Nicholas Wade and the Reality of Race

[Cold Front]

Note I didn't say he thought there were no adaptive differences among populations. It has been a long, long time since I read Descent but I seem to recall that he attributed most behavioral/supposed cognitive differences to culture/environment.

Reread it yourself: http://books.google.com/books?id=XS...tal faculties in men of the same race&f=false

He compares the differences in men to those found in dogs and domestic animals, as well as monkeys, and specifically mentions mental faculties.

 

[Zankou]

Wilson's doing pretty poorly these days on a variety of fronts.
I don't look forward to getting old.

Honestly that EO Wilson quote's rather crazy. Who cares about forums and celebrations and such? How is that science?

I have somewhat similar criticisms of Lewontin's protege, Coyne, when he wades outside of the science (incidentally, Orr is likewise Coyne's protege student; their alignment is not exactly coincidental, though it obviously doesn't mean their views are wrong). Take Coyne's complaint that genetic variation between human populations is not 'profound.' Well, that value judgment is not exactly science either. If I desire to play cornerback in the NFL, Coyne may not find my ancestors being from the statistically wrong continent 'profound,' but I'm hardly obliged to agree with his assessment of its significance.

And likewise, one might suggest that our trio of Lewontin, Coyne, and Orr ending up at Harvard, rather than in the NFL, was not exactly a statistical shocker. Whether Coyne finds this statistical pattern "profound," another uncertainty that is unlikely to be resolved by appeals to scientific authority.

 

[Cold Front]

Since evolution has no direction it's impossible to say. Especially since the genes could do everything "right" and still get wiped out due to pure chance.

No, the genetic formula for family values is always true.

Haven't you heard the famous phrase by J.B.S. Haldane? How he would be wiling to die for two brothers or eight cousins?

Haldane was just expressing humorously what others later developed, that kin selection has a genetic and evolutionary basis.

Read here for the algebra: https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg...b4135fae90486f09852573e6000d50cf?OpenDocument

 

[OldGoat]

Honestly that EO Wilson quote's rather crazy. Who cares about forums and celebrations and such? How is that science?

I have somewhat similar criticisms of Lewontin's protege, Coyne, when he wades outside of the science (incidentally, Orr is likewise Coyne's protege student; their alignment is not exactly coincidental, though it obviously doesn't mean their views are wrong). Take Coyne's complaint that genetic variation between human populations is not 'profound.' Well, that value judgment is not exactly science either. If I desire to play cornerback in the NFL, Coyne may not find my ancestors being from the statistically wrong continent 'profound,' but I'm hardly obliged to agree with his assessment of its significance.

And likewise, one might suggest that our trio of Lewontin, Coyne, and Orr ending up at Harvard, rather than in the NFL, was not exactly a statistical shocker. Whether Coyne finds this statistical pattern "profound," another uncertainty that is unlikely to be resolved by appeals to scientific authority.

Sport is really what highlights the statistical differences.

 

[OldGoat]

No, the genetic formula for family values is always true.

Haven't you heard the famous phrase by J.B.S. Haldane? How he would be wiling to die for two brothers or eight cousins?

Haldane was just expressing humorously what others later developed, that kin selection has a genetic and evolutionary basis.

Read here for the algebra: https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg...b4135fae90486f09852573e6000d50cf?OpenDocument

That I understand. I'm talking about learned behavior to take care of non-reproductive members out of a sense of family loyalty even at your own expense. Or patriotism, nationalism, religion, or other tricky ideologies that have you sacrifice yourself or your resources for others very remotely related and for their benefit. Like liberalism lol

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well of course there is still racism but if one group was perceived to be superior to another because of some finding somewhere than it could not only reinforce existing beliefs but spread new ones and could be potentially far reaching because of the perception that its science based.

I agree to a certain extent, beauty isn't as subjective as some would like to think but its still more subjective and difficult to measure than something like intelligence. I haven't done a lot of reading on intelligence in a while but iirc intelligence is pretty static once you reach adulthood while beauty fades. An individuals IQ test results will likely differ across different trials but usually not by much.

So if we learned something genetically truthful yet unpleasant (for some people) through science is that good or bad for human evolution as a whole? Last I knew we didn't have special laws for people who test slightly below the mean IQ. Is there anything besides intelligence where genetically speaking ignorance is bliss?

I agree beauty fades although I'm not sure what bearing that has on our discussion. But I'll throw this out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/

Can your IQ score change over time?
Absolutely. "IQ scores," explains Cornell University's Stephen Ceci, "can change quite dramatically as a result of changes in family environment (Clarke, 1976; Svendsen, 1982), work environment (Kohn and Schooler, 1978), historical environment (Flynn, 1987), styles of parenting (Baumrind, 1967; Dornbusch, 1987), and, most especially, shifts in level of schooling."[v]

If IQ scores can change over time, why do most people's IQ scores stay reasonable stable?
What any individual can achieve with the right combination of assets and gumption is entirely different from what most people actually do achieve. Most people settle into a particular academic standing early in life and do not substantially deviate from that standing. That's the inertia of life and human circumstance.

 

[Cold Front]

To keep with your example of schizophrenia, anti-psychotic medication leads to improvements in most patients so while these individuals have schizophrenia modern medicine allows them to improve their quality of life significantly and as such their affliction likely won't affect their reproductive fitness the way it would in the absence of such medication.

But there is a cost to the individual. Medications don't always work. They cost money. Therapy costs both time and money. Etc.

Ultimately, it's like being asked to run a competitive race while weighed down with sandbags. You can get across the finish line, but you won't have as easy a time of it as someone without those burdens - and ultimately all that matters for the spread of a trait in a population is differential breeding rates. If you have six kids, but your neighbor has twelve, your neighbor's genes win that round.

 

[Cold Front]

That I understand. I'm talking about learned behavior to take care of non-reproductive members out of a sense of family loyalty even at your own expense. Or patriotism, nationalism, religion, or other tricky ideologies that have you sacrifice yourself or your resources for others very remotely related and for their benefit. Like liberalism lol

We value those things religiously and sentimentally, but evolution may or may not value them, depending on the context.

Genes are generally not into self-sacrifice if the price is too high. What's in it for them?

 

[OldGoat]

We value those things religiously and sentimentally, but evolution may or may not value them, depending on the context.

Genes are generally not into self-sacrifice if the price is too high. What's in it for them?

Genes don't think. They produce organisms that may. Some of the behavior of the organisms may not be optimal for the propagation of the genes that produce the behavior. Some stuff that genes do doesn't survive and certain manners of behavior may be part of that.

Which is why in the long term altruistic and self-sacrificing behavior towards distantly related groups may be out reproduced by more selfish behaviors.

 

[Cold Front]

Genes don't think. They produce organisms that may. Some of the behavior of the organisms may not be optimal for the propagation of the genes that produce the behavior. Some stuff that genes do doesn't survive and certain manners of behavior may be part of that.

Which is why in the long term altruistic and self-sacrificing behavior towards distantly related groups may be out reproduced by more selfish behaviors.

Correct. I was anthropomorphizing genes to make a point, in the same way Richard Dawkins described "the selfish gene" to make a point.

We were originally talking about the impact of mutations. I said that those which don't affect reproductive success don't matter. You countered by mentioning the possibility of individual selfish behavior hurting a man's family.

But if the individual's selfish behavior doesn't impact the reproduction of his genes - and I'm speaking in the widest sense to include the success of his family's genes - then those mutations don't matter.

I mean, a mutation which makes a woman have a lot of children and then kill them all before they grow up affects her fitness, even if it doesn't directly hurt her reproductive success.

 

[OldGoat]

Correct. I was anthropomorphizing genes to make a point, in the same way Richard Dawkins described "the selfish gene" to make a point.

We were originally talking about the impact of mutations. I said that those which don't affect reproductive success don't matter. You countered by mentioning the possibility of individual selfish behavior hurting a man's family.

But if the individual's selfish behavior doesn't impact the reproduction of his genes - and I'm speaking in the widest sense to include the success of his family's genes - then those mutations don't matter.

I mean, a mutation which makes a woman have a lot of children and then kill them all before they grow up affects her fitness, even if it doesn't directly hurt her reproductive success.

I'm making the point that if how you think is partially determined by your genes than you feel about others in your family even the non-reproducing ones can change your behavior in such a way that you do not reproduce as much as you otherwise would. So a later mutation that caused a health issue may result in you devoting an excess of resources to care for that sick individual instead of focusing on your own reproduction. In which case compassion can be counterproductive to your own genes.

Now to what extent especially if this concept is extended to self sacrificing behavior for further cousins based on notions of patriotism and such is impossible to say. But that gets into intractable game theory sort of issues.

 

[Cold Front]

I'm making the point that if how you think is partially determined by your genes than you feel about others in your family even the non-reproducing ones can change your behavior in such a way that you do not reproduce as much as you otherwise would. So a later mutation that caused a health issue may result in you devoting an excess of resources to care for that sick individual instead of focusing on your own reproduction. In which case compassion can be counterproductive to your own genes.

Yes, exactly. Like I said, there's a tradeoff. Even in families there's a tradeoff and sometimes that tradeoff is ugly to our modern sensibilities. Look at Sarah Hrdy's work on infanticide, for example - mothers who willingly snuff their infants because there aren't enough resources to go around.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well how do you argue against selective breeding then? Without some form of sanctity of human life moral postulate an argument can be made that society would benefit.

I wouldn't know tbh but I think its a discussion society might have in the coming decades. Reproductive rights are something we take for granted but one could find many reason to limit them.

So if we learned something genetically truthful yet unpleasant (for some people) through science is that good or bad for human evolution as a whole? Last I knew we didn't have special laws for people who test slightly below the mean IQ. Is there anything besides intelligence where genetically speaking ignorance is bliss?

I think intelligence is the best example because its something we as humans value a lot. I guess athletic prowess might be another one.

I agree beauty fades although I'm not sure what bearing that has on our discussion. But I'll throw this out there.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/

Haha, like I said I haven't read much on intelligence for a while. Made the mistake of thinking because IQ tends not to change does not mean it can't change.

But there is a cost to the individual. Medications don't always work. They cost money. Therapy costs both time and money. Etc.

Ultimately, it's like being asked to run a competitive race while weighed down with sandbags. You can get across the finish line, but you won't have as easy a time of it as someone without those burdens - and ultimately all that matters for the spread of a trait in a population is differential breeding rates. If you have six kids, but your neighbor has twelve, your neighbor's genes win that round.

You don't need therapy, the medication is usually all you need and more often than not it works very well. I never said modern medicine nullified evolution but just that it made is easier for these maladaptive traits to spread.

 

[Cold Front]

You don't need therapy, the medication is usually all you need and more often than not it works very well. I never said modern medicine nullified evolution but just that it made is easier for these maladaptive traits to spread.

But all this argument comes down to is that the mutational problem doesn't reduce fitness very much, if at all. That's a separate argument. I'm assuming it's a serious problem.

If the problem can be controlled to the point it doesn't affect fitness, then it's the equivalent of a disease which you can be vaccinated against.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think intelligence is the best example because its something we as humans value a lot. I guess athletic prowess might be another one.

I guess I just don't have a vision for what could really come of it. I can see people picking genes off a menu if they had the chance but I don't see people picking or eschewing mates due to science uncovering you might have 2-3 less IQ points or lose a few inches of your vertical leap if you choose someone of a particular race over someone of another race. People are already highly racial with mate selection with little regard for how genes might be combined in their offspring.

 

[kjg1672]

Wish I had seen this thread earlier. I heard him interviewed on Leonard Lopate and it sounds like a great book. Just listening to the interview for 15 minutes was fascinating.

 

[Cold Front]

The Scientific American reviewer, Eric Michael Johnson, is misrepresenting and perhaps even lying about Gregory Clark's relevance to Wade's thesis that the Industrial Revolution was driven by genetics.

Here are the details: http://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/05/21/johnson-misrepresents-clark/#more-515

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hilarious review from Dirk Dorkins (though he might have had a professor somewhere along the line that isn't acceptable to academic racists so tread carefully):

http://genotopia.scienceblog.com/441/hail-britannia-review-of-wades-a-troublesome-inheritance/

What specifically in his book do you disagree with?

Edit: Read some of those reviews. It seems it's not so much the "race does actual exist and different peoples have different genetic traits" thesis but the conclusions he draws are extremely speculative.

To put it as nicely as possible. Basically, there doesn't seem to be any reason at all to accept his conclusions. But, you know, he said he was jest speculatin' so it's all good. He's immune from criticism. He has immunity. It's cool.

 

[Cold Front]

Poor Savage is now reduced to searching the internet for book reviews parodying a book whose contents he still knows anything about.

 

[7437]

Behavioral geneticists believe every trait is heritable.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf

These people seem confused as to what a law is