# Race Doesn't Exactly Exist



## Coffeh (Jan 30, 2018)

Thinking better, race is a ever-changing phenomenon, thus it's impossible to create consistent criteria for it's conception.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> Research the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Raising black children in an upper-middle class white environment did raise their IQs a few points above the black mean of 85, and again no one disputes that IQ is partially environment-dependent, but it didn't achieve parity. That leaves genetics as the other part of the equation, by process of elimination.


That archaic study had no controls and has been debunked.

J. Intell. | Free Full-Text | Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?



> *Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?*
> 
> 
> *Abstract*
> ...


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Stop being so incredibly intellectually disingenuous. Obviously if this is your only response to my statement you are grasping at straws.


And then in the next quote:



> (aka 'debunked,' which is not some 'scientific standard' but simply a word that I am using) based on the fact that the results were inconclusive. You don't have to trust me. Go look it up for yourself. The authors of the study have said that the data was inconclusive.


So the girl whose avatar is a character with a tattoo and hair dyed an unnatural color is moving the goalposts from "thoroughly debunked" to "inconclusive" and then calling _me_ the disingenuous one. Sure thing. From Dictionary.com: Inconclusive means "not resolving fully all doubts or questions." The MTSA is one experiment and one experiment alone should not be expected to answer all of our questions beyond a doubt. Scientific research is meant to function like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, where multiple different-yet-complementary pieces of research converge to form a greater picture of the overall truth. Inconclusive doesn't mean inaccurate. To debunk the MTAS would be to do something like producing evidence showing that Scarr and Weinberg inaccurately assessed the children's IQ scores. If you can indeed post evidence like that, I'd be willing to decrease my faith in the MTAS. 

Adding another puzzle piece, in 2008 the Journal Of Blacks In Higher Education reported that "black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored lower on the SAT test than did students from white families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000." It'll be interesting to see the mental acrobatics the race denialists will perform to be able to chalk this one up to environmental disadvantages. 



> 40 posts in and not one person has produced a credible piece of evidence to back up their assertion that race and intelligence have a correlation.


Let's test something. What specific sort of evidence would persuade you, Conscience Killer, that racial differences in intelligence indeed have a genetic origin? And know that, if you respond with: "I don't know", then you're demonstrating that I have more integrity on this issue because I just listed an example of how my belief could be weakened.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Monadnock said:


> And then in the next quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Snort. This whole post is a joke. You realize that you basically said, _oh, no one trust Conscience Killer, because her avatar has tattoos_. R U Jokin bud? Take your ad hominem outta here. Better yet, read the post literally above yours, because @Duo had a hell of a lot more patience with you me. What _kind_ of evidence? What kind of question is that? The kind of evidence that is _scientific_. You presented a piece of evidence for your conclusion that is from 1976 and that _the authors themselves_ stated could not be used scientifically. When I explained to you that this is not sufficient, your rebuttal is, _well that's just one experiment_. Can you even hear yourself when you talk?


----------



## Ranger (Feb 25, 2017)

Duo said:


> That archaic study had no controls and has been debunked.
> 
> J. Intell. | Free Full-Text | Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?


The guy question question himself quite abit by the lack of data. Have just went through it briefly.


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

Conscience Killer said:


> Snort. This whole post is a joke. You realize that you basically said, _oh, no one trust Conscience Killer, because her avatar has tattoos_. R U Jokin bud?


What I said is no more unintelligent than your remark of "No one trust Monadnock because he's citing a scientific study from 1976!!!" as if there were something particularly untrustworthy about the year 1976 that everyone but me is aware of. :laughing: In any case, people don't chose their avatars arbitrarily. They choose them because they like them, or identify with them, or want to be seen as similar to them. 



> @Duo had a hell of a lot more patience with you me.


I read the article that Duo posted. It seems to be besides the point. The children from the MTAS, who were raised in high-quality white upper-middle class homes, some of whom were black, some of whom were white and some of whom were black-white mixed, had their IQs tested when they were 17. The Black average was 89, the White average was 106, the mixed average was 98. If there is no genetic aspect to why races get different scores on IQ tests, the black children would've achieved a score of parity with the whites. All three races reaped the benefit of a good environment but the gap did not lessen. 



> What _kind_ of evidence? What kind of question is that? The kind of evidence that is _scientific_.


Saying "scientific" isn't specific enough. What sort of specific scientific evidence? If genes associated with intelligence and higher rates of brain growth were discovered, and these genes appeared in whites more frequently than blacks, and in asians more frequently than in whites, would that persuade you? Or to ask another way, are genetically-rooted racial differences in intelligence even _possibly_ true in your opinion?

I'm wholly unsurprised, BTW, that your post contains no acknowledgment whatsoever of the rich black-poor white SAT scores research I provided. 



> You presented a piece of evidence for your conclusion that _the authors themselves_ stated could not be used scientifically.


Citation needed. You keep mentioning this, and I don't know where you want me to look for it, so I'm requesting you cite it in this thread.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Monadnock said:


> What I said is no more unintelligent than your remark of "No one trust Monadnock because he's citing a scientific study from 1976!!!" as if there were something particularly untrustworthy about the year 1976 that everyone but me is aware of. :laughing: In any case, people don't chose their avatars arbitrarily. They choose them because they like them, or identify with them, or want to be seen as similar to them.


 You deliberately left off the _last_ part of my statement in an attempt to misrepresent me to people. Again. I _actually_ said:



> You presented a piece of evidence for your conclusion that is from 1976 and that the authors themselves stated could not be used scientifically.


 Why I chose my avatar has absolutely nothing to do with my credibility as a person. I actually happen to _look_ like Chloe Price from _Life is Strange_, the videogame, which is why I selected it as my avatar. Ergo, this suffices as an ad hominem attack and it is a recognized logical fallacy. 

Not only that, but whether or not my _avatar has tattoos_ is not relevant to this argument. Whether or not _your source data is over 40 years old_ is relevant to this argument.



> I read the article that Duo posted. It seems to be besides the point.


 It's not beside the point. It is the point. The study is worthless because it has been credibly debunked, _by the scientists themselves_, on the basis of inconclusive data.



> Saying "scientific" isn't specific enough. What sort of specific scientific evidence?


 Peer-reviewed studies conducted by reputable scientists which _haven't been debunked by more qualified professionals_. 



> Citation needed. You keep mentioning this, and I don't know where you want me to look for it, so I'm requesting you cite it in this thread.


 I keep mentioning that you presented Minnesota study we're discussing in the first place? What, you want me to provide you with _proof you said this?_ Yeah, OK then. I ain't your Google index. Re-read the thread like a normal person. Or don't, since apparently you don't know how to read, as evidenced by your repeated inability to correctly cite _my words_.

Barring that @Duo actually quoted your exact post.

Last but not least: 



> I'm wholly unsurprised, BTW, that your post contains no acknowledgment whatsoever of the rich black-poor white SAT scores research I provided.


 Really? You're unsurprised? Well, let me surprise it for you. The 'research' you provided lists absolutely no authors, names, nor links to any medical or scientific journals to examine at all. So where is this 'study' exactly? All I see is that you've found it on a website that produces unverified material on the intelligence-race correlation.


----------



## fkDIVERSITY (Feb 28, 2017)

speaking about avatars. I can't find any directions for adding a picture. Didn't have a problem 8 years ago the last time I was a member of PC. [Lot's more pc here in PC]. Can anyone point me in the right direction?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Yeah mate go here and scroll down until you see Avatar Settings.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Conscience Killer said:


> Right, but who is saying anyone is genetically predisposed to be _smarter or stupider_ than someone else? Humans are not dogs. The human brain is infinitely more complex, and there are zero scientific studies that show human race is linked to human intelligence.


Hopefully if they advance genetic engineering and altering technology which can change all sorts of traits in people it will make 'race' meaningless. It would be good if they could turn 'race' into just a collection of qualities or traits that people can buy with money. Technology is advancing to a point where people can one day be able to choose physical traits like they choose clothes, its also inevitable especially with consumer demand.

I see the people here who deny being Nazis when their entire belief system matches or fits every single thing they believed.

"I am not a Nazi but I just believe in all (Insert Nazi belief systems) so I am not a Nazi". 

This is why I said before that I feel all Social-Darwinists and Fascists have to be locked up before they start to cause persecution(Or worse) against people based on how they are. Its like people who are planning a shooting or terrorist attack but haven't done it yet. 

Even if you do have 'arguments' it won't do much well against a large group of people who are 'convinced' and won't change if by that time the numbers exist.


----------



## Dragunov (Oct 2, 2013)

Reign of Order said:


> Hopefully if they advance genetic engineering and altering technology which can change all sorts of traits in people it will make 'race' meaningless. It would be good if they could turn 'race' into just a collection of qualities or traits that people can buy with money. Technology is advancing to a point where people can one day be able to choose physical traits like they choose clothes, its also inevitable especially with consumer demand.
> 
> I see the people here who deny being Nazis when their entire belief system matches or fits every single thing they believed.
> 
> ...


God damn, the irony.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Dragunov said:


> God damn, the irony.


Class oppression or treatment based on such is a lesser evil compared to race?

It’s the same case if you were to choose an expanding cosmopolitan empire with a ruler that has lots of power over a racist or prejudiced society.

Eventually rulers of said society would have to appease their population by making the luxuries they have access to affordable sooner or later on.

If ‘race’ is converted or turned into a commodity it would be for the better in this case.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Monadnock said:


> The opposite is true. Race denialists often have deeply-lodged inferiority complexes, and thus form a natural kinship with any group that sees itself as oppressed, victimized and defeated. The loser mentality, essentially. The idea of a world where some people have inherently superior ability is something they find psychologically triggering, hence they go into denial mode or attack mode when someone points out that there's a genetic aspect to intelligence and that some races are more likely than others to receive that endowment.


It is true that people who have inferiority complexes will feel natural kinship with anybody seen as inferior. Basically, I agree with the stuff about Leftism from the Unabomber's manifesto. But what about people who have strong self-esteem? They are proud of themselves _as individuals_, not of a collective of their ancestors. If I met a guy who boasts: we Germans did this and that, I would ask him: what did _you_ accomplish?

It's a fact many differences between humans are genetic in origin. It's also a fact that some ethnic groups are better at some activities because of biological differences. Blacks run fasters, while whites are better swimmers. But the concept of race is not really useful (apart from describing someone's appearance) because there are more genetic differences between individuals within the conventionally defined races than differences that define the races. So, I maintain it's unlikely that your skin colour determines your capacity to excel at intellectual or artistic activities. Even if it's true statistically, a black professor and a white moron still are who they are.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Race [differences] within humans doesn't exist, ethnicity does.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

Color is a social construct. Some people are color blind, and so the sky is not blue to them. Saying so will hurt their feelings and we don't want to hurt their feelings. We must conform to this and everyone who disagrees will be reeducated.


----------



## Ranger (Feb 25, 2017)

Reign of Order said:


> I see the people here who deny being Nazis when their entire belief system matches or fits every single thing they believed.
> 
> "I am not a Nazi but I just believe in all (Insert Nazi belief systems) so I am not a Nazi".


That's quite a statement man, whom are you referring to and by what? And we also has to establish this, wtf is a nazi?


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

dulcinea said:


> Scientists studied the entire genome and could not find any genetic difference among people of different races. There is no gene that tells you if you're black, white, asian, etc. Here is an article that outlines that, actually.


I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'race' but there are definitely gene clusters which can be used to identify and partition different human sub-populations.

There's a technique called Principal Component Analysis that's commonly used to visualize genetic distance between human sub-populations.

You can tell a cluster analysis algorithm to look at this picture:









and tell it to identify the seven principal components and it'll spit out: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

You can apply those same kinds of cluster analysis algorithms to the sum total of human genetic information and it'll divide humans into groups which more or less line up with a naive and unscientific identification of the races. European, African, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc...










Where you draw the line to partition the sub-populations is up to you. You could take the sum total of human genetic information and feed it into a computer and divide humans into three categories, or twenty categories, or 500 categories. Ultimately human sub-populations are divisible down to the level of the individual so you could in some sense say each individual constitutes the sole member of a unique race.

This kind of genetic testing and ability to identify genetic distances between races is extremely important for bone marrow transplants and cord blood donation. Almost all successful bone marrow transplants occur when donor and recipient are of the same race. It's almost impossible for mixed race people to find a genetic match.

TIME - Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue



dulcinea said:


> However, it doesn't take into account causality, and the cultural differences that would lead to disparities in IQ.


I think only someone ignorant of the data could suggest that culture has no bearing at all on IQ but I think one would have to be equally ignorant of the data to suggest that there's not a significant genetic component to intelligence.

Check out this recent study from an MIT behavioral geneticist who was in the news recently for suggesting that DNA tests for testing the intelligence of children are just around the corner:

"Until 2017, genome-wide polygenic scores derived from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of intelligence were able to predict only 1% of the variance in intelligence in independent samples."

"Intelligence is highly heritable and predicts important educational, occupational and health outcomes better than any other trait. *Recent genome-wide association studies have successfully identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence*. "
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104

"As a result, bigger and better family studies, *twin studies and adoption studies have amassed a mountain of evidence that consistently showed substantial genetic influence on individual differences in intelligence*."




dulcinea said:


> Black people don't commit more crimes due to a genetic predisposition; they commit more crimes due to culture.


I agree that culture is hugely influential and it's difficult to overestimate just how much power culture has to shape a person but it may be the case that culture alone is not sufficient to fully negate genetic predispositions for certain behaviors:

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors.

"Analyses revealed that *African-American males who carry the 2-repeat allele are significantly more likely than all other genotypes to engage in shooting and stabbing behaviors* and to report having multiple shooting and stabbing victims."


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Visualization might would work better then words here:
Imagine each genetic marker on an individual as a node, connect it across generations and individuals and you have a tree, overlay another tree in another color for another genetic marker, repeat the process and zoom out to see multiple populations. You aren't going to see the straight up evolutionary branch offs with perfect borders race-puritans would like to think we are, nor would you see a the single indivisible cloud race-denialists would like to think we are. You will see clusters, with fuzzy borders and outliers in between, and clusters within clusters with even fuzzier borders and more outliers in between, and so on. Those clusters aren't pure or rigid, but in th same time they do exist. Race, ethnicity or whatever word you'd rather use, is how we identify those clusters.

Here's a question I am curious about:

For "race-realists"/race-puritans, if it is proven that there are genes related to things like intelligence, health, fitness and so on, and your genes are not at the top of that food chain, would you be willing to undergo genetic treatment - for yourself or for your children - to give them a chance beyond the limitations of your race? Would you give your children Kenyan-Kalenjin genes for athleticism and ashkenazi Jew genes for intelligence? What if a couple of african or asian genes can make your children immune to diseases that predominantly affect people of european descent, wouldn't you want those for your children?

For "anti-racists"/race-denialists, given the chance to enable those who didn't have the best luck in their genetic lottery, quite possibly due to genetic tendencies that are more common in their race or less common compared to other races, and scientific progress provides the tools to change that for themselves and/or their future children, would you discourage them from doing so? Would you condemn such scientific research as racist and immoral if it turns out that it is the very tool with which you can provide equality? 

A friend of mine by the name of Crispr wants to know.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Haba Aba Daba Aba said:


> I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'race' but there are definitely gene clusters which can be used to identify and partition different human sub-populations.
> 
> There's a technique called Principal Component Analysis that's commonly used to visualize genetic distance between human sub-populations.
> 
> ...


Interesting information. I know some genetic predispositions have been linked to race, such as sickle cell anemia is much more common among blacks than any other race. I remember it was linked to a specific reason, but I forgot what it was. I imagine the necessity for same race with organ transplants, might have something to do with it being more likely that there's a common ancestry closer to the present. It seems like the closer a doner is genetically to a recipient, the better. I'm wondering, now, how that would work with a mixed race organ doner? 

I know that there are genetic things associated with race, but I think too, one reason could be that people often choose mates that are the same race, and thus, if someone had been a carrier of a particular gene, like the aforementioned sickle cell, if the descendants continually choose partners within the same race, the trait stays within that race, so what you are saying, definitely makes sense. 

As far as IQ and race goes. I know IQ is genetic, and I do believe there is some validity to the bell curve that different races have different IQs. However, I see it as something as very fluid, that has potential for change, even within a generation, but, more likely, over several generations, with enough societal change.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Tropes said:


> Visualization might would work better then words here:
> Imagine each genetic marker on an individual as a node, connect it across generations and individuals and you have a tree, overlay another tree in another color for another genetic marker, repeat the process and zoom out to see multiple populations. You aren't going to see the straight up evolutionary branch offs with perfect borders race-puritans would like to think we are, nor would you see a the single indivisible cloud race-denialists would like to think we are. You will see clusters, with fuzzy borders and outliers in between, and clusters within clusters with even fuzzier borders and more outliers in between, and so on. Those clusters aren't pure or rigid, but in th same time they do exist. Race, ethnicity or whatever word you'd rather use, is how we identify those clusters.
> 
> Here's a question I am curious about:
> ...


 I suppose I would be more in the middle of the two, but lcoser to race denier. I believe different races come with some genetic predisposition, but that's not necessarily ste in stone. I think humans are adaptable, and the varying traits of the different races and ethnicities, are just a product of humans adapting to a variety of things, in the past.


----------

