The problem with discussing racial differences is that when people say “black”, they’re already making inherent assumptions about genetics. “Black” incorporates an incredible amount of genetic diversity, far more than the label “white”. The common error in these debates is that an awful lot of the population will see the label “black” and fail to distinguish between all people labelled as such. People distinguish between, say, east Asians and south-east Asians and Indians, but they say “black” as if all of Africa are the same.
Look at the performance at the Olympics running races. Would you note the fact that “100m winners are always black”? Would you be willing to make the statement that “black people are naturally better sprinters”? How about distance runners? As it turns out, the good sprinters are usually Jamaican or African-American, with little success from Africa itself. The good distance runners almost entirely come from the Nandi area of Kenya—hardly representative of Africa as a whole. Plenty of areas of Africa have fewer good runners, and probably lots of areas have just the same proportion as European countries.
I’d venture to say that there might be black ethnicities which are on average less intelligent, or have behavioural differences - after all, there are black ethnicities that average around 4ft tall. But will that difference makes any meaningful average when you’re talking about “black” people? There are for more genetic variations within racial groups than between them, if you’re willing to count “black” as a racial group. I personally don’t like generalising in such a non-meaningful way. Compare to people of a specific ancestral origin, if you must compare. Comparing with the average of every ethnicity in Africa, without concern for your sampling bias giving you an inaccurate average (by using statements like “blacks are...” or “blacks have...”), does seem a bit, well, racist.
The problem with discussing racial differences is that when people say “black”, they’re already making inherent assumptions about genetics. “Black” incorporates an incredible amount of genetic diversity, far more than the label “white”.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a problem. For example, if I observed that generally speaking, the South is warmer than Minnesota, I would be correct even though the South incorporates a lot more geographic diversity than Minnesota.
People distinguish between, say, east Asians and south-east Asians and Indians, but they say “black” as if all of Africa are the same.
For purposes of this discussion, it’s a reasonable category. If there were a large subgroup of blacks which was highly intelligent, then it might be appropriate to use different categories.
Would you note the fact that “100m winners are always black”?
Generally speaking, yes.
Would you be willing to make the statement that “black people are naturally better sprinters”?
Probably not, since sprinting ability seems concentrated in a subgroup of blacks. (Relatively) low intelligence does not seem to be this way.
Perhaps more importantly, either way you look at it, it doesn’t change the fact that genetics is partly responsible for the black/white sprinting gap.
But will that difference makes any meaningful average when you’re talking about “black” people?
I would say “yes” in the same way that the South is generally warmer than Minnesota. Put another way, I’m not aware of any subgroup of blacks which stands out in terms of intelligence. But even if there were, it would not change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and genetics is responsible for a lot of it.
There are for more genetic variations within racial groups than between them,
It means that there are few contexts where you might ask me “are blacks less intelligent than whites on average” without me saying anything more than “insufficient data: error bars too big”.
And any scientist who researches the issue (or indeed anyone taken seriously who discusses the issue) and uses the term “black people” without considering whether or not they really mean “all black people” or even “a representative average of all black people” are being very misleading if they report it using that wording, considering the biases of the general public.
It means that there are few contexts where you might ask me “are blacks less intelligent than whites on average” without me saying anything more than “insufficient data: error bars too big”.
I’m not sure I understand this. Are you denying that there is a statistically significant difference in intelligence (as measured by IQ) between blacks and whites?
considering the biases of the general public.
So you are saying that special rules need to apply when discussing race and intelligence?
Are you denying that there is a statistically significant difference in intelligence (as measured by IQ) between blacks and whites?
I think the point is, such a statement is not useful, considering the huge number of different groups that can be classed as “black” and “white.”
So you are saying that special rules need to apply when discussing race and intelligence?
Well when reporting findings, its important to do so in a way which conveys the meaning correctly to the intended audience. And Sarokae did originally say
are being very misleading if they report it using that wording, considering the biases of the general public.
I think the point is, such a statement is not useful, considering the huge number of different groups that can be classed as “black” and “white.”
Does this principle apply just to statements concerning intelligence? Or does it apply to any perceived racial difference which may be due to genetics, in part or in whole?
Also, does it apply only to human racial groups? Or does the same thing apply to all biological groupings?
Well when reporting findings, its important to do so in a way which conveys the meaning correctly to the intended audience
Perhaps, but I think that when discussing things on this discussion board, the statement “Group X is more Y than Group Z” can be reasonably understood to mean that if you measure quality Y, then in general and on average, members of Group X have a higher measurement for Y than members of Group Z. Further, it doesn’t imply that every last member of each group has been measured.
I reckon the principle applies in general—there’s too much diversity within the classification “black” for it to be particularly useful, I reckon. Perhaps if it was geographically specific, it might be more useful.
It applies to all biological groupings that are sufficientlybroad.
I reckon the principle applies in general—there’s too much diversity within the classification “black” for it to be particularly useful, I reckon. Perhaps if it was geographically specific, it might be more useful.
So the same reasoning would apply to the categories commonly referred to as “worms,” “birds,” “penguins,” “bears,” “elephants,” “baboons,” “chimpanzees,” “rats,” and “mice,” Agreed?
I see your point but I’m not sure I agree. Perhaps I’m just reluctant to think in those terms, but I don’t think that’s it. I’m not thinking of this in terms of PC, just in terms of usefulness.
I’m having trouble thinking up an analogy to explain my point; I’ll think about it and see if I can. If not, guess I need to start over.
EDIT: Actually, if we replace “intelligence” with a less loaded or emotive quality, say “height”, I think I’d still be inclined not to consider it useful. But as I say, I’ll have a think about this.
Just to add a note here: using the “height” example, suppose I told you that research has shown black people were on average shorter than white people. Then, it turns out, that my sample of “blacks” was from the area with the pigmy ethnicities, and if I excluded those from my definition of “blacks” then they were on average taller than white people. This is an extreme example, but here the statement “the mean height of black people is less than the mean height of white people” might be TRUE, but it won’t be USEFUL.
This is because your sample of black people contains within it many separate distributions for the same attribute, and simply taking their mean is not helpful. I’m merely saying that in an unhomogeneous group, averages are more likely to be misleading.
Sure, a set of equal numbers of mice and elephants are on average bigger than a set of guinea pigs, but that’s not a useful statement. And a generalisation from that particular sample to “short-haired animals are bigger than long-haired animals” would be outrightly unjustifiable from your data.
His point isn’t actually very good—“worms” isn’t a single category about which you could make many meaningful statements on average either (well, you try coming up with many non-vague true statements that universally apply to platyhelminths, polychaetes, annelids, nematodes...).
Linneaus coined the taxon vermes to hold any non-arthropod invertebrate. Later, cladistics came along and demolished the idea that it was ever a useful biological group.
Whereas “elephants” consists of just a handful of living species in two genera, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they have a lot in common—and even then, if you over-presume on those similarities when making theories, you’ll wind up wrong because you didn’t realize the ways in which they can differ.
worms” isn’t a single category about which you could make many meaningful statements on average
I don’t see what difference this makes. If someone were to observe that “elephants” are generally speaking larger than “worms,” the fact that the two categories are extremely diverse would not preclude you from reasonably asking whether the difference was due to genetics.
The statement that “blacks” have lower IQs than “whites” is both meaningful and true.
I do not think you understand biology (either in the context of the race/IQ discussion or in general) well enough for it to be worth arguing with you further.
I disagree. What I’m doing is to take the exact criticisms made of categories like “blacks” and “whites” and applying them to other biological categories in order to show that there’s a double standard at work.
You’re missing the fact that people are arguing “but the groups are heterogeneous” when they mean “but the different means might be within a standard deviation of each other because single groups have a spread much wider than the difference between them”. That would apply when trying to ascertain whether, say, worms are larger than insects, but NOT when trying to ascertain whether worms are larger than elephants, because the difference between the largest and smallest worms is probably a lot bigger than the difference between the average size of a worm and the average size of an insect. On the other hand, the average size of an elephant is greater than the average size of a worm (any worm) by way more than the biggest worm is bigger than the smallest worm.
Suppose I got together all the worms and all the insects and measured their volume, and found the mean size of a worm and the mean size of an insect. And suppose (I have no idea what the truth is here, but it seems about as plausible as anything else) that I found that on average worms are smaller than insects. Would that be meaningful? I don’t think it would be useful to know.
How big an IQ gap are you saying exists? Are we talking as much as a standard deviation? Then maybe it would be important (if true). But if so, genetics isn’t the only possible explanation. I’d expect upbringing and class to be very important, as well as quality of public schools where they live, perhaps so much so that a genetic difference, if any, could be completely overwhelmed.
but the different means might be within a standard deviation of each other because single groups have a spread much wider than the difference between them
I don’t recall anyone arguing that in this thread, but this argument—to the extent it makes any sense at all—lacks merit.
Let’s take your analogy.
Suppose I got together all the worms and all the insects and measured their volume, and found the mean size of a worm and the mean size of an insect. And suppose (I have no idea what the truth is here, but it seems about as plausible as anything else) that I found that on average worms are smaller than insects. Would that be meaningful?
To make things simple, let’s assume that there are 100 species of worms and 100 species of insects and 1,000,000 individuals from each species. Let’s further assume that there is an animal known as the African Aardvark which eats both worms and insects (and has equal access to all), but eats only individuals greater than a certain size. Now suppose it is observed that the African Aardvark eats 75% insects and 25% worms, and we are presented with two hypotheses to explain this observation: (1) The African Aardvark likes the taste of insects better than that of worms; or (2) the African Aardvark prefers larger individuals to smaller individuals.
In evaluating which of the two hypotheses is correct, is it useful (or meaningful) to know that on average worms are smaller than insects? (And you can assume that the two groups each have a spread much wider than the difference between them.)
But if so, genetics isn’t the only possible explanation.
I’m not sure what this means. To be sure, genetics is not the only reason for the black/white iq gap. At the same time, there is no non-genetic explanation which (1) explains the gap; and (2) is not ridiculous.
To be sure, genetics is not the only reason for the black/white iq gap. At the same time, there is no non-genetic explanation which (1) explains the gap; and (2) is not ridiculous.
I don’t quite understand how you didn’t just contradict yourself.
However, if you want a non-ridiculous, non-genetic explanation that explains the gap, try this one: while whites came to America with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, the biggest group of black Americans today is descended from slaves, and until recently, there was extreme racial segregation. Hence, rather than just assimilating, they as a group have ended up forming a subculture. (If you don’t believe that, look at the world and try again.) Not all African Americans live in ghettos, but a greater percentage of them than of whites do. (Similarly, not all of them are stupid.) Among their subculture, poverty is high, teenage pregnancy is high, single mothers are common and violence is really common. In such an environment, they’re not likely to have highly-educated parents to nurture their intellectual development. Meanwhile, worldwide, large numbers of blacks live in Africa, which is 1. not a good place, and 2. full of primitive peoples, resulting not only in people (the common people) having less access to education, but also to cultural biases skewing IQ test readings.
Test that would distinguish between this theory and genetics: study IQ among African Americans born after the Civil Rights Movement to married couples whose income is above the poverty line and who don’t live in “bad neighborhoods”. If the gap disappears, it’s more likely environmental; if it doesn’t, that may indicate a genetic difference. But taking the raw IQ data doesn’t distinguish between these; it merely rules out the hypothesis that there are neither genetic nor environmental differences. Since there may even be a big enough population now to survey, someone should do it. The only problem I can think of here is that people who rise above poverty are already selected for intelligence (as well as persistence and work ethic).
In evaluating which of the two hypotheses is correct, is it useful (or meaningful) to know that on average worms are smaller than insects? (And you can assume that the two groups each have a spread much wider than the difference between them.)
Ah, now I see. I couldn’t think of a reason why it would matter in everyday life, because it’s more reliable to just ascertain whether or not people are actually intelligent by getting to know them, not using deeply flawed binary heuristics. However, now I see that you’re worried about whether people will end up assuming someone is being racist when they’re not. That’s fair. In the current political climate, it’s a big risk, for everyone. In that case, whether it’s genetic or environmental doesn’t really matter, though.
However, if you want a non-ridiculous, non-genetic explanation that explains the gap, try this one:
Respectfully, that explanation is ridiculous. If you wish to debate it with me further, please read my blog post and respond there.
However, now I see that you’re worried about whether people will end up assuming someone is being racist when they’re not
Some one, or some organization. Anyway, the issue you are addressing is a slightly different one from what I raised. Basically you are making the “who cares” argument. But the reality is that our society cares very much, just like many Europeans in the middle ages cared very much about devotion to Christianity. Publicly pointing out the weaknesses in the Christian position could get you into serious trouble back then, just like pointing out the truth about race and intelligence can evoke a lot of hostility in modern day Western world.
What you are missing is context—the context to understand what you are arguing about, and the limits of your analogy.
Additionally, you are missing the context needed to understand why the larger argument you’re making cannot effectively be made in those terms. I am no longer interested in discussing it with you.
Fundamentally, the point is that reasoning about race should be subject to the exact same standards as reasoning about any other kinds of categories.
In regular life, and even in science, people readily accept categories which are somewhat arbitrary; which are difficult to define around the edges; which contain pairs of elements more different than some pairs of elements, only one of which is contained in the category; and so on.
I think that for various emotional reasons, people tend to get wound up over the categories “black” and “white” but such considerations should not affect rationalists.
I agree with you here; I don’t think I’m getting wound up for emotional reasons, I just don’t think the category is necessarily a partiuclarly useful one, but for reasons I can’t really articulate. (I am not knowledgeable about statistics and the relevant terminology.)
But yes, there’s no reason to adopt new rules for reason on any topic—that wasn’t what I was arguing, and it’s clearly counter-rational.
for reasons I can’t really articulate. (I am not knowledgeable about statistics and the relevant terminology.
We’ll be all right without formal terminology. I’m not at all sure what it is you’re trying to get at, and I’d be perfectly happy with you describing it as a metaphor, or an example, or really anything other than “I can’t explain why I believe this.”
Okay, I think I can explain. Let’s say that we have 5 ethnic groups under the umbrella “black.” All of approximately equal size. Groups A and B are found to, in general, be slightly above average intelligence, C and D are about equal, and E are significantly below. The average intelligence for “blacks” is now below average, and this is mathematically correct, while in reality, 4 out 5 black people you meet will tend to be of average or higher intelligence.
Perhaps this is a common statistical fallacy, but this is what I mean about the classification being too broad to be useful; with such a broad area to work from, with no internal distinctions being made in a hugely diverse category, the data isn’t all that interesting or enlightening.
Ok, that makes sense. The next obvious question, though, is why you think that the category of people labeled “black” fits this pattern, instead of, say, a Gaussian distribution.
Well, I don’t neccessarily think it does fit this pattern, I’m just saying it’s a possibility, and there’s no particular reason to consider it an unlikely possibility. On the other hand, seeing as the argument linking race to intelligence seems to be based on genetics, I feel that there is too much of a broad genetic sample within “black” for race to be a reliable indicator of intelligence, as I outline above.
There is also no reason to consider it to be more likely than the possibility that there are groups A and B with intelligence slightly less than the mean (of everyone in the category “black”), groups C and D about equal, and a group E significantly above average, in which case your argument that the mean value of IQ unfairly discriminates against blacks is exactly reversed.
I see no reason to consider it more likely that the mean unfairly discriminates against blacks as opposed to the hypothesis that the mean unfairly inflates the “true” average intelligence of that group. Your argument that there are multiple ethnic groups is correct, and that does mean that we should give a lower weight to the mean value of IQ. It does not mean that we are licensed to believe that this value is off in one particular direction, because that direction is what we would like to be true.
I agree, but you’re strawmanning me here. I never said that IQ discriminated any particular direction, I was arguing that black is too large a group, contaning too much diversity, to give useful results one way or the other. I just happened to choose that specific example.
I’ve made it pretty clear it’s not about what I want to think.
Median is often better, but not always—it depends on the purpose you wish to put the data to. With anything less than the full distribution, you’ll be able to hit some cases in which it can mislead you.
Edited to add:
Specifically—if you are interested in totals, mean is usually a more useful “average”. Multiplying the total number of water balloons by the average amount of water in a balloon gives you a much better estimate (exact, in theory) with mean than with median. If you are interested in individuals, median is usually better; if I am asking if the next water balloon will have more than X amount of water, median is a much more informative number. Neither is going to well represent a multimodal distribution, which we might expect to be dealing with in the great*-grandparent’s case anyway if the hypothesis of a strong genetic component to variation in intelligence does in fact hold.
No, I think his example of 5 ethnic groups is flawed, because he’s using the wrong metric to calculate the average. If he was using the median instead of the mean—which is the right thing to do in this case—he’d obtain the result that “most blacks have average intelligence”, and his conclusion would no longer follow.
But then I have to consider the scenario where the median gives the result of below averge intelligence - will take me slightly longer to puzzle out in my head.
No. More like Jellyfish. Which isn’t a valid taxonomic grouping. This has hardly anything to do with the Race and IQ issue. There are valid taxonomies that recognizably relate to race- but in addition recognizable groupings like “European” and “East Asian” you end up with a bunch different African groupings.
It is not unreasonable to expect people making socially controversial hypotheses to do so by referring to real entities.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Bill_McGrath seems to say that statements about “blacks” are not useful (whatever that means) because the group “blacks” contains too much diversity. And yet all of the categories I listed contain far more diversity than “blacks,” at least as far as I know.
It is not unreasonable to expect people making socially controversial hypotheses to do so by referring to real entities.
Look, there is an infinite number of conceivable groupings and an infinite number of variables you could use to compare those groupings. You’ve chosen to spend your time comparing a group you call “white people” with a group you call “black people” along a variable you call IQ. Now, there are lots of reasons to wonder about group variation of IQ—we might be interested in evolutionary anthropology questions like how intelligence (or whatever IQ tests) evolved, we might be interested in the relationship between IQ and cultural development, we might want to answer social policy questions that depend on average group IQ.
We should therefore use the groupings that are most useful in helping us understand these questions. “Black”, “white” and “yellow” are not those groupings. This is trivially true for all but the social policy question. If you don’t understand this then you don’t understand basic population genetics. With regard to the social policy question- the right groupings are the ones you’re talking about setting social policy for.
You are comparing two groups. The choice of these two groups specifically is not justified by their utility in answering a scientific or political question. Moreover, this particular division is the result of centuries of subjugation and oppression. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that you would have chosen these two groups were it not for the fact that you are part of a culture that persists in thinking in terms of these groups. And the variable you’ve chosen to compare them along is one which we routinely use to judge a person’s value. Since your choice of groupings is not helpful in answering scientific or policy questions. And since intelligence is constantly used in judging someone’s value—people will justifiably suspect you of choosing these groups in order to make judgments about how valuable they are.
(The third paragraph is what people mean when they say you’re being racist for arguing this. Something is real if it figures in our best scientific theory of the relevant domain)
With regard to the social policy question- the right groupings are the ones you’re talking about setting social policy for.
As far as social policy goes, it seems to me that it’s people who are most upset about the black/white IQ gap who are also most insistent on making use of these groups. For example by counting the number of blacks versus whites who pass a firefighters’ examination and insisting that the examination must be unfair in some way because blacks fail the exam disproportionately.
In a world with anti-discrimination laws that specifically apply to race, it’s totally reasonable to compare those groups in terms of IQ and reasonably ask how much of the difference is due to genetics.
Since your choice of groupings is not helpful in answering scientific or policy questions. And since intelligence is constantly used in judging someone’s value—people will justifiably suspect you of choosing these groups in order to make judgments about how valuable they are.
Assuming that’s all true, so what? It doesn’t change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and one can ask whether the gap is largely genetic in origin.
Indeed, the fact that you are questioning my motivations and talking about “centuries of subjugation and oppression” illustrates my original point very well.
Something is real if it figures in our best scientific theory of the relevant domain
neutrinos, Homo Sapiens, Helium, the Dravidian language group, ribosomes, spacetime, Tectonic plates, igneous rock, the mesosphere, Jupiter, the Inca, Abraham Lincoln.
Assuming that’s all true, so what? It doesn’t change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and one can ask whether the gap is largely genetic in origin.
I’m not arguing the question with you. I gave that up a long time ago. I’m asking you to use scientifically respectable, non-racist terminology when you talk about group difference and IQ. You can easily state your hypothesis in scientifically recognized terms.
And what scientific theories are these categories part of?
I really don’t think science has much to do with the bulk (or strength) of objections you will get on this subject. You’re doing yourself no good by continuing to argue about it. Even the terrible arguments made against you will receive positive support by virtue of being sandwitched between two of yours—reading need not be involved.
It is probably better to make the ethnic-group references a bit more specific than a two category split. It is fairly clear what ‘black/white’ labels refer to in countries with two clear dominant ethnic groups of appropriate melanin levels but less useful if trying for a worldwide reference. Then the references become more ambiguous. I suggest making your stand somewhere a bit more secure than the ‘black’ word. Your main point is a bit deeper than that.
I really don’t think science has much to do with the bulk (or strength) of objections you will get on this subject.
I agree. The problem is that people see “racism” as evil, hurtful, low status, etc. Just like they viewed atheism that way a few hundred years ago. Which is kinda the point.
And what scientific theories are these categories part of?
Google it.
Why should I?
Because you don’t like hurting people? Because racism is evil? Because racism is low status? Because you would look less stupid? Because it would be less embarrassing for all of Less Wrong? Because you prefer to avoid downvotes?
It’s not really my responsibility to do research trying to figure out what you mean by “real entity.” Is “elephants” a “real entity”? What about “worms”? Is “the South” a real entity? What about “Minnesota”?
Because you don’t like hurting people? Because racism is evil? Because racism is low status? Because you would look less stupid? Because it would be less embarrassing for all of Less Wrong? Because you prefer to avoid downvotes?
This illustrates my point very well. A few hundred years ago, someone might have argued that atheism is hurtful, evil, low status, embarassing, and makes you look stupid. But none of these things affect the fundamental correctness or incorrectness of atheism.
It’s not really my responsibility to do research trying to figure out what you mean by “real entity.” Is “elephants” a “real entity”? What about “worms”? Is “the South” a real entity? What about “Minnesota”?
You asked “What scientific theories are these categories from?” For most of the examples I gave this answer was obvious and had you not before heard of, say, ribosomes, you could google and quickly determine a ribosome is a entity from cell biology. You have a history of making people defend extended and irrelevant points so as to avoid ever conceding any point—so I don’t take your request at face value. And if you don’t already know ‘Helium’ comes from chemistry then you need to drastically reduce your confidence in lots of your beliefs. By way of analogy, matter was once believed to consist of five elements. It turned out Aristotelian cosmology was not a theory that helped us answer many important questions so we stopped believing in quintessence. Similarly, “blacks, whites, reds and yellows” is not a theory of human genetic difference at all adequate for answering interesting questions in population genetics or anthropology.
The preposterous thing about this is that I don’t actually strongly disagree with your position. I think you’re wildly overconfident but I don’t think and have never said that positing group IQ differences due to genetics along groups that roughly correspond to some traditional racial categories is by definition racist or even likely to be wrong.
This illustrates my point very well. A few hundred years ago, someone might have argued that atheism is hurtful, evil, low status, embarassing, and makes you look stupid. But none of these things affect the fundamental correctness or incorrectness of atheism.
For the third time: it is the way you talk about these issues involving race, genetics and IQ that is hurtful, low status, etc. You seem to be under the misconception that because (you think) your beliefs are true you have the right to offend people when you share them. This may be the case if people are offended by the content of the beliefs. But it is not the case when people are offended by the way you state your beliefs. Less Wrong would not tolerate posts of the kind one finds at r/atheism despite nearly everyone here agreeing with their propositional content. Those posts would get downvoted because they do not rise to Less Wrong standards- despite being trivially true. I don’t think it is too great a burden on people discussing this issue that they have a passing familiarity with population genetics and anthropology.
″ For most of the examples I gave this answer was obvious
I limited my request to two of the “real entities” you named. “Homo Sapiens” and the “Dravidian Language Group.”
It’s not obvious to me what scientific theories these categories come from and I will not guess at what you mean.
I also asked you whether “elephants,” “worms” “The South,” or “Minnesota” are “real entities.” You have not answered my question.
I also asked you to state a particular hypothesis in “scientific terms,” which you apparently think would be easy. You have not done so.
In short, I am trying to figure out your point and you are not making it easy for me.
as to avoid ever conceding any point
Exactly what point do you think I should concede?
Similarly, “blacks, whites, reds and yellows” is not a theory of human genetic difference at all adequate for answering interesting questions in population genetics or anthropology.
Even assuming this is true, it doesn’t change the fact that the black/white IQ gap is largely due to genetics. In short, it’s a red herring.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose I divide up human beings into three races:
Race 1: Ethnic Swedes plus people born in Maine;
Race 2: Ethnic Japanese plus people born in Sri Lanka;
Race 3: Everyone else.
Would you agree that this racial division is “inadequate foranswering interesting questions in population genetics or anthropology.”?
For the third time: it is the way you talk about these issues involving race, genetics and IQ that is hurtful, low status, etc
Lol, the exact point of raising the genetic basis of the black/white IQ difference is because it is considered one of the most offensive, hurtful things to say in the West in the 21st century.
But none of these things affect the fundamental correctness or incorrectness of atheism.
If atheists had not kowtowed to popular opinion as some wish you would, more would have been burned at the stake; more effort would have been put into refutations of atheism, and more time spent on indoctrination of religion as right and atheists as evil non-humans. It’s possible that this could have meant that today there would not be places where the fundamental correctness of atheism could be asserted. In many ways atheism thrives only because religions put so little effort into competing!
By the same token, the net effect of pissing off a portion of LessWrong by using fundamentally correct “racist” terminology may push back recognition of such fundamental correctness. In aggregate it may solidify political correctness into an unassailable fortress!
Something about this pro-appeasement argument strikes me as really wrong, though I wish I were able to better explain why. It just seems to me that the people historically interested in the rule of religion—say, Church hierarchy—would find it better for their agendas that any closet atheists should keep kowtowing rather than become vocal about their disbelief. Surely if nobody ever challenged orthodox ideas, they’d never get overturned?
Well, I’m no historian. But in any case, if a medievial equivalent of Less Wrong, some group of people unusually interested in forming true beliefs formed in those times, then they should be able to discuss atheism at least among themselves, surely. It would be contrary to their common goal to do otherwise. It might prevent them from figuring out that atheism is probably correct, you see.
Sure, atheism may be low status and immoral and evil and “not useful” to know about if true—but if for whatever reason they already decided they are interested in forming true beliefs, then they should consider atheism anyway.
We’re on Less Wrong because we are unusually interested in pursuing true beliefs, and methods of forming them. If other factors such as political correctness or some people’s being sensitive about some topics or whatever get in the way of that, then so much the worse for those other factors. If we have to commit heresies and be offensive to our age’s moral fashions to get closer to truth, then let us commit heresies and be offensive.
Not that I’m in favor of alienating anyone for its own sake, or when it’s avoidable at negligible cost to the discussion’s clarity and usefulness (i.e. by phrasing things neutrally and not taking potshots). All I’m saying is, let’s not let get mind-killed too easily. Currently Less Wrong strikes me as the best place in the entire Internet to pursue intelligent, sane discussion, and possibly even change your mind. Even on topics that would never have a chance in other environments.
I agree largely with MarkusRamikin’s response, but I would add that you are basically speculating here. It’s also possible that if atheists had been more vocal, their views would have more quickly become tolerated.
I agree that highly emotional issues such as race and intelligence are problematic to discuss, but Eliezer kind of opened the door by talking about atheism as a test of rationality. Today, atheism is much more accepted, at least in the West, so it’s not as good as a test. That naturally leads to the question as to what our taboos are in America in the 21st century.
Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
So you can make a fairly diverse set {mice, elephants and rhinos}, as a sample of mammals that are grey-brown, and compare them on some attribute, say size, with some other set. It would be a clear contrast with the a set containing three diverse species of bacteria, somewhat less clear next to a set containing three species of unrelated reptiles, and probably not a sensible comparison against some arbitrary three mammals that are orange-brown. You can form true conclusions in all three comparisons, but I’m asking whether all of those conclusions are useful.
ETA: What I don’t know, which stops me from forming a strong opinion on the matter, is how big the genetic variation within the group we’re calling “white” is. It could be that white people are a very closely related group, in which case it would be useful to investigate a statement like “the group we call “white” are, on average, one of the groups of humans which have higher IQ. As a result they have higher average IQ than the much more diverse group of we call “black”.”
Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
I disagree. For example, imagine that Group A is Loxodonta Africana Africana and Group B is “worms”
It’s both meaningful and true to assert that members of Group A are larger than members of Group B.
The problem with discussing racial differences is that when people say “black”, they’re already making inherent assumptions about genetics. “Black” incorporates an incredible amount of genetic diversity, far more than the label “white”.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a problem. For example, if I observed that generally speaking, the South is warmer than Minnesota, I would be correct even though the South incorporates a lot more geographic diversity than Minnesota.
There are for more genetic variations within racial groups than between them, if you’re willing to count “black” as a
racial group.
Nailed it. Racial groups are an idea a few centuries old; we’ve had a functional understanding of genetics for less than a hundred years.
Long before we had any ability to group people by ancestry in a reliable way, a bunch of distinct populations were grouped by the people of a tiny corner of the globe according to nothing more salient than skin color, and by the fact they often lived hunter-gatherer lifestyles (viewed by the Europeans as unconscionably primitive no matter how happy and prosperous the people themselves were) or low-tech agricultural and pastoralist ones (viewed similarly, insofar as industrializing European populations considered those lifestyles representative of ancestral, earlier times). A whole bunch of these peoples wound up colonial subjects; any intergroup strife between them or conditions they considered normal but Europeans found backward was used to. These marginalized, conquered, exploited peoples did pretty much what marginalized, conquered, exploited peoples anywhere and anytime have done in that situation: their cultures, lifeways, institutions and so on fragmented under the strain, existing tensions amplified, resources became increasingly scarce for the majority, and access to health and wealth plummeted as they went from their own former economies to the bottom rung of another civilization’s.
The Europeans with decisionmaking power largely looked at all this and concluded that the members of this group were a sorry lot and perhaps conquest was better for them than leaving them to their own devices. In some places throughout the greater colonial Eurosphere, they were still legal to own as property until relatively recently.
Then, long after their marginalized status had had centuries to take root, someone discovers the basis for genetic inheritance, and a comparitively short time after, that the populations grouped as “black” (which includes a huge number of quite-distinct groups in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Australia as well as their descendant diasporas elsewhere) are the single most diverse human subgroup on the planet. Oops.
sarcasm
Well, no matter—they clearly haven’t done as well on the world stage as European-descended whites, and why are you getting upset that we’d want to ask why? It must be genetic, we’ve got centuries of evidence that these people just don’t do as well!
/sarcasm
I’m not sure I agree with your view of colonialism. Europeans did not uniformly judge all of the non-white peoples they encountered so it’s not just a matter of ethnic chauvinism.
More importantly, none of what you said changes the facts that (1) there is a group of people in the world known as “blacks”; (2) there is a group of people in the world known as “whites”; (3) there is a large an intractable difference in intelligence between these groups; and (4) it’s reasonable to ask whether genetics might play a significant role in this gap.
I’m not sure I agree with your view of colonialism.
What specific historical details do you contest?
Europeans did not uniformly judge all of the non-white peoples they encountered so it’s not just a matter of
ethnic chauvinism.
But they did pretty-uniformly judge the peoples they grouped into the category “black”, which just to be clear is the group I specified and the group you’re talking about too.
(1) there is a group of people in the world known as “blacks”;
Who were originally grouped long ago, on the basis of the exceedingly superficial detail of skin color, a trait that turned out to be a red herring since they don’t form a “natural group” in the sense that was assumed originally.
(2) there is a group of people in the world known as “whites”;
See previous, with the added note that this level of grouping didn’t take as thoroughly or as readily outside the colonies.
(3) there is a large an intractable difference in intelligence between these groups;
Disagreed. There is a large, thus-far intractable difference in performance on IQ tests between these groups; we do not concur as to what IQ tests are measuring, let alone the reasons for that.
and (4) it’s reasonable to ask whether genetics might play a significant role in this gap.
But, given what we now know about the genetics of the groups in question, it’s privileging the hypothesis to treat “blacks” as a natural group as opposed to a socially-constructed one, and given the many other plausible hypotheses not contradicted by evidence (and the data about historical power asymmetries in their interactions) it’s hardly as primarily or all-consumingly interesting to focus on genetics, when there are so many other relevant factors that turn out not to be undermined by biology.
Just because the genetic evidence has come in does not mean that centuries of racism vanished overnight, and the idea of blacks as a natural group and the differences between them and whites as attributable to genetic factors are quite a bit older than our understanding of what genetics even was. It’s no surprise they’re still kicking around, influencing white intellectual types who’ve never personally been on the oppressed side of the equation and can’t easily understand what all the fuss is about and why people might get so angry that they’re still trying to talk about it in those terms...
I agree that the idea of skin-color defined races as the units you should look for genetic variation between is unhelpful in the context of pure science, but if you politically define all sub-par outcomes compared to the privileged group that are not caused by genes (or something else politically defined as untouchable) as needing to be fixed you need to know about genetic differences between politically defined groups to make sensible decisions.
But they did pretty-uniformly judge the peoples they grouped into the category “black”, which just to be clear is the group I specified and the group you’re talking about too.
I apologize, I thought you were referring to non-whites all over the world when you talked about distinct populations being grouped by skin color.
Who were originally grouped long ago, on the basis of the exceedingly superficial detail of skin color, a trait that turned out to be a red herring since they don’t form a “natural group” in the sense that was assumed originally.
Well what is the criteria for deciding if a group of people form a “natural group”? And what difference does it make if they are a “natural group” or not?
For example, I could divide the world into 3 races as follows:
(1) Ethnic Swedes plus anyone who was born in Maine;
(2) Ethnic Japanese plus anyone who was born in Sri Lanka; and
(3) Everyone else.
Now one could observe that members of Race 1 are more likely to have blue eyes than members of Race 2 and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be yes even though the races have been defined in a completely arbitrary manner.
There is a large, thus-far intractable difference in performance on IQ tests between these groups; we do not concur as to what IQ tests are measuring,
I disagree, I think it’s pretty clear that IQ tests measure intelligence. But perhaps it’s not something which needs to be resolved, because one can simply ask whether the IQ gap between blacks and whites is due in large part to genetic differences.
natural group as opposed to a socially-constructed one,
Again, what is the criteria for deciding whether you have a “natural group” or a “socially-constructed one”?
I apologize, I thought you were referring to non-whites all over the world when you talked about distinct
populations being grouped by skin color.
“Black” has been used to refer to indigenous peoples of Subsaharan Africa, many parts of Asia, and Australia. Even some South American groups were once classed as “black.”
Well what is the criteria for deciding if a group of people form a “natural group”?
Genetic relatedness, which I hope you’ll agree is kind of relevant when discussing genetics.
For example, I could divide the world into 3 races as follows:
Irrelevant; I’m talking about how different groups were actually defined in history, not about the many arbitrary ways which one could choose to split up the world’s human population.
Now one could observe that members of Race 1 are more likely to have blue eyes than members of Race > 2 and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be yes even though the races have been
defined in a completely arbitrary manner.
One could also observe that members of Race 2 in your scheme are more likely to eat a lot of rice than members of Race 1, and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be no, even if the answer to some other possible question might be yes. People in Sri Lanka plus ethnically Japanese people tend to eat more rice due to history and local circumstances (the agricultural civilizations that most influenced them were rice-farming ones), not innate characteristics that predispose them to a diet high in rice.
I disagree
You disagree that we disagree? I’m afraid I have to disagree with that.
I think it’s pretty clear that IQ tests measure intelligence.
Right, as I said: we disagree on that point; if you continue to assume it in your arguments with me you will not be inherently more-convincing because I believe your argument rests on flawed premises. I might be wrong about that, but my own priors do not concur with yours, and you won’t get me to update mine by merely reasserting yours.
I really recommend you look through the discussion on this subject from Spring 2010 (the ancestors and distant cousins of this thread) to make sure that a) the people you are going back and forth with are likely to argue honestly and productively on this subject and b) your contributions aren’t repeating facts or myths that have already been covered many times before.
For obvious reasons, comments on this subject should be in the upper 10-20% of Less Wrong comments in terms of evidence cited, intellectual honesty, tone, grammar etc.
Genetic relatedness, which I hope you’ll agree is kind of relevant when discussing genetics.
I don’t understand this response. I am asking how one decides if a group is a “natural group” or a “socially-constructed” group. Simply answering “genetic relatedness” doesn’t answer the question. I prefer not to guess at what you mean.
Irrelevant; I’m talking about how different groups were actually defined in history
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were arguing that (1) the group known as “blacks” are defined in an arbitrary manner; and therefore (2) it’s not legitimate to claim that the black/white IQ gap has a large genetic component.
What exactly are you arguing?
One could also observe that members of Race 2 in your scheme are more likely to eat a lot of rice than members of Race 1, and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be no, even if the answer to some other possible question might be yes.
I agree 100%. The point is that it’s possible to define a “race” in a completely arbitrary manner; observe that 2 races are different; and reasonably ask whether the difference might be caused in whole or in part by genetics.
You disagree that we disagree?
I disagree with your claim about IQ tests and intelligence, but it’s a separate issue.
The problem with discussing racial differences is that when people say “black”, they’re already making inherent assumptions about genetics. “Black” incorporates an incredible amount of genetic diversity, far more than the label “white”. The common error in these debates is that an awful lot of the population will see the label “black” and fail to distinguish between all people labelled as such. People distinguish between, say, east Asians and south-east Asians and Indians, but they say “black” as if all of Africa are the same.
Look at the performance at the Olympics running races. Would you note the fact that “100m winners are always black”? Would you be willing to make the statement that “black people are naturally better sprinters”? How about distance runners? As it turns out, the good sprinters are usually Jamaican or African-American, with little success from Africa itself. The good distance runners almost entirely come from the Nandi area of Kenya—hardly representative of Africa as a whole. Plenty of areas of Africa have fewer good runners, and probably lots of areas have just the same proportion as European countries.
I’d venture to say that there might be black ethnicities which are on average less intelligent, or have behavioural differences - after all, there are black ethnicities that average around 4ft tall. But will that difference makes any meaningful average when you’re talking about “black” people? There are for more genetic variations within racial groups than between them, if you’re willing to count “black” as a racial group. I personally don’t like generalising in such a non-meaningful way. Compare to people of a specific ancestral origin, if you must compare. Comparing with the average of every ethnicity in Africa, without concern for your sampling bias giving you an inaccurate average (by using statements like “blacks are...” or “blacks have...”), does seem a bit, well, racist.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a problem. For example, if I observed that generally speaking, the South is warmer than Minnesota, I would be correct even though the South incorporates a lot more geographic diversity than Minnesota.
For purposes of this discussion, it’s a reasonable category. If there were a large subgroup of blacks which was highly intelligent, then it might be appropriate to use different categories.
Generally speaking, yes.
Probably not, since sprinting ability seems concentrated in a subgroup of blacks. (Relatively) low intelligence does not seem to be this way.
Perhaps more importantly, either way you look at it, it doesn’t change the fact that genetics is partly responsible for the black/white sprinting gap.
I would say “yes” in the same way that the South is generally warmer than Minnesota. Put another way, I’m not aware of any subgroup of blacks which stands out in terms of intelligence. But even if there were, it would not change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and genetics is responsible for a lot of it.
Assuming that’s true, so what?
It means that there are few contexts where you might ask me “are blacks less intelligent than whites on average” without me saying anything more than “insufficient data: error bars too big”.
And any scientist who researches the issue (or indeed anyone taken seriously who discusses the issue) and uses the term “black people” without considering whether or not they really mean “all black people” or even “a representative average of all black people” are being very misleading if they report it using that wording, considering the biases of the general public.
I’m not sure I understand this. Are you denying that there is a statistically significant difference in intelligence (as measured by IQ) between blacks and whites?
So you are saying that special rules need to apply when discussing race and intelligence?
I think the point is, such a statement is not useful, considering the huge number of different groups that can be classed as “black” and “white.”
Well when reporting findings, its important to do so in a way which conveys the meaning correctly to the intended audience. And Sarokae did originally say
Does this principle apply just to statements concerning intelligence? Or does it apply to any perceived racial difference which may be due to genetics, in part or in whole?
Also, does it apply only to human racial groups? Or does the same thing apply to all biological groupings?
Perhaps, but I think that when discussing things on this discussion board, the statement “Group X is more Y than Group Z” can be reasonably understood to mean that if you measure quality Y, then in general and on average, members of Group X have a higher measurement for Y than members of Group Z. Further, it doesn’t imply that every last member of each group has been measured.
Certainly that’s what I mean.
I reckon the principle applies in general—there’s too much diversity within the classification “black” for it to be particularly useful, I reckon. Perhaps if it was geographically specific, it might be more useful.
It applies to all biological groupings that are sufficiently broad.
So the same reasoning would apply to the categories commonly referred to as “worms,” “birds,” “penguins,” “bears,” “elephants,” “baboons,” “chimpanzees,” “rats,” and “mice,” Agreed?
I see your point but I’m not sure I agree. Perhaps I’m just reluctant to think in those terms, but I don’t think that’s it. I’m not thinking of this in terms of PC, just in terms of usefulness.
I’m having trouble thinking up an analogy to explain my point; I’ll think about it and see if I can. If not, guess I need to start over.
EDIT: Actually, if we replace “intelligence” with a less loaded or emotive quality, say “height”, I think I’d still be inclined not to consider it useful. But as I say, I’ll have a think about this.
Just to add a note here: using the “height” example, suppose I told you that research has shown black people were on average shorter than white people. Then, it turns out, that my sample of “blacks” was from the area with the pigmy ethnicities, and if I excluded those from my definition of “blacks” then they were on average taller than white people. This is an extreme example, but here the statement “the mean height of black people is less than the mean height of white people” might be TRUE, but it won’t be USEFUL.
This is because your sample of black people contains within it many separate distributions for the same attribute, and simply taking their mean is not helpful. I’m merely saying that in an unhomogeneous group, averages are more likely to be misleading.
Sure, a set of equal numbers of mice and elephants are on average bigger than a set of guinea pigs, but that’s not a useful statement. And a generalisation from that particular sample to “short-haired animals are bigger than long-haired animals” would be outrightly unjustifiable from your data.
His point isn’t actually very good—“worms” isn’t a single category about which you could make many meaningful statements on average either (well, you try coming up with many non-vague true statements that universally apply to platyhelminths, polychaetes, annelids, nematodes...).
Linneaus coined the taxon vermes to hold any non-arthropod invertebrate. Later, cladistics came along and demolished the idea that it was ever a useful biological group.
Whereas “elephants” consists of just a handful of living species in two genera, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they have a lot in common—and even then, if you over-presume on those similarities when making theories, you’ll wind up wrong because you didn’t realize the ways in which they can differ.
I don’t see what difference this makes. If someone were to observe that “elephants” are generally speaking larger than “worms,” the fact that the two categories are extremely diverse would not preclude you from reasonably asking whether the difference was due to genetics.
The statement that “blacks” have lower IQs than “whites” is both meaningful and true.
I do not think you understand biology (either in the context of the race/IQ discussion or in general) well enough for it to be worth arguing with you further.
I disagree. What I’m doing is to take the exact criticisms made of categories like “blacks” and “whites” and applying them to other biological categories in order to show that there’s a double standard at work.
What exactly am I missing?
You’re missing the fact that people are arguing “but the groups are heterogeneous” when they mean “but the different means might be within a standard deviation of each other because single groups have a spread much wider than the difference between them”. That would apply when trying to ascertain whether, say, worms are larger than insects, but NOT when trying to ascertain whether worms are larger than elephants, because the difference between the largest and smallest worms is probably a lot bigger than the difference between the average size of a worm and the average size of an insect. On the other hand, the average size of an elephant is greater than the average size of a worm (any worm) by way more than the biggest worm is bigger than the smallest worm.
Suppose I got together all the worms and all the insects and measured their volume, and found the mean size of a worm and the mean size of an insect. And suppose (I have no idea what the truth is here, but it seems about as plausible as anything else) that I found that on average worms are smaller than insects. Would that be meaningful? I don’t think it would be useful to know.
How big an IQ gap are you saying exists? Are we talking as much as a standard deviation? Then maybe it would be important (if true). But if so, genetics isn’t the only possible explanation. I’d expect upbringing and class to be very important, as well as quality of public schools where they live, perhaps so much so that a genetic difference, if any, could be completely overwhelmed.
I don’t recall anyone arguing that in this thread, but this argument—to the extent it makes any sense at all—lacks merit.
Let’s take your analogy.
To make things simple, let’s assume that there are 100 species of worms and 100 species of insects and 1,000,000 individuals from each species. Let’s further assume that there is an animal known as the African Aardvark which eats both worms and insects (and has equal access to all), but eats only individuals greater than a certain size. Now suppose it is observed that the African Aardvark eats 75% insects and 25% worms, and we are presented with two hypotheses to explain this observation: (1) The African Aardvark likes the taste of insects better than that of worms; or (2) the African Aardvark prefers larger individuals to smaller individuals.
In evaluating which of the two hypotheses is correct, is it useful (or meaningful) to know that on average worms are smaller than insects? (And you can assume that the two groups each have a spread much wider than the difference between them.)
I’m not sure what this means. To be sure, genetics is not the only reason for the black/white iq gap. At the same time, there is no non-genetic explanation which (1) explains the gap; and (2) is not ridiculous.
I don’t quite understand how you didn’t just contradict yourself.
However, if you want a non-ridiculous, non-genetic explanation that explains the gap, try this one: while whites came to America with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, the biggest group of black Americans today is descended from slaves, and until recently, there was extreme racial segregation. Hence, rather than just assimilating, they as a group have ended up forming a subculture. (If you don’t believe that, look at the world and try again.) Not all African Americans live in ghettos, but a greater percentage of them than of whites do. (Similarly, not all of them are stupid.) Among their subculture, poverty is high, teenage pregnancy is high, single mothers are common and violence is really common. In such an environment, they’re not likely to have highly-educated parents to nurture their intellectual development. Meanwhile, worldwide, large numbers of blacks live in Africa, which is 1. not a good place, and 2. full of primitive peoples, resulting not only in people (the common people) having less access to education, but also to cultural biases skewing IQ test readings.
Test that would distinguish between this theory and genetics: study IQ among African Americans born after the Civil Rights Movement to married couples whose income is above the poverty line and who don’t live in “bad neighborhoods”. If the gap disappears, it’s more likely environmental; if it doesn’t, that may indicate a genetic difference. But taking the raw IQ data doesn’t distinguish between these; it merely rules out the hypothesis that there are neither genetic nor environmental differences. Since there may even be a big enough population now to survey, someone should do it. The only problem I can think of here is that people who rise above poverty are already selected for intelligence (as well as persistence and work ethic).
Ah, now I see. I couldn’t think of a reason why it would matter in everyday life, because it’s more reliable to just ascertain whether or not people are actually intelligent by getting to know them, not using deeply flawed binary heuristics. However, now I see that you’re worried about whether people will end up assuming someone is being racist when they’re not. That’s fair. In the current political climate, it’s a big risk, for everyone. In that case, whether it’s genetic or environmental doesn’t really matter, though.
Respectfully, that explanation is ridiculous. If you wish to debate it with me further, please read my blog post and respond there.
Some one, or some organization. Anyway, the issue you are addressing is a slightly different one from what I raised. Basically you are making the “who cares” argument. But the reality is that our society cares very much, just like many Europeans in the middle ages cared very much about devotion to Christianity. Publicly pointing out the weaknesses in the Christian position could get you into serious trouble back then, just like pointing out the truth about race and intelligence can evoke a lot of hostility in modern day Western world.
What blog post?
http://fortaleza84.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-race-and-iq-question/
What you are missing is context—the context to understand what you are arguing about, and the limits of your analogy.
Additionally, you are missing the context needed to understand why the larger argument you’re making cannot effectively be made in those terms. I am no longer interested in discussing it with you.
Exactly what context? The history of subjugation and oppression on the basis of race?
Fundamentally, the point is that reasoning about race should be subject to the exact same standards as reasoning about any other kinds of categories.
In regular life, and even in science, people readily accept categories which are somewhat arbitrary; which are difficult to define around the edges; which contain pairs of elements more different than some pairs of elements, only one of which is contained in the category; and so on.
I think that for various emotional reasons, people tend to get wound up over the categories “black” and “white” but such considerations should not affect rationalists.
I agree with you here; I don’t think I’m getting wound up for emotional reasons, I just don’t think the category is necessarily a partiuclarly useful one, but for reasons I can’t really articulate. (I am not knowledgeable about statistics and the relevant terminology.)
But yes, there’s no reason to adopt new rules for reason on any topic—that wasn’t what I was arguing, and it’s clearly counter-rational.
We’ll be all right without formal terminology. I’m not at all sure what it is you’re trying to get at, and I’d be perfectly happy with you describing it as a metaphor, or an example, or really anything other than “I can’t explain why I believe this.”
Excuse delay getting back to this.
Okay, I think I can explain. Let’s say that we have 5 ethnic groups under the umbrella “black.” All of approximately equal size. Groups A and B are found to, in general, be slightly above average intelligence, C and D are about equal, and E are significantly below. The average intelligence for “blacks” is now below average, and this is mathematically correct, while in reality, 4 out 5 black people you meet will tend to be of average or higher intelligence.
Perhaps this is a common statistical fallacy, but this is what I mean about the classification being too broad to be useful; with such a broad area to work from, with no internal distinctions being made in a hugely diverse category, the data isn’t all that interesting or enlightening.
Ok, that makes sense. The next obvious question, though, is why you think that the category of people labeled “black” fits this pattern, instead of, say, a Gaussian distribution.
Well, I don’t neccessarily think it does fit this pattern, I’m just saying it’s a possibility, and there’s no particular reason to consider it an unlikely possibility. On the other hand, seeing as the argument linking race to intelligence seems to be based on genetics, I feel that there is too much of a broad genetic sample within “black” for race to be a reliable indicator of intelligence, as I outline above.
There is also no reason to consider it to be more likely than the possibility that there are groups A and B with intelligence slightly less than the mean (of everyone in the category “black”), groups C and D about equal, and a group E significantly above average, in which case your argument that the mean value of IQ unfairly discriminates against blacks is exactly reversed.
I see no reason to consider it more likely that the mean unfairly discriminates against blacks as opposed to the hypothesis that the mean unfairly inflates the “true” average intelligence of that group. Your argument that there are multiple ethnic groups is correct, and that does mean that we should give a lower weight to the mean value of IQ. It does not mean that we are licensed to believe that this value is off in one particular direction, because that direction is what we would like to be true.
I agree, but you’re strawmanning me here. I never said that IQ discriminated any particular direction, I was arguing that black is too large a group, contaning too much diversity, to give useful results one way or the other. I just happened to choose that specific example.
I’ve made it pretty clear it’s not about what I want to think.
I think this is, in fact, a common statistical fallacy: using the mean instead of the median to represent “average”.
Median is often better, but not always—it depends on the purpose you wish to put the data to. With anything less than the full distribution, you’ll be able to hit some cases in which it can mislead you.
Edited to add:
Specifically—if you are interested in totals, mean is usually a more useful “average”. Multiplying the total number of water balloons by the average amount of water in a balloon gives you a much better estimate (exact, in theory) with mean than with median. If you are interested in individuals, median is usually better; if I am asking if the next water balloon will have more than X amount of water, median is a much more informative number. Neither is going to well represent a multimodal distribution, which we might expect to be dealing with in the great*-grandparent’s case anyway if the hypothesis of a strong genetic component to variation in intelligence does in fact hold.
Good point. You should select a metric that would be most useful in any given situation, be it the mean, the median, or anything else.
Ah; so I’m misunderstanding what brazil84 means by average?
No, I think his example of 5 ethnic groups is flawed, because he’s using the wrong metric to calculate the average. If he was using the median instead of the mean—which is the right thing to do in this case—he’d obtain the result that “most blacks have average intelligence”, and his conclusion would no longer follow.
(Edited: typo)
The 5 ethnic groups was mine originally.
But then I have to consider the scenario where the median gives the result of below averge intelligence - will take me slightly longer to puzzle out in my head.
No. More like Jellyfish. Which isn’t a valid taxonomic grouping. This has hardly anything to do with the Race and IQ issue. There are valid taxonomies that recognizably relate to race- but in addition recognizable groupings like “European” and “East Asian” you end up with a bunch different African groupings.
It is not unreasonable to expect people making socially controversial hypotheses to do so by referring to real entities.
(ETA: Worms too as Jandila points out)
I’m not sure I understand your point. Bill_McGrath seems to say that statements about “blacks” are not useful (whatever that means) because the group “blacks” contains too much diversity. And yet all of the categories I listed contain far more diversity than “blacks,” at least as far as I know.
How do I know if an entity is “real” or not?
Look, there is an infinite number of conceivable groupings and an infinite number of variables you could use to compare those groupings. You’ve chosen to spend your time comparing a group you call “white people” with a group you call “black people” along a variable you call IQ. Now, there are lots of reasons to wonder about group variation of IQ—we might be interested in evolutionary anthropology questions like how intelligence (or whatever IQ tests) evolved, we might be interested in the relationship between IQ and cultural development, we might want to answer social policy questions that depend on average group IQ.
We should therefore use the groupings that are most useful in helping us understand these questions. “Black”, “white” and “yellow” are not those groupings. This is trivially true for all but the social policy question. If you don’t understand this then you don’t understand basic population genetics. With regard to the social policy question- the right groupings are the ones you’re talking about setting social policy for.
You are comparing two groups. The choice of these two groups specifically is not justified by their utility in answering a scientific or political question. Moreover, this particular division is the result of centuries of subjugation and oppression. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that you would have chosen these two groups were it not for the fact that you are part of a culture that persists in thinking in terms of these groups. And the variable you’ve chosen to compare them along is one which we routinely use to judge a person’s value. Since your choice of groupings is not helpful in answering scientific or policy questions. And since intelligence is constantly used in judging someone’s value—people will justifiably suspect you of choosing these groups in order to make judgments about how valuable they are.
(The third paragraph is what people mean when they say you’re being racist for arguing this. Something is real if it figures in our best scientific theory of the relevant domain)
As far as social policy goes, it seems to me that it’s people who are most upset about the black/white IQ gap who are also most insistent on making use of these groups. For example by counting the number of blacks versus whites who pass a firefighters’ examination and insisting that the examination must be unfair in some way because blacks fail the exam disproportionately.
In a world with anti-discrimination laws that specifically apply to race, it’s totally reasonable to compare those groups in terms of IQ and reasonably ask how much of the difference is due to genetics.
Assuming that’s all true, so what? It doesn’t change the fact that there is a black/white IQ gap and one can ask whether the gap is largely genetic in origin.
Indeed, the fact that you are questioning my motivations and talking about “centuries of subjugation and oppression” illustrates my original point very well.
Can you provide a couple examples of this?
neutrinos, Homo Sapiens, Helium, the Dravidian language group, ribosomes, spacetime, Tectonic plates, igneous rock, the mesosphere, Jupiter, the Inca, Abraham Lincoln.
I’m not arguing the question with you. I gave that up a long time ago. I’m asking you to use scientifically respectable, non-racist terminology when you talk about group difference and IQ. You can easily state your hypothesis in scientifically recognized terms.
And what scientific theories are these categories part of?
Why should I?
Well, consider the hypothesis that the black/white IQ gap is due to racism. How would you state this in scientifically recognized terms?
I really don’t think science has much to do with the bulk (or strength) of objections you will get on this subject. You’re doing yourself no good by continuing to argue about it. Even the terrible arguments made against you will receive positive support by virtue of being sandwitched between two of yours—reading need not be involved.
It is probably better to make the ethnic-group references a bit more specific than a two category split. It is fairly clear what ‘black/white’ labels refer to in countries with two clear dominant ethnic groups of appropriate melanin levels but less useful if trying for a worldwide reference. Then the references become more ambiguous. I suggest making your stand somewhere a bit more secure than the ‘black’ word. Your main point is a bit deeper than that.
I agree. The problem is that people see “racism” as evil, hurtful, low status, etc. Just like they viewed atheism that way a few hundred years ago. Which is kinda the point.
I wish to explicitly distance myself from the analogy you use. The implications are not desirable (and in a way that is not quite accurate either).
Google it.
Because you don’t like hurting people? Because racism is evil? Because racism is low status? Because you would look less stupid? Because it would be less embarrassing for all of Less Wrong? Because you prefer to avoid downvotes?
I’m done.
It’s not really my responsibility to do research trying to figure out what you mean by “real entity.” Is “elephants” a “real entity”? What about “worms”? Is “the South” a real entity? What about “Minnesota”?
This illustrates my point very well. A few hundred years ago, someone might have argued that atheism is hurtful, evil, low status, embarassing, and makes you look stupid. But none of these things affect the fundamental correctness or incorrectness of atheism.
You asked “What scientific theories are these categories from?” For most of the examples I gave this answer was obvious and had you not before heard of, say, ribosomes, you could google and quickly determine a ribosome is a entity from cell biology. You have a history of making people defend extended and irrelevant points so as to avoid ever conceding any point—so I don’t take your request at face value. And if you don’t already know ‘Helium’ comes from chemistry then you need to drastically reduce your confidence in lots of your beliefs. By way of analogy, matter was once believed to consist of five elements. It turned out Aristotelian cosmology was not a theory that helped us answer many important questions so we stopped believing in quintessence. Similarly, “blacks, whites, reds and yellows” is not a theory of human genetic difference at all adequate for answering interesting questions in population genetics or anthropology.
The preposterous thing about this is that I don’t actually strongly disagree with your position. I think you’re wildly overconfident but I don’t think and have never said that positing group IQ differences due to genetics along groups that roughly correspond to some traditional racial categories is by definition racist or even likely to be wrong.
For the third time: it is the way you talk about these issues involving race, genetics and IQ that is hurtful, low status, etc. You seem to be under the misconception that because (you think) your beliefs are true you have the right to offend people when you share them. This may be the case if people are offended by the content of the beliefs. But it is not the case when people are offended by the way you state your beliefs. Less Wrong would not tolerate posts of the kind one finds at r/atheism despite nearly everyone here agreeing with their propositional content. Those posts would get downvoted because they do not rise to Less Wrong standards- despite being trivially true. I don’t think it is too great a burden on people discussing this issue that they have a passing familiarity with population genetics and anthropology.
This debate should look like the exchange between cupholder and steve hsu not, well this.
I limited my request to two of the “real entities” you named. “Homo Sapiens” and the “Dravidian Language Group.”
It’s not obvious to me what scientific theories these categories come from and I will not guess at what you mean.
I also asked you whether “elephants,” “worms” “The South,” or “Minnesota” are “real entities.” You have not answered my question.
I also asked you to state a particular hypothesis in “scientific terms,” which you apparently think would be easy. You have not done so.
In short, I am trying to figure out your point and you are not making it easy for me.
Exactly what point do you think I should concede?
Even assuming this is true, it doesn’t change the fact that the black/white IQ gap is largely due to genetics. In short, it’s a red herring.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose I divide up human beings into three races:
Race 1: Ethnic Swedes plus people born in Maine;
Race 2: Ethnic Japanese plus people born in Sri Lanka;
Race 3: Everyone else.
Would you agree that this racial division is “inadequate foranswering interesting questions in population genetics or anthropology.”?
Lol, the exact point of raising the genetic basis of the black/white IQ difference is because it is considered one of the most offensive, hurtful things to say in the West in the 21st century.
If atheists had not kowtowed to popular opinion as some wish you would, more would have been burned at the stake; more effort would have been put into refutations of atheism, and more time spent on indoctrination of religion as right and atheists as evil non-humans. It’s possible that this could have meant that today there would not be places where the fundamental correctness of atheism could be asserted. In many ways atheism thrives only because religions put so little effort into competing!
By the same token, the net effect of pissing off a portion of LessWrong by using fundamentally correct “racist” terminology may push back recognition of such fundamental correctness. In aggregate it may solidify political correctness into an unassailable fortress!
Something about this pro-appeasement argument strikes me as really wrong, though I wish I were able to better explain why. It just seems to me that the people historically interested in the rule of religion—say, Church hierarchy—would find it better for their agendas that any closet atheists should keep kowtowing rather than become vocal about their disbelief. Surely if nobody ever challenged orthodox ideas, they’d never get overturned?
Well, I’m no historian. But in any case, if a medievial equivalent of Less Wrong, some group of people unusually interested in forming true beliefs formed in those times, then they should be able to discuss atheism at least among themselves, surely. It would be contrary to their common goal to do otherwise. It might prevent them from figuring out that atheism is probably correct, you see.
Sure, atheism may be low status and immoral and evil and “not useful” to know about if true—but if for whatever reason they already decided they are interested in forming true beliefs, then they should consider atheism anyway.
We’re on Less Wrong because we are unusually interested in pursuing true beliefs, and methods of forming them. If other factors such as political correctness or some people’s being sensitive about some topics or whatever get in the way of that, then so much the worse for those other factors. If we have to commit heresies and be offensive to our age’s moral fashions to get closer to truth, then let us commit heresies and be offensive.
Not that I’m in favor of alienating anyone for its own sake, or when it’s avoidable at negligible cost to the discussion’s clarity and usefulness (i.e. by phrasing things neutrally and not taking potshots). All I’m saying is, let’s not let get mind-killed too easily. Currently Less Wrong strikes me as the best place in the entire Internet to pursue intelligent, sane discussion, and possibly even change your mind. Even on topics that would never have a chance in other environments.
I’d hate to see this quality diluted. For what?
I agree largely with MarkusRamikin’s response, but I would add that you are basically speculating here. It’s also possible that if atheists had been more vocal, their views would have more quickly become tolerated.
I agree that highly emotional issues such as race and intelligence are problematic to discuss, but Eliezer kind of opened the door by talking about atheism as a test of rationality. Today, atheism is much more accepted, at least in the West, so it’s not as good as a test. That naturally leads to the question as to what our taboos are in America in the 21st century.
Just a short note, since I posted on a different branch in detail: what matters isn’t the absolute magnitude of diversity within the group itself, but the difference in magnitude of the differences within and the differences between the groups you compare.
So you can make a fairly diverse set {mice, elephants and rhinos}, as a sample of mammals that are grey-brown, and compare them on some attribute, say size, with some other set. It would be a clear contrast with the a set containing three diverse species of bacteria, somewhat less clear next to a set containing three species of unrelated reptiles, and probably not a sensible comparison against some arbitrary three mammals that are orange-brown. You can form true conclusions in all three comparisons, but I’m asking whether all of those conclusions are useful.
ETA: What I don’t know, which stops me from forming a strong opinion on the matter, is how big the genetic variation within the group we’re calling “white” is. It could be that white people are a very closely related group, in which case it would be useful to investigate a statement like “the group we call “white” are, on average, one of the groups of humans which have higher IQ. As a result they have higher average IQ than the much more diverse group of we call “black”.”
I disagree. For example, imagine that Group A is Loxodonta Africana Africana and Group B is “worms”
It’s both meaningful and true to assert that members of Group A are larger than members of Group B.
More usefully put, blacks are paraphyletic.
Of course, this hardly affects the extremely general point about IQ differences and ideology.
Nailed it. Racial groups are an idea a few centuries old; we’ve had a functional understanding of genetics for less than a hundred years.
Long before we had any ability to group people by ancestry in a reliable way, a bunch of distinct populations were grouped by the people of a tiny corner of the globe according to nothing more salient than skin color, and by the fact they often lived hunter-gatherer lifestyles (viewed by the Europeans as unconscionably primitive no matter how happy and prosperous the people themselves were) or low-tech agricultural and pastoralist ones (viewed similarly, insofar as industrializing European populations considered those lifestyles representative of ancestral, earlier times). A whole bunch of these peoples wound up colonial subjects; any intergroup strife between them or conditions they considered normal but Europeans found backward was used to. These marginalized, conquered, exploited peoples did pretty much what marginalized, conquered, exploited peoples anywhere and anytime have done in that situation: their cultures, lifeways, institutions and so on fragmented under the strain, existing tensions amplified, resources became increasingly scarce for the majority, and access to health and wealth plummeted as they went from their own former economies to the bottom rung of another civilization’s.
The Europeans with decisionmaking power largely looked at all this and concluded that the members of this group were a sorry lot and perhaps conquest was better for them than leaving them to their own devices. In some places throughout the greater colonial Eurosphere, they were still legal to own as property until relatively recently.
Then, long after their marginalized status had had centuries to take root, someone discovers the basis for genetic inheritance, and a comparitively short time after, that the populations grouped as “black” (which includes a huge number of quite-distinct groups in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Australia as well as their descendant diasporas elsewhere) are the single most diverse human subgroup on the planet. Oops.
sarcasm Well, no matter—they clearly haven’t done as well on the world stage as European-descended whites, and why are you getting upset that we’d want to ask why? It must be genetic, we’ve got centuries of evidence that these people just don’t do as well! /sarcasm
I’m not sure I agree with your view of colonialism. Europeans did not uniformly judge all of the non-white peoples they encountered so it’s not just a matter of ethnic chauvinism.
More importantly, none of what you said changes the facts that (1) there is a group of people in the world known as “blacks”; (2) there is a group of people in the world known as “whites”; (3) there is a large an intractable difference in intelligence between these groups; and (4) it’s reasonable to ask whether genetics might play a significant role in this gap.
What specific historical details do you contest?
But they did pretty-uniformly judge the peoples they grouped into the category “black”, which just to be clear is the group I specified and the group you’re talking about too.
Who were originally grouped long ago, on the basis of the exceedingly superficial detail of skin color, a trait that turned out to be a red herring since they don’t form a “natural group” in the sense that was assumed originally.
(2) there is a group of people in the world known as “whites”;
See previous, with the added note that this level of grouping didn’t take as thoroughly or as readily outside the colonies.
Disagreed. There is a large, thus-far intractable difference in performance on IQ tests between these groups; we do not concur as to what IQ tests are measuring, let alone the reasons for that.
But, given what we now know about the genetics of the groups in question, it’s privileging the hypothesis to treat “blacks” as a natural group as opposed to a socially-constructed one, and given the many other plausible hypotheses not contradicted by evidence (and the data about historical power asymmetries in their interactions) it’s hardly as primarily or all-consumingly interesting to focus on genetics, when there are so many other relevant factors that turn out not to be undermined by biology.
Just because the genetic evidence has come in does not mean that centuries of racism vanished overnight, and the idea of blacks as a natural group and the differences between them and whites as attributable to genetic factors are quite a bit older than our understanding of what genetics even was. It’s no surprise they’re still kicking around, influencing white intellectual types who’ve never personally been on the oppressed side of the equation and can’t easily understand what all the fuss is about and why people might get so angry that they’re still trying to talk about it in those terms...
I agree that the idea of skin-color defined races as the units you should look for genetic variation between is unhelpful in the context of pure science, but if you politically define all sub-par outcomes compared to the privileged group that are not caused by genes (or something else politically defined as untouchable) as needing to be fixed you need to know about genetic differences between politically defined groups to make sensible decisions.
I apologize, I thought you were referring to non-whites all over the world when you talked about distinct populations being grouped by skin color.
Well what is the criteria for deciding if a group of people form a “natural group”? And what difference does it make if they are a “natural group” or not?
For example, I could divide the world into 3 races as follows:
(1) Ethnic Swedes plus anyone who was born in Maine;
(2) Ethnic Japanese plus anyone who was born in Sri Lanka; and
(3) Everyone else.
Now one could observe that members of Race 1 are more likely to have blue eyes than members of Race 2 and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be yes even though the races have been defined in a completely arbitrary manner.
I disagree, I think it’s pretty clear that IQ tests measure intelligence. But perhaps it’s not something which needs to be resolved, because one can simply ask whether the IQ gap between blacks and whites is due in large part to genetic differences.
Again, what is the criteria for deciding whether you have a “natural group” or a “socially-constructed one”?
“Black” has been used to refer to indigenous peoples of Subsaharan Africa, many parts of Asia, and Australia. Even some South American groups were once classed as “black.”
Genetic relatedness, which I hope you’ll agree is kind of relevant when discussing genetics.
Irrelevant; I’m talking about how different groups were actually defined in history, not about the many arbitrary ways which one could choose to split up the world’s human population.
One could also observe that members of Race 2 in your scheme are more likely to eat a lot of rice than members of Race 1, and ask whether the difference is genetic. The answer would be no, even if the answer to some other possible question might be yes. People in Sri Lanka plus ethnically Japanese people tend to eat more rice due to history and local circumstances (the agricultural civilizations that most influenced them were rice-farming ones), not innate characteristics that predispose them to a diet high in rice.
You disagree that we disagree? I’m afraid I have to disagree with that.
Right, as I said: we disagree on that point; if you continue to assume it in your arguments with me you will not be inherently more-convincing because I believe your argument rests on flawed premises. I might be wrong about that, but my own priors do not concur with yours, and you won’t get me to update mine by merely reasserting yours.
I really recommend you look through the discussion on this subject from Spring 2010 (the ancestors and distant cousins of this thread) to make sure that a) the people you are going back and forth with are likely to argue honestly and productively on this subject and b) your contributions aren’t repeating facts or myths that have already been covered many times before.
For obvious reasons, comments on this subject should be in the upper 10-20% of Less Wrong comments in terms of evidence cited, intellectual honesty, tone, grammar etc.
I don’t understand this response. I am asking how one decides if a group is a “natural group” or a “socially-constructed” group. Simply answering “genetic relatedness” doesn’t answer the question. I prefer not to guess at what you mean.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were arguing that (1) the group known as “blacks” are defined in an arbitrary manner; and therefore (2) it’s not legitimate to claim that the black/white IQ gap has a large genetic component.
What exactly are you arguing?
I agree 100%. The point is that it’s possible to define a “race” in a completely arbitrary manner; observe that 2 races are different; and reasonably ask whether the difference might be caused in whole or in part by genetics.
I disagree with your claim about IQ tests and intelligence, but it’s a separate issue.