that you recognize that fact, a few posts back when I quoted you earlier.
|
Yes in that there should be MORE races than the basic ones, but saying Mongoloid does narrow it down quite a bit, and thats what language should do. Most of your substitutions are more complex then needed.
Quote:
|
So, in light of all that, why are you so attached to the word "race?" I'm genuinely curious.
|
For the same reason I'm attached to the word green, or sun, or wolf. Its a descriptive word that has a lot of information in it. If you change the word you will either make it longer (inefficient) or just do what the blacks do ever few decades and make up a new less 'offensive' word which later becomes offensive. Nigger, colored, black, african american. Same thing. So if you want to call whites something else and asians something else be my guest but it doesn't' really CHANGE anything. Race doesn't tell ones true genetic heritage, but its a rounding off point. If you say 'he is Caucasian' it narrows down where his most likely migration out of africa came from and when. There are sub groups to track, and local differences (northern europeans are different than southern) etc, but its a start and a good start. How the public as a whole abuses this is irrelevant, they will abuse it regardless of the language as long as they perceive a difference, and nothing is easier to perceive than race among humans.