LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  February 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE February 2007

Subject:

Re: Genetics & Race

From:

"José F. Morales" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:43:45 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (223 lines)

Folks,

So as many of you may or may not know, there is a great deal of
effort being spent uncovering the basis of human genetic variation.
This amounts to copy number differences and SNPs in the human genome.
This entails varying numbers of copies of segments of the genome and
"spelling differences" (An example in english -- theater and theatre
) in genes and non-genic sections of the genome. These differences
are spread out throughout the genome in a more of less even density
along the genome such that all the genes in the genome have MANY
versions in the entire human population. These versions are grouped
geographically such that milage is the relevant variable in observing
the frequency of a particular version. The consequence of these
versions can be great or inconsequential. Some changes produce no
effect, others change the functioning of proteins in significant ways
(ie. specific activity of enzymes, the binding strength of receptors
etc.). These versions that produce changes in function are known to
affect macroscopic traits of an organism. This includes disease
susceptibility, metabolizing fat, response to toxics etc.

That said, there are numerous versions of neuro-specific genes
including those that are brain-specific. As with all genes, some of
these versions will be inconsequential and others not. It may be
that some of these versions impact macroscopic cognitive functions.
This is not my area so I don't know details...but I'm quite sure this
exists and I could find it if I looked. These cognitive impacts
could either be positive or negative, large or small.

Since all versions are distributed unequally along geographic lines,
their frequency in populations differ. Hence we may soon find out,
if we don't already know, that neuro-specific gene versions are also
distributed unequally. Thus, there may be genetically based,
population-specific cognitive differences. What those cognitive
differences will be or are, I can't say. It may turn out to be
something like perception of differences in high frequency sound or
audio channel amygdala response time etc. It maybe something else?

What will we do if we find out that this situation exists? What is a
"left" view of this?

While I don't think this amounts to "race differences in
intelligence", it can at least be interpreted by some social forces
in this way.

Jose


>If there is no such thing as "race" (defined
>genetically/biologically), then there is no such thing as racial
>differences in intelligence.
>
>Mitchel Cohen
>
>At 04:06 AM 2/21/2007, you wrote:
>>I would like to add one thing, and I don't do this to be
>>deliberately provocative but to make a point. If the hypothesis
>>that there are no "racial" differences in intelligence seems to us
>>to have been proved, and if we further do not believe that science
>>gives any credence to the notion that there are such differences
>>between any population groups no matter how defined, then we have
>>to be willing to allow researchers to test the contrary hypothesis,
>>as Rushton and others have done. Ie, if we are relying on science
>>to support the political conclusions we want to see, we have to
>>accept what scientific research says. We also have to accept that
>>it is POSSIBLE that such differences exist, and that we could be
>>wrong. Any other attitude is not scientific and ultimately does our
>>cause little good.
>>
>>One of the reasons that I suggested that people here read my
>>profile of Bruce Lahn in Science is that the story of the ASPM and
>>microcephalin genes is an example of letting chips fall where they
>>may in science: Lahn's hypothesis that there might be a link
>>between the allele distributions of these genes worldwide and IQ,
>>which was tested by himself, other collaborators, and Rushton with
>>Lahn's genotyping help, has not panned out. And of course there is
>>the whole question of what IQ meaures, if anything. But no matter
>>what the motivations for doing this research--and in Lahn's case, I
>>do not believe it was racism--the fact that the research was done
>>has given us an important result, especially given how much
>>attention the race and IQ crowd paid to Lahn's original findings
>>(NRO, vdare, nearly every right wing blog.)
>>
>>Now what if the correlation had panned out? Progressive scientists
>>would have some explaining to do. Of course, we can all think of
>>ways they could explain this result away, but they would indeed
>>have to take up the task. In my profile of Lahn, I quote him as
>>saying that progressive scientists are politically motivated on the
>>race-intelligence issue, and that it is a bad idea to build an
>>anti-racist movement on a scientific conclusion that could turn out
>>to be wrong--ie, Lahn asks, would racism be justified if we found
>>out later that there were differences in intelligence between
>>"racial" groups or population groups (the latter obviously a more
>>suitable term in our view)? To me, these are legitimate questions
>>to ask, no matter where we as progressives might come down on them.
>>
>>best, Michael
>>
>>On 2/21/07, Phil Gasper
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>But one of the points of Gould's analysis is to show that the whole
>>history of attempts to link race and intelligence are
>>scientifically worthless, driven by social prejudice, not by logic
>>or evidence. He tells the history in part so that we won't treat
>>such claims as serious scientific hypotheses in the future (even if
>>we may sometimes have to give measured explanations of why that is
>>so to those who are ignorant of the history). The claim that there
>>is a biological link between race and intelligence has about as
>>much credibility as the claim that there is a biological link
>>between religion and sense of humor. --PG
>>
>>At 6:00 PM +0000 2/20/07, Michael Balter wrote:
>>>Mitchel, go back and read what I said. I never said you were
>>>"dissing" Gould. My point is that he was effective because he used
>>>science to debunk the race-IQ connection, rather than simply
>>>calling those who advocated such views fascists. He saw the need
>>>to do that because unlike some fringe ideas we have unfortunately
>>>been discussing here, a lot of people think that there are racial
>>>differences in intelligence, even a lot of scientists.
>>>
>>>To a great extent this is a question of political style, which I
>>>see as a very important issue. Some leftists think that it is
>>>sufficient to self-righteously brand this and that idea racist and
>>>fascist, without much thought to how we go about changing peoples'
>>>minds. That might get certain activists kudos for how dedicated to
>>>the struggle they are, but it doesn't change the world one iota.
>>>
>>>MB
>>>On 2/20/07, Mitchel Cohen
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>wrote:
>>>The set of ideas promulgating the notion that intelligence is
>>>based on race, and that Black people are genetically inferior to
>>>whites when it comes to intelligence (or anything else, actually),
>>>is indeed fascist propaganda.
>>>
>>>Why you think that my saying that disses Stephen Jay Gould, who
>>>tore that whole notion of race-based intelligence to shreds, is
>>>beyond me.
>>>
>>>If you actually read my article -- I even linked to it for your
>>>convenience -- before opining about it -- you'd see that I quoted
>>>from the very work of Gould's that you ridiculously say that I'm
>>>dissing.
>>>
>>>On another note, the same folks who think that it's okay for THEM
>>>to malign people on this list -- including calling those they
>>>disagree with infantile, crackpot, conspiracy nuts, etc., take
>>>umbrage that I used (and did so correctly) the term "fascist" to
>>>describe the race-based (genetic) intelligence "studies" of
>>>Herrnstein, Eysenck, Shockley, Jensen and their ideological
>>>descendants passing themselves off as scientists. Their articles
>>>and speeches gave purported "scientific" cover for fascist
>>>movements.
>>>
>>>Are we really disagreeing here? Are you saying that the ideas
>>>promoting race-based Intelligence are actually legitimate
>>>scientific works?
>>>
>>>Mitchel
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Michael Balter <
>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Feb 20, 2007 8:45 AM
>>>>To:
>>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: Re: Genetics & Race
>>>>
>>>>It is particularly silly and unproductive because this is one area where
>>>>scientific arguments, so successfully put forward in works like our late
>>> >colleague Steve Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, have been particularly
>>>>effective. The Bruce Lahn story I referred to earlier, pdfs again available
>>>>to whoever asks offlist, is another good example of the chips falling where
>>>>they may scientifically. Those who live by the gene sometimes die by the
>>>>gene.
>>>>
>>>>M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>>>
>>>******************************************
>>>Michael Balter
>>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>******************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>www.michaelbalter.com
>>
>>******************************************
>>Michael Balter
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>******************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>www.michaelbalter.com
>>
>>******************************************
>>Michael Balter
>>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>******************************************


--
|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||O|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||
Jose Morales Ph.D.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager