The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically; human "races" are a long way from being (e.g.) biological subspecies. What race boundaries do correlate well with is sharp social differences, and therefore with things like wealth and education and social status. So, if IQ tests measure some combination of (1) innate cognitive differences, (2) acquired cognitive differences (quite possibly strongly affected by those socially-governed factors), and (3) purely social things like familiarity with ideas assumed in the test, then looking for connections with "race" is going to exaggerate #3 and #2 in comparison to #1.
On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1.
So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light.
And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)
>"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically;"
One of the things that shocked me about taking my first Bioinformatics class was how casually the professor talked about race. It seems like the concept of race is well accepted in the field, at least as it denotes large haplogroups of the human species. If you gave me the mitochondrial DNA from an Indian, then I am pretty sure that I could tell you it came from an Indian.
Also, I think well-designed statistical studies would easily meet all your objections.
As to whether or not such studies would be useful - I think they would. A common public policy problem is the disparate performance of students from different racial groups in school. As long as public policy sees racial groups as meaningful, it is probably useful to study them.
One problem is when someone in the USA is 75% white 25% black people label them black. It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.
Some people might, especially if the person looks black, but I'm sure a lot of people would also label that person white, or mixed. There might even be people (gasp) who don't go around labeling people.
* It's not that ethnic groups don't share common traits it's just the borders are so fuzzy it's going to be hard to narrow down specifics.*
There are plenty of less-mixed people than the example you give. I don't think a studies invovling ethnicity necessarily have to involve every single person in the US, so people without a clear ethnicity don't need to cloud things (though studying someone of mixed ethnicity might be illuminating in some contexts).
My point is people don't consider 25% black an edge case. Having two parents that where 40% black does not make you 100% black but Americans label people that way.
Take Halley Berry the "first black woman to be nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Berry) I would be shocked if she was more than 40% "black" at the genetic level.
It would be an interesting study, but I suspect 60+% of "African Americans" to be at least 25% white in the USA. I suspect if you compared the relative percentage vs (whatever) you would see little change, because social issues tend to swamp most other issues and they tend to identify with black. My first boss was darker than the average African American, but he graduated from Yale and acted more stereotypically "white" than I do.
Other classic examples would be trying to separate Arabs from Jews, Indian from white, Japanese from Chinese, etc. People like to identify with specific groups, but when you look at genetic studies anywhere up to 30% of children in married couples have a different father than they think they do. Culturally Incest is considered evil in part because genetic diversity is positively correlated with survival, but this also extends across cultural and ethic bounds.
PS: Not to mention war / rape and other issues. I heard that the "Black Irish" originated from the destruction of the Spanish armada in 1588. Plenty of people swam to shore and never made it back to Spain.
One problem with the kind of markers mentioned in the cited article is that they are not subject to selection pressure and not likely to be correlated with any phenotype of interest.
The markers simply prove that race is, indeed, a definable category. This makes the question "is group A different from group B in way X?" meaningful.
It proves nothing about the answer, nor is it intended to.
For comparison, a less meaningful question is "are biologically NY people smarter than biologically NJ people?" The question doesn't even make sense since you can't differentiate between NY and NJ people biologically.
As for whether the markers are likely or not to be correlated with interesting phenotypes, I'll wait to see data before guessing about what is likely.
"The trouble with "race" is that it's pretty meaningless biologically"
People say that a lot - but it's not actually true.
Do you think it's socially important for people to believe that, and to blind themself to differences? Fine, I can accept that. But do not delude yourself into thinking it's actually true.
also: you can do a statistical regression by cross referencing between the IQ results and socio-economic census data. this minimizes the effects of other variables. Many separated twin studies have been done as well and the results are consistent. try to give researchers a little more credit.
The appropriate approach to that chart is to believe our lying eyes, yes? Even with that (relatively) small amount of genetic data, three racial groups are readily apparent, with the Ashkenazi Jews standing out quite drastically.
And since you brought up IQ, it's interesting to note that the Ashkenazi tend to average 10-15 IQ points higher than the rest of Europe. Check out this article from the Journal of Biosocial Science: http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...
I have to disagree with you both (although both statements are well put) ... Reality is what is, based on our current understanding. Many realities have changed over time, as our society progresses and evolves into a higher understanding.
I think you're mixing up reality with our perception thereof. Reality is not dependent on what we think, except the part of reality concerned with our brain states.
That said, of course reality changes, if it didn't we kind of wouldn't have time. (I'm sure Stephen Hawking could put it more eloquently than that.)
Understanding is also the first step to engineering. People talk about replacement organs, stem cells, and all sorts of enhancements. But intelligence enhancement could be so much more important.
We get around with hacks like coffee, and could do much better. SBUX has a $7B market cap.
Hear, hear. A courageous article. How often journals such as Science or popular outlets as Scientific American permit themselves creeping or outright ad-hominemisms.
Recapture politics to fortify the scientific method: publish all data and source code, publish negative results, aid higher rates of experiment replication and competitive epidemiological studies.
There has to be willingness to get things wrong if there's going to be any progress. If the fear of getting wrong answers at first prevents research, then we'll never get the right answers.
Scientists have studied race and IQ. The foremost scientist who has looked at the issue is James R. Flynn, who discovered an important phenomenon, increases in IQ scores over time, that had not been noticed by psychologists in data sets that Flynn reexamined. As Mackintosh (1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." His book, by the way,
Research showing that group X is generally best at doing task Y will not be as helpful to society as a DNA test for identifying individual talent for task Y regardless of group.
Of course, knowing which genes will help with task Y may tell you which group is best at task Y. But the reverse is not true and will likely cause discrimination and suboptimal outcomes.
Even then, the DNA test is never going to be as effective as, well, a normal test. If you're looking for people who can run fast, line them up and run a race. No need to take DNA samples...
On the other hand, any reported result about relationships (or absence of relationships) between "race" and IQ is inevitably going to be interpreted in terms of #1.
So I'm all for scientists studying genetic correlates of intelligence, but anything that's described as a study of "race and IQ" seems likely to generate more heat than light.
And that's even without getting into the fact that racism (on the one hand) and "political correctness" (on the other) seem likely to introduce bias into the research, how it's written up, whether it gets published, and how the published results get reported to the general public. (Despite all the measures that competent and honest scientists take to reduce the effects of bias.)