R.K. Moore wrote:
<<<There ARE racial differences. The most important proviso to these
differences - a proviso that needs to be understood widely - is that the
WIDTH of the various by-race bell curves (IQ-ability, running ability,
musical ability, basketball ability, whatever) is very broad: individual
differences are greater than racial differences. One race's bell curve
(for a given metric, and after adjusting for environmental advantage) may
be off-center from another's, but the two mostly overlap. A given person,
regardless of race, may be the best or worst person for a given job, to
have as a neighbor, etc. >>>>
Putting aside the question of whether IQ tests measure anything innate,
and putting aside whether there are any measurable manifestations of
whatever part of intellectual ability one might think is heritable, there
is yet a third part of the "racial intelligence" argument with a hole in it
wide enough to drive a truck through.
How does anyone quantify "race?" Are black Africans closer biologically
to Swedes than they are to Australian aboriginies? (yes). Are Arabs closer
to black Africans biologically than Sicilians? (who knows, who cares?) The
studies don't quantify race because they can't. There are thousands of
genes which affect our biological make-up. The racialists pick and choose
which genes they perfer to focus on, usually related to skin tone, and
ignore other ones. The "overlap" argument is an intellectually poor way to
diffuse the argument by saying that "there are some whites who are so
stupid that they are even more stupid than some blacks." Does ability to
digest lactose (a heritable trait) affect IQ test scores? It can if you
have severe stomach cramps the night before you take the test. Does
worrying if your family has enough money to meet this month's bills, or
hoping that you can get into an Ivy League college, or thinking about a
relative who is in jail, or having poor eyesight or hearing affect IQ test
scores? What are the races? Provide a list of which genes make up the basis
for classifying the people of the world into races, and give evidence that
those genes are linked to intellectual performance. Or is it just
so-called "common sense" pretending to be science?
There is another argument that can be used in slippery ways. It says
that scientists should always say "Maybe" and therefore should say "Maybe"
to the question of so-called racial differences. But there are two
definitions of "Maybe." The first definition is akin to saying: "Maybe
Elvis is alive, maybe Prince Charles and Mother Theresa are the same
person, maybe people with a lot of hair on their heads are smarter than
bald people because it takes a fertile mind to grow hair, maybe we are all
dreaming, etc." That is the "maybe" that means, "Well, anything is
possible." A second definition of "Maybe" is to say that there is a
pretty good possibility, perhaps 50%, or 25% or .05 or .01, etc. etc.
The problem is when someone wants you to agree with the second definition
of "Maybe" so they try to get you to concede the first definition of
"Maybe" and then slide the argument over. "MAYBE there are racial
differences, MAYBE it will snow in London in August, MAYBE ANYTHING CAN
HAPPEN--a true scientist should never rule anything out." So then you say,
"Well, okay, MAYBE ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN by that definition."
"All right then," says the other person, "so you agree that maybe black
people are less intelligent than white people."
BASKETBALL ABILITY? RUNNING ABILITY? Which black people? The ones you
see playing basketball? They don't recruit the bad basketball players from
Africa to come to the United States to play, so if you are judging it based
on what you see, the sample is very biased. How come Irish, Italians,
and Jews were a disproportionate percentage of baseball players in the
1940's but not today? Did they suffer a genetic decline? And did you
ever notice how few excellent cricket players are Mexican? Could it be
biological???? The whole discussion is ridiculous, and very
anti-scientific. The proper term is pseudo-scientific, trying to bask in
the limelight of some of the brilliant discoveries made in biology in the
past few decades, and use that prestige to say to people:
"Look at what a powerful science biology is. How can you say that
biology does not affect intelligence? And since there are visible
biological characteristics associated with what we call race, then
obviously a true scientist would have to admit to racial differences in
intelligence."
I don't mean to make any statements about the character of anyone who
might believe this, but this is a racist argument, based not on biology,
but on folklore.
Alan Spector
================