Genetics

[gags]

Eternal, there's no arguing that Jews make up a disproportionate percentage of many high skill/knowledge occupations. What I have yet to see is any convincing evidence that this is the result of genetics rather than a culture that values learning.

[labrat]

A simple exercise:

(Jewish Population) / (World Population) = 14,596,017 / 6,430,856,221 = 0.227%

(Jewish Noble Prize Winners) / (World Noble Prize Winners) = 158 / 750 = 21.067%

Yup - you're right - there's no significance there at all...

The exercise should go like this:

(# of Jewish scientists)/(World total # of scientists) = ? %

(Jewish Noble Prize Winners) / (World Noble Prize Winners) = 158 / 750 = 21.067%

And to compare these two percentages. Anybody has any idea?

Also, the scientists are restricted to the disciplines of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine.

Edited January 1, 2006 by labrat

[labrat]

IIRC we're something like 98% genetically "identical" to chimpanzees.

Yet no two people are genetically "identical". So how exactly is that term used?

There are indeed a lot of confusions in the usage of "genetically identical".

Genes (mostly DNAs) contain coding regions and non-coding regions (the so called exons and introns). It is the coding regions that are eventually translated into mature RNAs and proteins that performs various functions in the body. While for the most part we are not yet clear what are the functions of the vast introns, which are actually comprise a much bigger portion of our genome. Some of them clearly play regulatory roles.

When talking about that human genome is 98% identical to the apes, it is usually refered to the coding regions, or even the final amino acid sequences of proteins. Between each human individuals, there are also differences in both the coding and non-coding regions, but it is much less than 2%.

[Kantardjiev]

Eternal, I didn't read the entire paper by Rushton & Jensen, but I wonder about their findings.

For example, given that Arabs and Jews are racially similar (they're both Semitic peoples), do Arabs score as high on the IQ tests as Jews? My hunch would be that they do not. Another hunch would be that cultural differences (nurture) explain these things more than racial differences. Another example would be blacks who are recent immigrants from Africa tend to do much better economically than blacks who have been in this country for generations. Why? They are both from the same race..... but one group embraces a culture of hard work and self-improvement while the other embraces Kanye West and 50 Cent.

These types of objections may be addressed in the paper, I just don't have the time to read the entire thing.

This needs to be answered by science and not philosophers. A significant number of studies show that the "success" of one culture economically is not genetic. Jewish people don't have a significant advantage because of some gene the rest of us are missing. That is rediculous. What is feasible is the nurture aspect of it. You can't expect a child in the ghetto without any guidance from parents, who has never been held accountable by teachers, parents, friends or any other authority to turn around and expect that the answer to his life is in math, science and literature. That is a fairly mature concept that takes most people until they are in college to realize. They at that point have the opinion that it is too late for them, which is another immature conclusion - anyway. Don't take it as if I'm a believer in a welfare state, just the opposite, but what I am saying is that different races have unique cultures that develop within their communities. This culture changes throughout time. It is an ever evolving process. Some day lethargy might be a characteristic of the Jewish culture or an Asian culture and it will be blacks that will realize that they have opportunities that they have never taken and that they individually need to hold themselves accountable and responsible for the welfare of their children and the way they grow up. They can't wait for the state to save them and it DOES NOT TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. I happen to be an immigrant in a heavily black neighborhood. My house is essentially a fortress, but because of proper guidance and a focus on books I have achieved a lot. It is much more about nurture. What government can do is institute programs that instead of hand welfare over to people, reform the educational system and provide standards where people have a flat tax incentive to have their children achieve educational success (just an example, but you get the idea of having the standardized set of tests twice a year that lead to tax benefits, again just an example). The one thing that history has told us is that poor people will not stay poor forever. Cultures, societies always rise from the ashes of oppression and poverty and always do it through either revolution or generational improvements. Just ask every great American industrialist of the last two centuries that came from nothing. This country was built on these people and on changing ambition on a grand scale. Our governments job is to stay as much as possible out of it, but if they are able to foster improvement. As long as this country provides the opportunity to rise vertically you can only blame yourself for the life you have led.

I would recommend being careful of racial/cultural biases. A hundred years ago the bias was against the Irish and the Italians. Clearly those two groups are not any less intelligent than other groups in this culture. The idea that Polish people are not as intelligent, or that blacks are not as intelligent does not make a whole lot of sense. The only way that can have come about is through a natural selection process that seperated less intelligent mates, but for that to be evident scientifically it would take thousands of years to be displayed. Regardless there has been so much genetic mixing in the history of humanity that no one can say they are pure blood. I'm Bulgarian and I may be from two Bulgarian parents, but I know that I have at least a dozen other blood lines.

Now, what I'm curious about is characters like Eddie Willers. Many of you have said he is a slightly more average guy. He clearly was not concidered a love interest by Dagny because either he was not intelligent enough or maybe he wasn't confident enough etc. But if it is genetics that said that he wasn't brilliant enough to invent a new metal or create a brilliant symphonic composition, what does that say about his happiness. Does it have reproductive and thus genetic consequences? Most of the people in this forum are fairly intelligent ambitious (at one time or another) people, but are they concidered the leaders of the USA. Are the people who are our economic, political, social leaders more intelligent, have they worked harder? Do they have the pick of the opposite sex? The most intelligent man or woman as well as attractive and ambitious? Is it a formula of what one puts, one gets out? I'm going off on a bit of a tangent but it is a vital question that I must answer in my own life.

[KMS]

I have a question.

What if the evolution of human thinking left no fossil evidence as it occured in the soft tissue of the 4th lobe of the brain?

Medical science shows today the actions the frontal brain uses, emotion, language, non violence, compassion, art, beauty and abstract understanding coupled with an ability to grasp a metaphorical behind physical things are seated in this part of our brain.

This science is linked to philosphy, as it is centered in that area of our physical beings. What has been evolving is the ability to use our frontal brain lobe and all of the concepts it contains.

Can we see the physical chemical process in a fossil record? One can see the skull of humans changing in one major area, the forehead over time. Anthropology tracks this growth in the cultural habits of our ancestors. Rituals start to be preformed, cave paintings, music and oral histories. These needs seem only to occur in humans, and evidence is found within groups of humanoids with larger frontal skull cavities practicing these actions.

Does any of what this area contains help our immediate survival as a species? Compassion, take care of the weak, music, art, and humor? Why is this only in humans?

Abstract thought, concieving germs may exist even without a microscope to prove it? This thinking coupled with the ability to not only see what is not evident, but the skill to build a tool to prove it exists is built within us.

Metaphorical, the non literal. Aesop's Fables are not meant to be seen as an actual fox or a wolf talking, it is the understanding of the story and moral humans understand. Only humans seem able to understand there is something behind the physical world we live in.

Concepts of religion reside in this lobe of the brain as well, and science shows us when we do acts based in these teachings, our physical body benifits.

A lie detector will measure a negative effect on a physical body. Higher blood pressure, constriction of blood vessels, inflamation and stress. A good deed such as a random act of kindness makes us physically healthier. The blood flow increase, the body relaxes and mentally we feel better. This act also sparks something in others who witness it, they are twice as likely to preform a similar act for another.

This practice helps us out physically and is based in a system that is beyond survival instinct alone.

Thes acts define us as "human" above the "animal."

Evolution can show us the fossils of bones, not the chemically based systems inside them, when looking back there is a pattern in this intelligent thought that physically rewards humans for practicing it. Instincts only in us that seem to be opposite of mere survival, and are not found among any other creatures who rose alongside us.

KMS

Edited January 17, 2006 by KMS

[AisA]

Concepts of religion reside in this lobe of the brain as well, and science shows us when we do acts based in these teachings, our physical body benifits.

"Acts based in these teachings", i.e. acts based on religion, gave mankind at least 500 years of the dark ages, during which time people were beheaded, stoned to death, burned at the stake, drowned, drawn-and-quartered, skinned alive, dismembered and disemboweled -- all based on religion. More recently, acts based on religion have resulted in the horrific burning, crushing and exploding deaths of thousands of innocent people. Were you unaware of these facts?

[KMS]

The true kernels of such teachings are, Compassion, Empathy, Equality and Respect. That some persons believing their "birthright" was "God" given and using a teaching to commit horrible crimes is a misuse of such teachings. That religion was warped and terrible events happened in it's name I understand: however those acts violate the main four principles and while done in the name of religion, these teachings were used as a justification for power seeking and conquest, and not very nice.

These actions are not the basis of these teachings, and as such have wrought great suffering. These actions are the opposite of the beliefs religion is supposed to contain.

The fact that these positive actions do trigger chemical reactions and affect us on a physical level is accepted, and it is true whether done for religion reasons or just because we think it is good for our physical beings. With or without a religious motive behind the acts, the same thing occurs in the same physical way. It is how we physically respond when preforming an act based in non-survival thinking such as those in religion.

Music and art move us emotionally and we respond physically, sometimes to tears, this is way out of survival mode, and this occurs in humans alone.

How is it that our physical processes linked into this abstract understanding and started to produce physical benifits for such acts when preformed properly with the proper intent, and not for ones own gain.

KMS

Edited January 17, 2006 by KMS

[AisA]

KMS, do you know anything about Objectivism?

[jrs]

Jewish people don't have a significant advantage because of some gene the rest of us are missing. That is ridiculous.

.....

[The idea that some groups] are not as intelligent does not make a whole lot of sense. The only way that can have come about is through a natural selection process that separated less intelligent mates, but for that to be evident scientifically it would take thousands of years to be displayed. Regardless there has been so much genetic mixing in the history of humanity that no one can say they are pure blood.

Each person should be judged as an individual, not because of his membership in a race. However, it is wrong to say that races do not exist or that no important genetic differences exist between groups.

It is obvious to any rational person that groups differ in frequencies of genetically determined characteristics such as: skin color, eye color, hair color, curliness of hair, length of nose, thickness of lips, bone structure, etc.. There is no reason to think that this variation does not also affect genes which contribute to intelligence, creativity, aggressiveness, and other mental attributes.

Yes, there is substantial mixing of the races. But contrary to what most people think, natural selection operates very quickly. It does not take thousands of generations to make a significant change in the frequencies of genes, but only a few (sometimes only one). So different selective pressures can overwhelm the leveling effects of mixing.

[RationalBiker]

There is no reason to think that this variation does not also affect genes which contribute to intelligence, creativity, aggressiveness, and other mental attributes.

Isn't that sentence a double negative that should actually read "There is reason to think that this variation does affect genes which contribute..."?

[Hal]

However, it is wrong to say that races do not exist

Not really. Races, as traditionally conceived binary categories, do not exist. If you want to divide people into races based on genetic factors, then youre going to have to use fuzzy sets - theres no 'necessary and sufficient conditions' to be negroid or anything similar. People differ in many different ways - the decision to draw a boundary around some particular set of traits that exist on a continuum is fairly arbitrary. We could call people who have red hair and a shoe size greater than 10 a new race if we like, but there doesnt seem to be much point.

If we're going to start dividing people into groups, then it makes more sense to base these on shared culture and history rather than genetics.

It is obvious to any rational person that groups differ in frequencies of genetically determined characteristics such as: skin color, eye color, hair color, curliness of hair, length of nose, thickness of lips, bone structure, etc.. There is no reason to think that this variation does not also affect genes which contribute to intelligence, creativity, aggressiveness, and other mental attributes.

People different in lots of different ways. Why is there more reason to beleive people with black skin have different genetic mental ability than whites, than there is to believe that redheads are genetically smarter than blondes? Its obvious to any rational person that someone from Ireland with red hair, pale skin and freckles looks very different to someone from southern California, yet we dont classify them as being a different race. This is completely arbitrary. Our current racial classifications (ie the traits we view as being determining, such as skin colour) are based on contingent historical factors, not anything objective. Edited January 19, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Not really. Races, as traditionally conceived binary categories, do not exist. If you want to divide people into races based on genetic factors, then youre going to have to use fuzzy sets - theres no 'necessary and sufficient conditions' to be negroid or anything similar.

Does the same reasoning extend to blue, like would you say that blue doesn't exist? Do mountains exist? Or planets?

[Hal]

Does the same reasoning extend to blue, like would you say that blue doesn't exist? Do mountains exist? Or planets?

Well, of course all our categories have some degree of fuzziness about them. But the concept of race has traditionally supposed that race membership is binary (that you are either white/black/mixed/etc), and that terms like Caucasian/Negroid/etc somehow represent an objective way to break up humanity. I would say that our concept of 'race' is still somewhat tied to this viewpoint to the extent where it would be easier just to get rid of it altogether.

However, as long as we accept that our traditional racial classifications are just as arbitrary as the way we break up the colour spectrum*, I dont really have a problem with the notion (although I'm not if there are any pragmatic benefits attached to using our current racial scheme - I once heard that there were differences in responses to certain drugs, which could be useful). But my original point still stands; theres no obvious reason to think that genetic mental capacities are more likely to vary between whites and blacks than there is to think that they vary between Irish redheads and Californians.

* which I realise might not be _completely_ arbitrary (Berlin/Kay)

Edited January 20, 2006 by Hal

[AisA]

Well, of course all our categories have some degree of fuzziness about them.

All of our categories? What is "fuzzy" about the category, "male"?

Stated more generally, is it your position that the referents of all concepts are selected arbitrarily?

Edited January 20, 2006 by AisA

[DavidOdden]

But the concept of race has traditionally supposed that race membership is binary (that you are either white/black/mixed/etc), and that terms like Caucasian/Negroid/etc somehow represent an objective way to break up humanity.

Dude, read your own words: if you offer a 4-way distinction, you cannot publicly use the word "binary" and not get hassled. There are 5 traditional race categories, which states facts about humans (generally). The recognition of "mixed race" does correctly encode the fact that this is a continuum with certain major clusters and marginal cases.

Do pick an example that's better than color: neither race nor (visual) color are arbitrary. These are wholly valid recognitions of fact. Just because the neo-Dadaist postemodernological deconstructionarians shrilly decry the arbitrariness of race does not make it an arbitrary classification. Of course, those jokers are also the ones who reject arbitrary notions such as "good" and "evil", "living" and "dead", "true" and "false".

But my original point still stands; theres no obvious reason to think that genetic mental capacities are more likely to vary between whites and blacks than there is to think that they vary between Irish redheads and Californians.

You're half right and half-wrong (guess which half I urge you to abandon). By appealing to "obvious reason to think", it sounds to me like you're appealing to imagination, saying that if it turned out to be a fact, it would be a horrendous revelation that would ruin your epistemology. If we grant (as all rational modern men must) that the brain is the physical locus of the mind and that the structure of the brain is significantly influenced by ones genes (we have human brains, not fish brains), and given that skin color is also genetic, then it follows that both skin color and some brain-related fact are encoded in a chunk of DNA. So there is an imaginable physical basis for such a correlation. OTOH, there does not exist any evidence that this is actually so. Objectivist epistemology has something useful to say here: it teaches that arbitrary unsupported imagination is not a source of knowledge.

[Hal]

Dude, read your own words: if you offer a 4-way distinction, you cannot publicly use the word "binary"

and not get hassled. There are 5 traditional race categories, which states facts about humans (generally). The recognition of "mixed race" does correctly encode the fact that this is a continuum with certain major clusters and marginal cases.

Theyre binary categories in the sense that either youre in one, or youre not (ie membership is all or nothing). 'Mixed race' is a misleading term since it implies that everyone who isnt mixed race is 'fully' Caucasion/Negroid/whatever.

Do pick an example that's better than color: neither race nor (visual) color are arbitrary. These are wholly valid recognitions of fact.

It depends what you mean by 'recognition of fact'. The way in which we have broken up the racial and colour spectrums isnt based on any 'fact' that could make our way right and someone else's wrong - its just the way that we have come to do things. Its true that people with white skin look different from people with black skin, but this alone doesnt justify our racial categories; short people with black hair look different from tall people with blonde hair, yet we dont class them as being members of a different race. Our notion of race is primarilly (historically) based on skin colour, but theres no objective reason to prefer a categorisation based on skin colour over one based on eye colour or height.

Just because the neo-Dadaist postemodernological deconstructionarians shrilly decry the arbitrariness of race does not make it an arbitrary classification.

If its not arbitrary, then give a rational reason why Negroid has more objective validity as a racial category than Irish redhead.

All of our categories? What is "fuzzy" about the category, "male"?

Sorry, exaggeration. I should have said 'most'. Anyway, 'male' is probably a fuzzy category; see androgeny, hermaphrodites, Klinefelter's syndrome etc. We could choose to class these people as being 'male', 'female', or belonging to some third category - theres nothing forcing us to go one way or the other. I dont think theres any rigid biological definition of 'male' in the "necessary and sufficient" sense.

Outside of pure biology, it makes sense to say that one person is more masculine than another, even if we would call them both male. We also talk about manly women. This all seems to imply that our ordinary language category of 'male' is fuzzy.

Stated more generally, is it your position that the referents of all concepts are selected arbitrarily?

No, of course not. The way we divide up the race and colour spectrums are fairly arbitrary however - our classifications have arisen for historical reasons rather than through rational reflection. If another culture classified races in a different way from us, we couldnt say they are wrong for the same reason we couldnt say a culture which grouped blue and green together was wrong - theres no underlying fact of the matter here. This obviously doesnt extend to most of our concepts though.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Our notion of race is primarilly (historically) based on skin colour, but theres no objective reason to prefer a categorisation based on skin colour over one based on eye colour or height.

In fact it's actually historically based on skin color and skull measurement (and then other bones, but you know how people are always tweaking with theories). The validity of any categorization is based on a purpose, which was classically historico-ethnographic, and such physical facts are still used today with real scientific benefit (consider, for example, the shovel-shaped incisor). A categorization that includes skin color and eye color is better than one that includes only skin color or only eye color. Substituting height for either of the color categories would be worse, because it is extremely unreliable and only weakly correlated with history, but adding it (giving a three-property categorization) would be better. Although I would not say height is "useless", just that height isn't highly robust -- it's useful for intermediate-range historical reconstruction in the Lacustrine and northern Congo area of Africa.

If its not arbitrary, then give a rational reason why Negroid has more objective validity as a racial category than Irish redhead.

Hang on, are saying that arbitrariness and precision are the same thing? Like, if one category is more precise than another, then the less precise category is arbitrary? Let's sort that out and they we can address the problem of the black Irish.

[jrs]

... groups differ in frequencies of genetically determined characteristics ... There is no reason to think that this variation does not also affect genes which contribute to intelligence, creativity, aggressiveness, and other mental attributes.

Isn't that sentence a double negative that should actually read "There is reason to think that this variation does affect genes which contribute..."?

In proper English, a double negative is a positive. However, it may not mean the same thing as one would get by just dropping both negations. As in this case, the double negation is often weaker than a straight-forward positive.

I am not claiming to have specific evidence that the variations in intelligence (for example) are caused, even partially, by any genetic difference between whites and blacks. I am just saying that differences of that nature are to be expected on general principles. See the writings of Thomas Sowell.

People different in lots of different ways. Why is there more reason to believe people with black skin have different genetic mental ability than whites, than there is to believe that redheads are genetically smarter than blonds?

There probably is a difference in the average intelligence of redheads and blonds; although I would not venture a guess as to which is more intelligent. However, because blonds and redheads are probably more related to each other on the average than blacks are to whites, the difference is probably less in the former case.

Also, the same gene sometimes affects more than one visible attribute. So attributes which appear to be unrelated can be highly correlated.

But my original point still stands; theres no obvious reason to think that genetic mental capacities are more likely to vary between whites and blacks than there is to think that they vary between Irish redheads and Californians.

But they probably DO vary between Irish redheads and Californians.

[AisA]

Sorry, exaggeration. I should have said 'most'. Anyway, 'male' is probably a fuzzy category; see androgeny, hermaphrodites, Klinefelter's syndrome etc. We could choose to class these people as being 'male', 'female', or belonging to some third category - theres nothing forcing us to go one way or the other. I dont think theres any rigid biological definition of 'male' in the "necessary and sufficient" sense.

If we are talking about concepts there is definitely something "forcing us to go one way or the other": the need for clarity in cognition. Including the "androgynous" (which means "neither specifically male or female" or "possessing both male and female characteristics") among the referents of the concept "male" would render the concept meaningless; it would no longer refer to something specific. This is why we have we have the concepts "male", "female", "androgynous" and "hermaphrodite"; they refer to four different types of entities.

I suggest you read pages 69 - 74 of ITOE for a discussion of why certain concepts should not be combined or integrated.

Outside of pure biology, it makes sense to say that one person is more masculine than another, even if we would call them both male. We also talk about manly women. This all seems to imply that our ordinary language category of 'male' is fuzzy.

"Masculine", "male" and "manly" are three different concepts referring to three different characteristics. Through the observation of similarities and differences, our mind permits us to abstract and identify different characteristics; the process of measurement-omission permits us to integrate our observations into a single unit; we concretize this unit by assigning a word to represent it. Nothing about this process implies "fuzziness".

[Hal]

The validity of any categorization is based on a purpose, which was classically historico-ethnographic

I dont think this is true; I was under the impression that science just picked up the ordinary language classifications (white/black/asian) and made a few minor modifications to them. I'm not entirely sure though, because its not something I've read much about.

As you say, the validity of classification schemes are based on the purpose they serve. But I dont think that racial classifications have any real benefits, and I doubt that they ever have. Their negative effects have been significant though.

Hang on, are saying that arbitrariness and precision are the same thing?

I'm not sure what you mean here - I didnt say anything about precision... Edited January 21, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

I was under the impression that science just picked up the ordinary language classifications (white/black/asian) and made a few minor modifications to them. I'm not entirely sure though, because its not something I've read much about.

No, it was a development of physical anthropology as part of the study of man throughout the world, and the origins of man. In English, the traditional classifications are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, American, and Malay -- if you want to go for an early scientific work, Blumenbach's MD was on the races of man (I think it was written in Latin -- I haven't seen it). At any rate, he was approaching the matter as an anthropologist and physiologist, and undertook extensive empirical research of human skulls.

But I dont think that racial classifications have any real benefits, and I doubt that they ever have. Their negative effects have been significant though.

You're objecting to social consequences; I'm talking about scientific benefits (although, relatively little contemporary benefit since the historical issues are vastly clearer that they were in the mid 18th century). Racial distinctions arose because there were separate pockets of man who evolved without significant interaction, which resulted in inheritable differences (eye and skin, tooth shape, various fat deposits on the face, bone structure). This evidence is useful in understanding human history and human migrations, because unlike language, they do not change dramatically within a generation. Scientifically, it's a pretty blunt tool, but back in the day, they hadn't perfected mitochondrial DNA studies (inter alios).

Of course if you're saying that historical knowledge is of no value to you, I can't argue with that point.

I'm not sure what you mean here - I didnt say anything about precision...

You did: you raised the point that race is not a precise, crisp category because there are intermediate cases.

[Hal]

I'm going to read up on the history of the concept over the next few days, I'll reply later on.