Race, Genetics, and possible inequalilties

[Alejandro C]

I've heard a lot that science has proven that race is just a 'social construct' or that it proves that we are all the same, but my studying of science has only reinforced the idea that there are differences between the races. I've read repeatedly in different (well (peer)reviewed) books about two genes in particular (for intelligence and creativity) that are found much more frequently among Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians. Every time I read about these or other genetic pre-dispositions the authors are always quick to point out that surely as more research is done genes favoring other groups will be found, or detrimental genes will be found in Europeans or something along those lines and so everything evens out. It seems pretty clear that it won't even out exactly and in the end some groups are going to come-out better in different areas.
I have two questions about this research: should we know these things? and What will be the effects of knowing these things?
In questions like these I will always fall on the side of knowing the truth even if it is a hard truth. But I'm really curious about how this might change society in the future.
Will the differences turn out to be so small that nothing changes?
Will certain groups who excel in one area be pressured into it and away from something else?
Will certain groups with a disadvantage in one area be helped in it?

They are tough questions, but seem inevitable.

[spartan]

I think it's to do with where specific people come from.

For instance Europeans, Asians and Americans (I am thinking of the pre-Columbian peoples of central and north west south America here) inhabit continents (Eurasia and America respectively) which are very resource rich and in old times allowed farming to be developed as a way of getting food instead of, or combined with, hunting.

This obviously had a major effect on the people of the time and allowed them to develop further as they mastered the enviroment around them to use it to their advantage (Look at the great civilisations of pre-Columbian central and north west south America for instance).

In contrast hunter gatherers in some parts of Africa and north and south America had no land which could be used to grow food easily (As it was either arid or they lived in dense jungle enviroments or they just didn't bother to make use of the land around them as their hunter gatherer lifestyles were more then sufficient to keep them alive and comfortable and not warrant any kind of drastic change in lifestyle for these peoples) and they thus stuck to hunting as a way of life.

Thus some of these hunter gatherers lifestyles were at times nomadic (Though the majority were probably settled or semi-nomadic) and they generally lived in small tribal groups in modest dwellings which reflected their simple lifestyles when compared with the farmers and eventual urban dwellers in Eurasia and certain parts of pre-Columbian America.

What this means genetic wise i dont know nor do i care that much. All i know is that two peoples living two completely different lifestyles are likely to have different and unique approachs to life and the problems that life present to us as a species (One isnt necessarily superior to the other as both have their advantages and disadvantages in different landscapes and enviroments which might favour one lifetsyle over the other as a better way to survive).

So though we in Europe may regard the way someone in Africa does something as inferior to our way, they probably regard the way we do somethings as inferior to their way.

[Mujer Libre]

two genes in particular (for intelligence and creativity) that are found much more frequently among Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Asians.
Um, source? AFAIK, genes for such abstract concepts as "intelligence" and "creativity" haven't been found, let alone SINGLE gene loci. It seems a little far-fetched.

[TC]

While this is obviously bullshit since, as Mujer Libre said, no such genes have been convincingly identified, and moreover, any attempt to quantify intelligence or creativity poses serious conceptual/category problems (the concept of 'general intelligence' or even more so, any concept of a general creativity quotient, being totally hypothetical with empirical evidence against it) which would be an obvious precondition for identifying any differences in the distribution in populations...

...but say hypothetically it was found to be the case, which is a real if profoundly unlikely possibility; it wouldn't have any social relevance because where the average characteristics of an individual's demographic group fall have no baring on the particular characteristics of that particular individual. White Americans as a population have a higher statistical mean in height than do Black Americans; this makes no difference when picking *individuals* in part based on their height to make up a basket ball team though.

[spartan]

At the end of the day genetics have nothing to do with whether a certain race of people are more or less intelligent than another race, it's all about the enviroment that you are brought up in that counts.

For instance a poor black man who had to skip school as a kid so that he could instead steal or deal in drugs to help feed his unemployed family is far less likely to be as intelligent as say a white man who's father is a successful businessman and who has payed for the best home tuition available for his child who has subsequently gained major qualifications from this tuition.

That has nothing to do with race and everything to do with what enviroment you grew up in, which is why statistics show white people (Who are better able to take advantage of opportunities due to their more privileged position in society) as more intelligent than black people (Who have an uphill struggle when wanting to advance).

[MarxSchmarx]

For instance a poor black man who had to skip school as a kid so that he could instead steal or deal in drugs to help feed his unemployed family is far less likely to be as intelligent as say a white man who's father is a successful businessman and who has payed for the best home tuition available for his child who has subsequently gained major qualifications from this tuition.

It hinges on the term "intelligence". I think a poor black man who had to learn all these skills is much more intelligent than someone who had everything handed to them on a silver platter. Just think of George W. Bush. Sure, your average black-marketeer won't have a clue about the Napoleonic wars. But what a lot of these "low lifes" do requires just as much skill, discipline, cunning and entrepeneurship as the "captains of industry" bandits whose actions just so happen to be sanctioned by the state.

[Unicorn]

Any possible inequalities do not matter because obviously all races have high enough intelligence to function in the modern society.

[Alejandro C]

Any possible inequalities do not matter because obviously all races have high enough intelligence to function in the modern society.

That's a good answer.

For those of you who rejected the original premise here is a Slate article about it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

Here's an abstract about one of the genes:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1717

Here's a journal article about race and genetics (although I could see the environment argument hurting parts of this):
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Here is a journal article about it (check the opening and especially at page 8 starting with "correlation with race"
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/winter2003_meisenberg.pdf

There are clear genetic (and racial) differences between people for things like diseases, physical shape, fertility, and a whole host of other things. Isn't it obvious that intelligence would be selected for in evolution and that the differences in the strength of this selection would give different genetic pre-dispositions for different groups?
These differences should be small because we've only separated from eachother for roughly 50,000 years. But still there are going to be differences. I know I'm not happy about finding this out, my group comes in low in everyone of these that I read. But I think it's an interesting question.

[Decolonize The Left]

There are clear genetic (and racial) differences between people for things like diseases, physical shape, fertility, and a whole host of other things. Isn't it obvious that intelligence would be selected for in evolution and that the differences in the strength of this selection would give different genetic pre-dispositions for different groups?
These differences should be small because we've only separated from eachother for roughly 50,000 years. But still there are going to be differences. I know I'm not happy about finding this out, my group comes in low in everyone of these that I read. But I think it's an interesting question.

Whether or not a gene for "intelligence" and "creativity" exists, or is discovered, is irrelevant in relation to a stateless, classless, egalitarian society.

It seems as though the real question being asked here is how can humans be 'equal' when they are obviously different?

The answer is simple: All human beings are different. It is foolish to argue otherwise. But difference in physical and mental characteristics does not necessitate difference in social value. Humans are 'equal' in their freedom. Several of our members have touched on this.

Unicorn writes:

Any possible inequalities do not matter because obviously all races have high enough intelligence to function in the modern society.

TragicClown writes:

it wouldn't have any social relevance because where the average characteristics of an individual's demographic group fall have no baring on the particular characteristics of that particular individual.

In order to justify my claim that humans are equal in their freedom, I offer the following argument:
Premise: I am a human being, and a free agent.
Conclusion 1: I am like other human beings, and hence they are free agents as well. I.e. I am symmetrical in my freedom.
Conclusion 2: I share this planet with all other human beings, hence I am mutually bound to the conditions of life. I.e. My freedom is mutual.
Conclusion 3: Given that the universe is a closed system, all actions inevitably have a consequence on all other actions, no matter how small. Hence my freedom is reciprocal.

We can see now that all human beings are equal in their freedom because it is symmetrical, mutual, and reciprocal. Hence questions of difference exist at a physical/biological level, but are entirely irrelevant on a social level when determining social value. In other words, we are all different and unique, and all equal at the same time. Don't you love paradoxes?

- August

[Alejandro C]

^^^ That's a great answer. But I think it's incomplete because it misses that other people are not nearly as magnanimous as you (or the other posters). What I was really wondering is the societal impact of the results of the these studies. I'm also wondering what the political response is going to be. If you and the other posters think there should be no change, I agree very much; but if you think there won't be change, I disagree.

[jake williams]

I think it's a very difficult issue, and one that must be addressed.

The truth is we are talking about very broad, complex categories when we talk about population genetics. "Race" in the terms of setting up absolutist sortings of people into 6 or 7 groups is obviously a myth, but the notion that geographical and hence reproductive separation, to some degree, of different groups of people, who thence develop slightly different gene compositions (overall. In fact, I'm going to stop point out that we're talking about large numbers of people and generalizations, where I think it's obvious), is actually obvious just from logic. Moreover social and cultural differences correlate from these geographical separations (which are particularly explicit, naturally, where you have important geographic borders, along the Himalayan mountains between India and China, along the Sahara in Africa, across the oceans, that sort of thing).

Given this, we have to address the (generalized) gene differences which arise in particular locations. They do exist, and they can exist. And it doesn't take any controversial understanding of neurology and genetics to posit that this could have some qualitative effect (we'll ignore quantitative analyses because they pose their own problems) on the brain. It would presumably be pretty slight, though not necessarily, and it would certainly be very very open to environmental and social conditions, and variation.

One question that arises is whether or not this has occurred on a meaningful level in the human gene pool. The best answer I can give is that while it's certainly possible it doesn't seem to have. While I don't have an ideological objection to exploring the question, I don't think much of the studies that have came out suggesting genetically determined differences.

From there there is the whole mess one can get into about the ideological context of science. I refuse to take a common "left" approach here and denigrate science in the interests of maintaining a religious "egalitarianism". I maintain that science is the best analytical framework we have to address these sorts of questions honestly and deal with the consequences, which I think would exist. Science isn't flawless as a tool to do this, but that doesn't mean we have a better alternative, in fact its flaws often relate to its connection to reality.

There is the easy answer to all of this, of course, that the differences all pale into comparison to the individual differences between real people which and whom we should really be paying attention to. I don't think this allows us to totally disregard the question though.