Monday 6 July 2009

Your ignorance is not bliss to me

Ok...just listen to me. I'm going to tell you something you should really know if you are a carbon based life form with a rudimentary ability to functiong cognitively in the frontol lobal arena.

There are people out there who argue that our genes play a strong role in predicting our potential. They believe Certain genes make us more intelligent or violent etc. This is the basis for their thesis that certain "racial groups" behave in certain ways because they are pre-destined to.

Stupid.

You see even if we take a hard core socio-biological stance and assume that genes play a massive role in determing our behaviour, this thesis still fails. Why ?

There is no such thing as race.

I don't mean that is some floozy politically corrent little "South African peace crisps" bullshit way. I mean it in the cold, hard, scientifically objective, biological sense.

Research done in 2003 showed there is more diversity amongst people of the so called "same race" than between all the races together. Wrap your mind around that for a moment.

And even then the entire genetic diversity amongst humans of the same gender is 0.3%. Compare this to the genetic differences beween men and women which are over 1.5%. The differences between men and women and their behavioural potential are 5 times greater than the potential differences in "race".

And that's before we even consider that effectively all differences are phenotypical. The colour of the skin might be different etc , but this plays no considerable role in our behaviour (well with a few exceptions : melanin can explain why blacks develop muscle more effectively for example).

And even while clearly there are phenotypical differences between people it's still wrong to assume stereotypical potential onto them. Kenyans , Ethiopans and American blacks for example ....no one would argue they are blacks. Yet at the olympics one is not likely to find many black American long distance champions , nor is one likely to find many Ethiopian 100 meter sprinters. So while the color of the skin is the same the genetic differences ammongst the so called "race" iself is clearly vast.

Even if racial groups did not have massive racial diversity ammongst them it would not be significant. I wrote about this before but there are thousands of examples world wide of people with similiar genetic make up but are exposed to different cultural circumstances, and the glaringly obvious truth is that despite their genetic make up there is no correlation between their genes and their potential. Twin studies also show that outside a few niche areas , like alcoholism etc genetics generally is a poor indication of potential and culture plays a far more significant part.

I'm frankly seen so much evidence to disprove the idea of race, so much evidence entirely debunking the few people out their who still insist on it that I'm highly unmotivated to even debate it any more. I feel bored and unstimulated by the debate because the truth is so glaringly obvious when you have the data in front of you. There can be no other valid conclusion drawn than "Race" in any form of genetic definition does not exist.

So if you must debate me, then do so.......but please don't bore me with poorly made enecdotal arguments about "how certain races ..." ...oops...see the error you made there ? There is no such thing as a "race" outside the context of "culture". And therefore until you can prove to me there is (hint : you can't because...well...there isn't) you must accept that all differences in ability that seems to correlate to a certain skin color must be seen as a cultural or environmental differences and not a genetic one. The mutual conclusion therefore being that race plays no part in predicting someones potential. So save us both the headache and don't bother.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

1.
“There are people out there who argue that our genes play a strong role in predicting our potential. They believe Certain genes make us more intelligent or violent etc. This is the basis for their thesis that certain "racial groups" behave in certain ways because they are pre-destined to.”

In nature, environment is a factor in determining our evolved genetic makeup. Aggression for example can manifest itself in very different ways depending on evolved conditioning to environment. Take for example the aggressive African honey bee. Imported to Japan because of its high honey yield, the bee swarms come under attack from giant wasps. The instinct of this bee is to immediately attack and protect the hive from invasion. Its openly aggressive nature now becomes its undoing as the sting of the bee is totally ineffective against the protective chitin of the wasp and the wasp is served up at a bee banquet.
While some docile species of bee do not fight back at all during these attacks, the native Japanese wild honey bee will wait patiently until the wasp has entered the hive. They actually wait for the hive invasion. Then once the wasp is effectively trapped in the hive the Japanese honey bee will launch a ferocious assault on the wasp. Not with its stinger but by swarming over the wasp and smothering it. The wasp is very sensitive to body core temperature change and whilst trapped in the hive the wasp is literally cooked alive.
As bees are instinctive creatures we can determine from this that, in nature, aggression can not only be linked to genetics but different species of bee can have vastly different levels and manifestations of aggression linked to prolonged exposure to variable environment.
Humans are not purely instinctive creatures but behaviour can be linked to genetic makeup. Take the obvious differences between man and woman. Men, like the African honey bee, are far more openly aggressive than woman and we can thank our genetic makeup for that. If you can accept that prevalence of aggression is linked partly to genetic makeup then you must also concede that those same genes can be sifted and sorted over time resulting in aggression levels and persuasions suited to specific environments.

Anonymous said...

2.
On intelligence, this one is a bit more difficult for me as I am not very. But let just start by saying that nothing in nature is equal - Just like people. I once saw scientists trying to teach a chimp to talk but a lady in America had better luck with an African Grey. The only real difference between the two animals is their gene sequence. Somewhere along the line after crawling from the primordial soup a creature’s lineage split into two different paths. One path destined to become an African grey and the other to become a chimp; one with the capacity for speech and the other not. While we could agree that the chimp is ultimately more intelligent than the bird, the genetic makeup of the chimp does not yet allow for speech. Different facets of intelligence are governed by different genes and not just a result of environment (you don’t see cats and dogs eating with knives and forks do you).
Just like aggression, genes that determine the different facets of intelligence can be coerce by the evolutionary process into varying levels of potency. Our environment (in a single life time) only affords us the opportunity to reach the potential of our genetic makeup.
The visible difference between pockets of human beings that have long been isolated from each other is plain to see (and given another hundred thousand years or so of isolation we may even evolve into an entirely different species) but let us just say that the difference is marked and even now we can be crudely divided into broad groups we call race.
I don’t see any force in nature that would keep the potential intelligence potency of each racial group exactly in sync with every other isolated evolving racial group. There will inevitable be a margin of difference.
Globalization has seen to it that the different evolutionary trails taken by the human species have become one single highway but during the thousands of years of previous isolation some varying margin of intellectual predisposition must exist between the race groups, however small it may be (unless of course some mysterious force of nature extended its hand over the seas and kept this one facet of our existence exactly equal).

Anonymous said...

3.
“You see even if we take a hard core socio-biological stance and assume that genes play a massive role in determing our behaviour, this thesis still fails. Why ?

There is no such thing as race.”

Rooster, your logic on race is missing one vital ingredient – TIME. If race did not exist then you are also denying its ability to become cumulative and systemic. If we are to give a name to the early stage of species separation then race would be it. If not then I have a rabbit as a sister and a jackass for a brother (well the later may be true). I would agree that the lines between race groups from a genetic standpoint are blurred to such a point that they are not absolutely discernable. However, just like one of those 1000 piece puzzles, once we start putting the pieces together a clearer picture starts to present itself. I don’t know how to clearly explain it but think of Smarties vs M&M’s. Every Smartie is different from every other and a simple comparison would probably conclude that, apart from size & shape and perhaps a nut or two, a brown Smartie has more in common with a brown M&M than with a pink Smartie given the relative E numbers, flavour etc. but it is the different colours that makes Smarties work as a product. Smarties and M&M’s are different products even if their “genetic” makeup fails to clearly separate them and here is why. Remember when the boys at Nestle added the blue Smartie. The whole product was irrevocably changed and the public were left to decide the fate of the colourful sugar-coated chocolate confectionery. Later an orange chocolate Smartie was also added. At the same time across the pond M&M’s composition was totally unaffected by the new changes to their colourful counterparts.
I would also agree that the differences defining race are extraordinarily fickle and the traditional black, white, yellow distinction is very crude, so let’s complicate things a bit more. Let’s say Nestle is bought over by Mars Incorporated and both Smarties and M&M’s are suddenly served up in the same packet under the name SmartM’s. A new cohesion would have to be found but they would ultimately become one in the same. However to look back and say that Smarties and M&M’s never existed or that M&M’s gained a blue button at the same time as their cousins because of the “genetic” similarity would be incorrect. Presented with a pack of SmartM’s the two sweets would still be distinguishable even if some of the “Smarties” now come with nuts and people would still pick out their favourites wouldn’t they.

The Rooster said...

Humans are not purely instinctive creatures but behaviour can be linked to genetic makeup. Take the obvious differences between man and woman. Men, like the African honey bee, are far more openly aggressive than woman and we can thank our genetic makeup for that. If you can accept that prevalence of aggression is linked partly to genetic makeup then you must also concede that those same genes can be sifted and sorted over time resulting in aggression levels and persuasions suited to specific environments.

-------------------

No , no , no. Wrong. You are comparing a species of bee with other species of bee that can not even mate with each other...first mistake...that's like comparing a human and an chimp. And male aggression has wrongly , in my opinio, been attributed to genetic differences between the genders. A far greater part of it has to do with the fact that agression is nurtured in males. Fot every aggressive male you will find 10 who are not physially aggressive in any way or form. Society calouslly over looks and trivialises the traumatic boys grow up and nurture this aggression in men.

Anyway..you miss the point I was making...EVEN IF genes determined our likelyhood to behave in a certain way...there is far too much genetc variance in the "races" themselves to make this valid in any form. There is no such thing as race in a biological sense.

The Rooster said...

The visible difference between pockets of human beings that have long been isolated from each other is plain to see (and given another hundred thousand years or so of isolation we may even evolve into an entirely different species) but let us just say that the difference is marked and even now we can be crudely divided into broad groups we call race.


------------

Incorrecty. There are people in scandanavia with genes more similiar to eastern africans than to sub saharan africans for example.

And humanity has a common ancestor far less than 100 000 years ago by the way. Homo sapien sapien (our last significant evolutionary move) only existed as near as 145 000 years ago. While he climates of the world have lead to various obvious phenotypical differences .

I response to the rest you still miss the main paoint...even if genes do predict behaviour , there is far too much variation in so called "race" pools for this to mean anything.

Anonymous said...

“No , no , no. Wrong. You are comparing a species of bee with other species of bee that can not even mate with each other...first mistake...that's like comparing a human and an chimp”.
“Anyway..you miss the point I was making...EVEN IF genes determined our likelyhood to behave in a certain way...there is far too much genetc variance in the "races" themselves to make this valid in any form. There is no such thing as race in a biological sense”.
As I said before, the only difference between types of bee and types of human is time and circumstance. Think of the Darwinian tree of life and its many branches. The bee may be further down a “fork” relative to humans but the fact remains that fundamental changes have already started to take place between race groups and that makes the idea of race viable.
If you were an alien observer watching earth and in your report to your squid eyed boss you neglected to mention the fact that at some point in time groups of humans started to head down a different evolutionary track from one another due to physical separation etc, he would have your tentacles for a keychain when he landed and saw the glaringly obvious. ...and that is all race is, the beginning of a fork (even if it eventually looks more like a lemon in our case). The fact that it is an observable phenomenon makes it real and measurable.
I get your point about genetic variation within races being vast but I think your view point is a little blunt, firstly because you miss the subtlety in the differentiator and also because you view race as mere perception. You concentrate too hard on the physicality of the issue and miss the less tangible assets that define us as a being. Choice, for example, can be as much of a defining feature in our eventuality as strand 24 of our DNA. Because of the nature of life our perceptions have the ability to define us as much as mere physicality. To miss that is to miss the very essence of life. It’s the reason that peacocks have large pretty feathers and don’t fly so well. If race did not exist then it could not have any cumulative effects and we know that given enough time those effects are the only real difference between a chimp and a human. Race is the Irish Setter (pointer) of our genome.

That being said, viewing race as black, white, red etc, is simplistic in the extreme and anybody that defines themselves in those terms is fundamentally mistaken. At this point in our history the dog has been shot and only a few are asking for a puppy.
Now, time to catch up on some curry cup action. Go Sharks!!!

Anonymous said...

"Incorrecty. There are people in scandanavia with genes more similiar to eastern africans than to sub saharan africans for example".

If I take your literal meaning then given the theory that we evolved from sub Saharan Africa and moved North then that result would be inevitable. But I think you meant that Scandinavians are more similar to the E. Africans than the E. Africans are to Sub Saharan Africans. Interesting but not conclusive in defining race.

Anonymous said...

"And humanity has a common ancestor far less than 100 000 years ago by the way. Homo sapien sapien (our last significant evolutionary move) only existed as near as 145 000 years ago. While he climates of the world have lead to various obvious phenotypical differences".

Not sure how 145 000 is less than 100 000?
Also, attributing climate as the sole defining factor of phenotypical differences was a bit rash, but hey, you did say you were not in the mood for debate.

The Rooster said...

you misunderstood. We have been a species for 145 000 years as homo sapien sapiens. We have a common ancestorial pool ranging as close back as 55 000 years when we migrated from central africa . And yes ...as you corrently point out...the same gene pool that made it north is shared by those that made it here...south. The differences now are thus phenotypical (physical appearance.) And these gene pools have been mixed and matched so much there's no biological valid basis for "racial" distinction.

Anonymous said...

"The differences now are thus phenotypical (physical appearance.) And these gene pools have been mixed and matched so much there's no biological valid basis for "racial" distinction".

Agreed,(unless you basis race distinction on those genes governing appearance, which I don't agree with)I think our grandfathers found that out when they tried to enforce apartheid. In the end they had to rely only on what they could see (phenotypical differences)to base their prejudices.

Well at lease we gave this post a little content. About your latest post, give the movie a chance. At first I thought the premise was a thinly veiled attempt at regurgitating apartheid sentiment but I think I was wrong.
Think about it, an "alien species" trying to make a home on a distant land. Not accepted by their native countrymen. Hold advanced technology which the natives are trying to steal. This must have been written by your friends at SAS. HA, this could be funny.

The Rooster said...

Agreed,(unless you basis race distinction on those genes governing appearance, which I don't agree with)I think our grandfathers found that out when they tried to enforce apartheid. In the end they had to rely only on what they could see (phenotypical differences)to base their prejudices.

------------

Well this is the thing. Phenotypical factors do have some bearing on our potential. Melanin , the agent responsible for determining the darkness of our skin, is also related to how quickly and effeciently we can build muscle mass. Sililary it's also related to how effectively we can absorb vitamin d, which has implications too. But to put a correlation between skin color and potential is not statistically valid in even the most leniant sense.

I always wonder why we don't force Anthropology down our kids throats at school instead of some usless thing like accountancy. It's a brilliant school of knowledge when taught in an objective open minded way.

We could all do with some cultural relatavism...the ability to see other cultures objectively and look back on our own with the same critical eye. Far too many assholes out there who still have a cartesian dualist view of the world. Lame.

The Rooster said...

Well at lease we gave this post a little content. About your latest post, give the movie a chance. At first I thought the premise was a thinly veiled attempt at regurgitating apartheid sentiment but I think I was wrong.
Think about it, an "alien species" trying to make a home on a distant land. Not accepted by their native countrymen. Hold advanced technology which the natives are trying to steal. This must have been written by your friends at SAS. HA, this could be funny.

-------------

Actually I'm starting to do a 180 on that post. I was so fascinated as to why what at first seemed like such a terrile idea was being backed by peter jackson and sony , that I looked up neill blomkamp on youtube and came across his "short" films. He has a very unique "voice" ...I saw a film he did called "yellow" and he's an intelligent guy ....there might be something to this film.