The unwelcome revival of 'race science'

Post Reply New Topic

"One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.
The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. "


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... ce-science

IQ is only 40% genetic. The other 60% is environmental. I believe that lower average IQ among Africans is not because of genetics but because they are poor, often dont grow up in an environment that values education and tend to have other ailments. Race science is complete bunk promoted by white nationalists and neo-nazis.

Also the far left drove many into the hands of the far right which gave rise to the alt-right.

Adding to the above: the greatest degree of genetic variation in humans is found between different african population groups, so saying "black skin therefore X" means even less than saying "white skin therefore X".

Also, in total the genetic variation between humans is so low that if we were dogs, we'd all be the same breed.

When you want to be racist, you don't care about doing good science; you care about the most effective way to poison society against the targets of your hate.

Interesting point.

What if a Gene Marker was supposedly identified with high intellect, yet the gene was found in multiple races and unraveled this whole premise?

"Scientific" racism would find a way to twist or ignore that fact, too, like pseudocience always does.

The late Stephen Jay Gould (an American Jewish biologist and essayist) wrote an interesting article called "The Geometer of Race" which is in his book "I Have Landed." It's a critique of an influential 18th-century book on racial theory by J.F. Blumbach, who based a lot of his ideas on measurements of skulls. Gould points out that while Blumbach was less toxic than many of his sucessors, he still allowed his prejudices to confuse his scientific observations. He did things like changing his definitions of racial boundaries, and picking and choosing which data to keep and which to discard. All to make sure that his skull collection didn't contradict the idea that Caucasians are special, and other races "degenerate".

(Not all his ideas caught on amoung "scientific" racists. He classed South Asians as "brown Caucasians" because the skull-shape similarities were too strong for even him to overlook. Oddly enough, he was a strong opponent of slavery. He seems to have believed that black people could evolve pale skins and superior Caucasian skulls if they lived in "civilisation" long enough.)

Overall, I don't see the revival of "race science" as unwelcome, given that it can easily be refuted.

The people who fear "racial science" are the people who don't know how to refute it.

It's already refuted, so that's not where the danger lies. It's dangerous because a lot of people either don't care if what they want to believe is refuted, or refutation only strengthens their belief.

Well ... if they don't care about reason, we'll just let them talk. Their beliefs won't spread far.

That wouldn't mean much - it would only debunk very strong formulations of this hypothesis, the kind which say "all Xs are better than Ys". We'd have to see it at similar frequencies across populations to avoid supporting the idea that the average X is naturally significantly better than the average Y. But frankly I think the rapid changes in IQ levels and gaps are more telling than any gene ever could be.

I.Q is more heritable than 40%. What is is so bad about I.Q being genetically predetermined? so what. Excluding the race talk and getting down more to just genes in general.

People often use this sort of thinking to justify eugenics, and other forms of authoritarianism.

It's always fascinated me how easily people not only ignore the reasons why you claim something, but also assume you want it to be true, as if it's obvious that you can't possibly be rational and actually care whether something is true, without wishful thinking.

Ha. You see, children have already been segregated by intellect for years. Schools are AWARE of their I.Q score and this does influence the class they put them in as a child. In Canada children who score below a certain percentile on an I.Q test are encouraged to enter a ''trade'' high school as opposed to a regular one. There are certain jobs and careers that require a submission of an I.Q test as well. It is what it is.

Reasonable people will understand where I am coming from...
Those who simply want to jump on the politically correct choo choo...well...<shrug>

Let us take "race" out of the equation...
Let us take out emotionalism...
Let us leave self-righteousness at the foyer...
Let us take out political correctness...
Let us look at humans as simply being sentient animals...
Let us look into this rationally and objectively...

Genetic combinations can be manipulated through animal husbandry...errr...
Genetic manipulation can aim for specific results...
Am I being too controversial yet?
Or just contentious enough?...

Anyone who has been involved in breeding dogs, cats, horses, etc knows the mechanics of selective breeding...
Dogs and cats were selectively bred to become domesticated, as an example...

I think people know where I am heading with this...

The problem with applying these principles to humanity is it's history of abuse for political purposes and the problem of political correctness being more concerned with not offending, to the point of denial of truth...

There is a lot more for me to say on this topic...
There is a need for a lot more qualification...
Context has yet to be adequately defined...
More definitive parameters have yet to be set...
But this is a good place to start, and stop, for my first post in this landmined (in terms of political correctness) sensitive subject...

Torches, pitchforks and rope may be purchased in the foyer area...