Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
(Post 1538769)
This definitely requires citation - it violates any sort of transitive quality, which may or may not exist but certainly makes the claim beyond counterintuitive.
|
Essentially humans are too young evolutionarily and have mixed too much to make race meaningful as a biological construct. Skin color or eye shape are very tiny variables within a much broader diversity of genes. Would you assume that a black man from South Africa, a black man from Northern Africa, an indigenous Australian and an African-American are necessarily more similar than four people of different races from the same geographic area? Had Europe and Africa branched off many millions of years before they did, and then stayed separated due to continental shift or some other reason, we
might have two different human subspecies today.
It's quite possible I may have explained it wrong but I'll try to do this anyhow. Essentially 85% of genetic variation occurs within a population, whether that is Japanese people, British, whatever. This number has been very consistent over the years. About 6-9 percent is between different groups within the same race. Japanese and Chinese, British and French. The rest is between populations.
And for the record, I'm not saying race isn't a real social construct. But it's one that can be traced to our desire to classify people like we did with animals, atoms, plants, etc. during the scientific revolution. Race isn't completely useless as a way to distinguish people, it's just not genetically accurate.
I pulled these sources out of Wiki articles on race because the articles themselves are huge and provide more than anyone here probably wants to read. However they do contain some of the actual data to back up the other articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
See particularly the footnotes for these and other articles. The most interesting were pdfs but I can't link them because I'm on a Mac at the moment and I can't figure out how to capture the link.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/ Lewontin is big in this area.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Goodman/
Quote:
You don't have data because both the positive and negative forms of this type of study are grossly bad science. It should be easier to confirm racial bias than deny it, but conclusive studies of control groups get bogged down in politics - for instance, the easiest way to show "cultural" bias would be to take middle-class groups from the same neighborhood across multiple cultures and test them, normalize, test again. The definition of "cultural" makes this subjective, therefore trash. However, it is a plausible explanation why minorities underperform on standardized tests - inherently, it is nearly impossible to prove this concept. There are other plausible explanations that are just as impossible to prove. That's why it's a crappy point to put into argument.
|
I know it's bad science. But the fact is that there are IQ tests and that historically minorities do not perform as well on them as the majority does. There is data out there that backs that up even though I do not have it. I wasn't talking about data that discusses WHY this is the case.
The one way to do it would be to take X number of kids of different races and raise them in a completely neutral, closed, environment. That will never ever happen.
