posted
In DNA era, new worries about prejudice By Amy Harmon Sunday, November 11, 2007
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind's remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical. But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins. Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans' resistance to certain diseases. At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups. Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal. "We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology, and we have to be very careful," said Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. "We will all be walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused." Certain superficial traits like skin pigmentation have long been presumed to be genetic. But the ability to pinpoint their DNA source makes the link between genes and race more palpable. And on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers, it is prompting the question of whether more profound differences may also be attributed to DNA. Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans. No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means "the egalitarian theory," that all races are equal, "is proven false." Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years that human populations evolved on separate continents after their ancestors dispersed from humanity's birthplace in East Africa, is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease. But many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to nonmedical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called "a very delicate time, and a dangerous time." "There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries," said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. "It's not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better." Dr. Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he said he wanted to create "ready response teams" of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective. The authority that DNA has earned through its use in freeing falsely convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups. "I've spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations," said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts "But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small." But on the Half Sigma blog and elsewhere, the conversation is already flashing forward to what might happen if genetically encoded racial differences in socially desirable — or undesirable — traits are identified. "If I were to believe the 'facts' in this post, what should I do?" one reader responded on Half Sigma. "Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop." Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing "opting out of genetic research until it's clear we're not going to use science to validate prejudices." "I don't want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA," added McGriff, of Manhattan. Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson's assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island. But the incident has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits. New genetic information, some liberal critics say, could become the latest rallying point for a conservative political camp that objects to social policies like affirmative action, as happened with "The Bell Curve," the controversial 1994 book that examined the relationship between race and I.Q. Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically. "Let's say the genetic data says we'll have to spend two times as much for every black child to close the achievement gap," said Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wisconsin, who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression. Society, he said, would need to consider how individuals "can be given educational and occupational opportunities that work best for their unique talents and limitations." Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups. But either way, the increased outpouring of conversation on the normally taboo subject of race and genetics has prompted some to suggest that innate differences should be accepted but, at some level, ignored. "Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law," Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kansas, who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist. "When was the last time a nonblack sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters?" he asked. "To say that such differences aren't real," Dr. Clark later said in an interview, "is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah blah blah until the band marches by." Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead. One white-skinned student, told she was 9 percent West African, went to a Kwanzaa celebration, for instance, but would not dream of going to an Asian cultural event because her DNA did not match, Dr. Richards said. Preconceived notions of race seemed all the more authentic when quantified by DNA. "Before, it was, 'I'm white because I have white skin and grew up in white culture,' " Dr. Richards said. "Now it's, 'I really know I'm white, so white is this big neon sign hanging over my head.' It's like, oh, no, come on. That wasn't the point."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: "Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically."
Evergreen Writes:
This is a taboo subject for some. The absolutist conception of “Race” is obviously discredited by modern genetic analysis. However, one can objectively question variability and trends associated with different “clines and clusters”. The Eurocentric discourse is mainly related to low/high IQ differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. What we should be asking; is the definition and model designed to evaluate intelligence adequate? What is intelligence? Does high IQ equal high intelligence? What part does emotional intelligence (Negritude)play in the measurement of overall intelligence? What is emotional intelligence? There may be a natural predisposition to systemizer thinking among Europeans related to Ice-Age adaptation (see Freud’s A Phylogenetic Fantasy). But this imbalance and its relationship to low intelligence may never be questioned by the dominate society and discourse.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
and are they "really" trying to say that us africans are "genetically" less intelligent than Europeans?
I wonder what kind of people do they do these test on and what is on this test. do they test people in africa who can afford to go to school and get an education? or are the testing the people who cant?
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the whole idea that there are genetic biological differences in 'intelligence' is nonsense to begin with. The main reason is because there is no scientifically defined biological definition of intelligence. Defining human intelligence is a philosophical discussion not very dissimilar from the philosophical/mystical discussions of the human mind and the nature of thoughts. Therefore, if intelligence has never been defined biologically, then how can it be measured? It can't.
On top of that, the implications that there are biological differences in the human brain that affect 'intelligence' between various human 'races' is also a brilliant piece of nonsense. Biologically the human brain has the same composition and function among ALL human beings. The fact that some humans excel in certain areas of brain function over others does no more justify the notion of biological or genetic differences between human populations than the fact that some humans excel in certain areas of physical activity over others. The brain is an organ of the human body that functions along the same principle as other organs of the body, like muscles. The more you use it and the more you train it and the better you take care of and nurture it, the better it will work. But just because everyone does not nurture or train their brain the same way as everyone else or use their brain to accomplish things in the same way as everyone else, does not mean that people have a biological or genetic difference in brain function. That is nonsense. The reasons for the differences in human approaches to problem solving has more to do with culture, society and world view than biology. All humans don't assign the same value to things in life as others. Some people value tradition more than change. All of these things have as much to do with the way intelligence is expressed as the innate biological make up of the human brain.
The so called intelligence tests that are being touted by those who claim to be measuring intelligence are not really measuring intelligence. Intelligence is not simply measured by a set of scenarios in which there is ONLY one right answer or conclusion to be reached. Herein lies the innate bias of such thinking about intelligence. White Europeans have become accustomed to thinking that intelligence as an expression of society and civilization has only ONE right approach or end result. In real life most problems facing humans have MANY ways of being approached and the idea of what is the RIGHT approach is almost always irrelevant in this regard. Therefore, because these tests don't take into account the multi-faceted approach to problem solving, most of them are not VALID as overall measures of intelligence. Likewise, because they are based on a pre-conceived criteria of what is the RIGHT answer versus the WRONG answer, as the only means of quantifying intelligence, they are only really serving as tests of how well people EXHIBIT similar problem solving approaches similar to those designing the test. This idea of ONE result or outcome as a measure of intelligence is almost always seen as being epitomized by white European culture. Therefore, this means that any culture or group that does NOT approach day to day life in the same way or with the same values as white Europeans is not intelligent. THAT is what this whole debate is about and none of it REALLY has anything to do with biology.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually, the whole idea that there are genetic biological differences in 'intelligence' is nonsense to begin with. The main reason is because there is no scientifically defined biological definition of intelligence.
Evergreen Writes:
While I agree that there is no concensus on the definition of intelligence, this does not mean that a concensus/definition cannot be generated.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: On top of that, the implications that there are biological differences in the human brain that affect 'intelligence' between various human 'races' is also a brilliant piece of nonsense. Biologically the human brain has the same composition and function among ALL human beings.
Evergreen Writes:
This is inaccurate.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: "But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small."
That's the real problem in America, and assuming that European are 1/3 Africans and 2/3 Asians genetically, there is very few chances to have developed unique intellectual assets...it's literally impossible.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: On top of that, the implications that there are biological differences in the human brain that affect 'intelligence' between various human 'races' is also a brilliant piece of nonsense. Biologically the human brain has the same composition and function among ALL human beings.
Evergreen Writes:
This is inaccurate.
Name one biological difference in brain functioning that has been identified based on genetic or biological differences among people of different ancestral origins, versus genetic differences between individuals of the SAME population and found in varying degrees among ALL populations around the world.
In fact that only ones who believe that "race" is a basis for intelligence are those who still believe in "race" as defined by racist anthropologists in the 1800s.
Of course, all of these studies are mostly designed to REINFORCE the hierarchy of white supremacy in the world, by of course focusing on the problems endemic among the black community in America and other post colonial and slave societies CREATED by whites. Of course, slavery and colonialism have NOTHING to do with socioeconomic status quo in these countries, as opposed to RACE BASED differences in IQ and intelligence..... In other words, blacks are on the bottom in Africa, Europe and America because of RACIAL differences, not because of RACISM. All of which is pure APOLOGETICS and SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT on the part of whites for the hundreds of years of genocide and oppression visited by whites on blacks, but of course THAT has nothing to do with why whites are on top. As I said before, white supremacy means NEVER having to admit that you are WRONG and for sure WHITES in America will NEVER admit that they were wrong for the things they have done to Africans OR to the Native Americans. To hear them tell it, the fact that WHITES have created a system of global industrial capitalism that threatens to end life on this planet as we know it is a sign of INTELLIGENCE among whites, while blacks and others who live WITH nature (and have been doing so succesfully for hundreds of thousands of years) are LESS intelligent, because they never created a system that would doom them to extinction.....
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Name one biological difference in brain functioning that has been identified based on genetic or biological differences among people of different ancestral origins....
Evergreen Writes:
Pineal gland calcification.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Name one biological difference in brain functioning that has been identified based on genetic or biological differences among people of different ancestral origins....
Evergreen Writes:
Pineal gland calcification.
And what is does that say about human brain function and "race"?
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pineal gland calcification (PGC) in Ugandans. A radiological study of 200 isolated pineal glands
SG Mugondi and AA Poltera
Two hundred formalin-fixed pineal glands from consecutive unselected post-mortems on Ugandan Africans have been X-rayed. The degree of pineal gland calcification has been divided into four stages and it is shown that 43 per cent of all pineal glands after the age of ten years are likely to be detected in an ordinary skull X ray. This high percentage of calcification contrasts with the previously reported low figure from races other than whites. The pineal glands from females were more often calcified and heavier than those from males; however, the stalks of pineal glands from males were calcified more frequently than those of females. The average weight per decade was almost constant. In Ugandan Africans the pineal glands were significantly lighter than in Caucasians, and a possible reason for this is briefly discussed. Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Pineal gland calcification (PGC) in Ugandans. A radiological study of 200 isolated pineal glands
SG Mugondi and AA Poltera
Two hundred formalin-fixed pineal glands from consecutive unselected post-mortems on Ugandan Africans have been X-rayed. The degree of pineal gland calcification has been divided into four stages and it is shown that 43 per cent of all pineal glands after the age of ten years are likely to be detected in an ordinary skull X ray. This high percentage of calcification contrasts with the previously reported low figure from races other than whites. The pineal glands from females were more often calcified and heavier than those from males; however, the stalks of pineal glands from males were calcified more frequently than those of females. The average weight per decade was almost constant. In Ugandan Africans the pineal glands were significantly lighter than in Caucasians, and a possible reason for this is briefly discussed.
posted
^^^ This is really the only difference in genetics between peoples. The amount of melanin produced and contained within the system. Measuring skull sizes is as irrelevant as jar size. A larger jar holds more pickles but has nothing to do with the quality of the fermented cucumbers they each contain. The efficiency of the system is the largest determining factor, and since higher concentrations of the neurotransmitter, Serotonin in the system produces more melanin...well, derive whatever deduction you will based on the evidence.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There would be no "worries" if these journalists would stop writing about it like some inevitable dooms day prophecy.. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nefar: why do Higher IQs always favor europeans?
Some noneuropean groups (east asians in particular) scored a higher average.
The only europeans it probably "favored" more (and quite abundantly ) were the ashkenazi jews. In that sense, you can say that the test itself seems to have backfired on its very creators.
PS: Evergreen can you check your PMs(in regards to an elucidation on the aforementioned matter)?
quote:There would be no "worries" if these journalists would stop writing about it like some inevitable dooms day prophecy..
Then it would be no use of a story without the "umph" journalists love to add (although you could say that the implications from DNA findings can have quite the impact).
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to calcification of the pineal gland, it has often been said that people from the Northern temperate regions suffer from this condition more so than people from tropical climates, hence Africans have been said to occur less than Europeans, especially at older age. The side effects of this calcification are said to be loss of a sense of direction among other brain cognitive functions. I still don't see it as confirming that Europeans have a different biology at work in their brains, as opposed to environmental factors having impacted the biology of the brains of some Europeans in different ways than some Africans. Biological variation based on environmental factors is a fact of human existence. However, this is nowhere near the nonsense from some Europeans who write on issues of biology and intelligence claiming that migrating to Northern Climates was the biological spark that led to greater intelligence among whites, as this is NOT based on any biological, archaeological or anthropological facts.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, this is nowhere near the nonsense from some Europeans who write on issues of biology and intelligence claiming that migrating to Northern Climates was the biological spark that led to greater intelligence among whites, as this is NOT based on any biological, archaeological or anthropological facts.
Justifications as to how these genes appeared probably isn't that vital to eurocentrists anymore, since it's now possible to confirm their beliefs through a direct location of the gene said to be associated with varying intelligence among races(provided it exists of course...).
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough to believe it since Northern Europeans only appear on the map of the 'civilized and advanced' world fairly recently especially with the Roman colonization of Europe. Complex European societies were only found around the Mediterranean area which itself was heavily influenced by Asia and Africa culturally, scientifically and historically...Even to this day Mediterranean still view German and Northern European as thick and goofy...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QUOTE]Name one biological difference in brain functioning that has been identified based on genetic or biological differences among people of different ancestral origins....
Evergreen Writes:
Pineal gland calcification.
And what is does that say about human brain function and "race"?
Evergreen Writes:
You asked me a specific question and I gave you a specific answer. The impact of the Pineal Gland on human functionality can be addressed by a simple search on google scholar. It is a non value-added use of time for me to address that here. "Race" is a social construct.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Pineal gland calcification (PGC) in Ugandans. A radiological study of 200 isolated pineal glands
SG Mugondi and AA Poltera
Two hundred formalin-fixed pineal glands from consecutive unselected post-mortems on Ugandan Africans have been X-rayed. The degree of pineal gland calcification has been divided into four stages and it is shown that 43 per cent of all pineal glands after the age of ten years are likely to be detected in an ordinary skull X ray. This high percentage of calcification contrasts with the previously reported low figure from races other than whites. The pineal glands from females were more often calcified and heavier than those from males; however, the stalks of pineal glands from males were calcified more frequently than those of females. The average weight per decade was almost constant. In Ugandan Africans the pineal glands were significantly lighter than in Caucasians, and a possible reason for this is briefly discussed.
Evergreen Writes:
A more recent study....
Evergreen Posts:
Clinical Radiology (2003) 58: 336–337
PINEAL GLAND CALCIFICATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
"Pineal gland calcification (PGC) is a common finding on skull radiographs in the Western world, but rare in Africa."
"The incidence of PGC in Black Americans is approximately one-half that of White Americans, but higher than indigenous Africans."
"Our study confirms previous reports that PGC is rare in selected populations living in Africa."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I still don't see it as confirming that Europeans have a different biology at work in their brains, as opposed to environmental factors having impacted the biology of the brains of some Europeans in different ways than some Africans. Biological variation based on environmental factors is a fact of human existence.
Evergreen Writes:
This is double-speak. First you claim there is no biological difference between African and European brain function and then you acknowledge biological variation of the brain. Which is it?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't double speak. Calcification of the pineal gland does not equate to brain function. To me it is like saying a higher occurrence of sickle cell among Africans reflects a different biology of Africans and Europeans. If that was the case, then pineal calcification would not occur in Africans AT ALL, but it does. Meaning Africans have the SAME biology that causes pineal calcification in Non Africans, but the environmental pressures that CAUSE such an ailment do not exist for it to occur more often in Africans. Conversely, this means that Africans still have the SAME biological brain function as NON Africans, regardless of whether some have mutations which can arise and impair that brain function. It is the SAME biology that causes sickle cell in Africans as the higher occurrence of pineal calcification among Non Africans, namely environmental pressures on the SAME biological system found in ALL humans that produces different effects in different populations because of variable exposure to the required environmental stimuli. Therefore, more exposure to malaria was the reason for sickle cell, not a DIFFERENT biology for Africans.
quote: Studies of the structure of DNA surrounding the beta globin locus reveal that the sickle cell gene is associated with several DNA structures probably representing different ancestral populations. The most likely interpretation is that the sickle cell mutation is a relatively recent occurrence that has occurred independently in several different populations. Falciparum malaria then acted as a selective factor, increasing the prevalence of the gene because people inheriting the sickle cell gene from one parent and a gene for normal adult hemoglobin from the other parent (sickle cell trait) were less likely to die from malaria and so more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Over the generations, the sickle cell trait has therefore reached high frequencies in malarious areas. The factor in common to the distribution of the sickle cell gene is therefore malaria and not African ancestry.
Likewise, pineal calcification occurs in non Africans primarily because of the environmental pressures that exist OUTSIDE of Africa which caused a mutation in certain genes for some populations OUTSIDE of Africa. It does not mean that non Africans have a DIFFERENT biology than Africans. They have the SAME biology, which produces mutations has been altered due to different environmental pressures. All homo sapiens share the same biology. All humans will have the SAME biological response to environmental stimuli if exposed to it for a long enough time and through natural selection (free from advanced medical care). It is environmental pressures that cause mutations in human biology in order to adapt to these various environmental conditions and that biology is the SAME across all human. If it wasn't then all humans would NOT have the same biological response to the SAME environmental pressures, which is absolutely not true.
Calcification of the pineal gland reflects a different biological mutation but not a DIFFERENT biology of the brain itself. It is like the whole idea of race where skin color is taken to represent a DIFFERENT biological system between whites, blacks and Asians. It is not. It is the SAME biology, impacted by different biological stimuli.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Calcification of the pineal gland does not equate to brain function.
Evergreen Writes:
More double-speak. The Pineal Gland is a part of the human brain. PGC impacts functionality of the Pineal Gland and by extension functionality of the human brain. Sometimes less is more in communcation.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Calcification of the pineal gland does not equate to brain function.
Evergreen Writes:
More double-speak. The Pineal Gland is a part of the human brain. PGC impacts functionality of the Pineal Gland and by extension functionality of the human brain. Sometimes less is more in communcation.
Talk about double speak. The pineal gland is part of the human brain for EVERYONE, no debate there. AND, to get to the point, PGC affects Africans AND non Africans. Therefore it still hasn't been shown where Africans have a DIFFERENT biology concerning their brains as opposed to NON Africans. If Africans did not get PGC AT ALL, under ANY circumstances, then it would make sense to say that Africans had a DIFFERENT biology at work in their brains. If Africans were to GO toEurope and live there for THOUSANDS of years, they TOO would develop the SAME rates of PGC, thereby PROVING that they have the SAME biological functioning. If not, then Africans would STILL not have any more rates of PGC after 10,000 years in Europe than today. But of course, I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on that last scenario.
Adaptation and mutation to different environmental pressures IS the biology of human beings, without the DRASTIC changes that produce new SPECIES in other families of animals. Just because some NON Africans get higher rates of PGC does NOT mean that their brains do not have the same basic biological make up as African brains. The only difference is that the SAME biology in non Africans has swithes turned on that cause greater occurrences of PGC. But the same TRIGGERS that causes PGC are also in Africans because they have the SAME biology, but those triggers aren't turned ON in the same way.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regards to something as highly complex as the brain, I highly doubt that "intelligence" can be pinned down to a single definitive section of it, not to speak of the questions pertaining to how to both qualify and quantify intelligence and the role of environment in the equation.
People of the same socially-classified "race" and with recent ancestry from the same continents are quite likely to perform to varying degrees, in some exercise set up to assess the quality of responses of the participants; perhaps the phenomenon may well be likened to the saying attached to genetic variation, in that there are very likely more variation within the socially constructed races than between them.
From the intro article...
Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.
Firstly, what specific behavioral aspects have been *definitively* attributed to the snippets in question, is what any able-minded being will likely ponder. "More often" doesn't imply its *absence* in others, but it does suggest possible absence in some participants of the assessment.
Secondly, the affinity in results mentioned above in "Europeans and Asian", could simply be the product of the relatively more recent split of Europeans from "Asians", who in turn come from a subset of Africans. It says nothing about weighing "intelligence" or if it is THE magic pill that determines everything "intelligent" [and what that entails]...pending specific unequivocal corroboration to this end.
^People of recent African and Eurasian descent could inherit this trait from one or the other parent, in which case, if it is true that it is relatively more common in the latter, then the chances of its inheritance from the latter will be more likely than from the former...or perhaps not inherit it.
No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was **unconfirmed**, or that **other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans**, or that **hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence**, or that their combined influence **might be dwarfed by environmental factors**.
Indeed.
Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means "the egalitarian theory," that all races are equal, "is proven false."
Well, there may well be certain traits shared by people sharing the most common recent ancestry(s) which are less frequent or absent in other groups, with whom they share more distant common ancestry(s). This could be due to response to pressure from certain environment and/or genetic drift acting on random but UEPs; however, this says nothing of just how the given trait makes one group superior to another, or that the other group wherein it is less frequent, don't have another trait(s) that makes up for the absence of the former trait, such that the overall biological integrity of the functioning of the system of which the traits are a part of or their lack thereof, remains more or less balanced.
Though few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races.
To the highlighted, I say precisely. To the remainder of that piece, I say that anyone who knows the dubiousness of "human races" in biology, it should come across as a non-issue.
Renata McGriff, 52, a health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African-Americans have lately been discussing "opting out of genetic research until it's clear we're not going to use science to validate prejudices."
I see where McGriff is coming from, but shouldn't the concern for such prejudice clouding the science be all the more reason to get more involved, so as to act as an oversight over those who might call for such validations.
"I don't want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA," added McGriff, of Manhattan. Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson's assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.
Watson is case in point. See above.
Others hope that the genetic data may overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups
Hmmm, think if that were the case, Euro researchers would announce it?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, there is no true measure of intelligence in existence today that can assess all the various biological, psychological and cultural aspects of intelligence. That is the fundamental point that needs to be understood. The IQ test is primarily a test designed to determining SCHOLASTIC aptitude, which is not really a TRUE determination of overall intelligence. In all reality, this scholastic aptitude is what is being referred to as "intelligence". And again, just as the way IQ is correlated to wealth, these are all ways that white Europeans have tried to legitimize their control of wealth and history of segregation, racism and oppression along "racial" lines.
quote: All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the use of the term "intelligence" is itself controversial. A low but significant correlation was found in tests administered to two groups of kindergarten children in a study reported in 1991[52][53] School grades are the better predicator of later academic success than IQ and the relations may be lower for specific populations. In a sample of 127 students enrolled in a private day school located in a large metropolitan area, the correlations ranged from .11 to .22 with the median of .18.[54]
"Many of the most widely used tests are not intended to measure intelligence itself but some closely related construct: scholastic aptitude, school achievement, specific abilities... . Scores on intelligence-related tests matter, and the stakes can be high," according to the task force appointed by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Such tests are argued to be good measures of the psychometric variable g (for general intelligence factor). While some psychologists regard g as the fundamental measure of intelligence, others emphasize the strengths and weaknesses present in each person's performance on different aspects of the tests.[55]
Although the correlation is fair in some academic areas, the correlation between IQ tests and many real-world results is inconsistent. For example, the hereditary transmission of wealth via IQ is near zero. Some psychologists question the validity of IQ testing and say that aspects of intelligence is not reflected in IQ tests. Criticisms of the validity of IQ testing focuses on questions of test bias. Several conclusions about tests of cognitive ability are now largely accepted by intelligence researchers:[56]
* IQ scores measure many, but not all of the qualities that people mean by intelligent or smart. (For example, IQ does not measure creativity, wisdom, or personality.) * Especially in developing nations, there are many factors that may adversely affect IQ. See Health and intelligence.
Sternberg writes that conventional tests of intelligence can be useful, but only if they are carefully interpreted, taking into account factors such as cross-cultural issues.
The ways in which these tests are shown to be flawed can be seen in many ways. How many languages are these IQ tests developed in? From a verbal testing perspective, how many of the verbal questions actually have the same weight and meaning when translated into other languages? How many culture specific elements are in these tests? Why do all the questions in these tests ONLY have 1 right answer as opposed to questions in which there is no ONE right answer but an answer that is an assessment of an INDIVIDUALS response to certain problems, which can be rated and analyzed in various ways as opposed to being simply right or wrong. Who makes the questions and how are the questions chosen? What does each question represent and how does it relate to some form of intelligence? How many people world wide have taken such intelligence tests and what are the statistics for how many people from each country were given the test and what languages was it given in. What are the statistics on level of income, age and cultural background for the populations in various countries taking the tests? And for such international statistical reports, are they based on averages of multiple tests taken in different countries over the last 50 years or new results based on up to date tests given to populations all over the world in the last 5 years? I doubt very seriously that these tests have the coverage that is required to make general assessments of intelligence. As an example, when was the last time a young tribal San or Nuer African was given the test, someone with little exposure to "modern" academic systems of learning? We need to get away from this nonsense that these tests are a true measure of intelligence in humans world wide. And even from a temporal perspective these tests don't make any sense. What would a European from 5,000 years ago score on such a test or people from Japan, China or in the Sahara at that time? Would the tests be applicable? And if not why not, seeing as humans have not changed much in terms of innate biological intelligence over the last 5,000 years.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Defining intelligence is complex and there are many forms of intelligence which are not captured by IQ tests. In any case, it would be unethical to organise society around some numerical indicator of difference as it would to do so on the basis of skin colour,” Oxford neurologist Colin Blake told the Observer.
“Judging a man or woman by the colour of their skin will not get you anywhere. There is no basis in scientific fact or in the gene code for the notion that skin colour will be predictive of intelligence,” said Craig Venter, the scientist who decoded the human genome.Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Both are true enough for me to agree. Doug M's last post also.
The tests are except for political filtering purposes almost meaningless.
That being said, skin color as an effective covering of human body internals is something all together different.
If skin color loss is due to environmental adaptation, why did so many lose skin properties that were still very essential to radiation protection, even in colder climates? It seems to me the loss is so pervasive, almost as if they had been in a very dark and sunless environment.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The reasons for skin color variance among different populations was discussed numerous times in this forum including here!
The problems is when blacks get so caught up in the white racist myth of skin color correlating to other factors like intelligence, that they end up repeating the same fallacy only inverted in favor of blacks.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: There would be no "worries" if these journalists would stop writing about it like some inevitable dooms day prophecy..
It is really dumb. This hype's only purpose serves as fuel for a rather large amount of bull.
*sigh*
When must we be done with all this political nonsense?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote] There may be a natural predisposition to systemizer thinking among Europeans related to Ice-Age adaptation (see Freud’s A Phylogenetic Fantasy). But this imbalance and its relationship to low intelligence may never be questioned by the dominate society and discourse.
[quote]
Europeans are no more adept at systemizer thinking than any other group.
"Systemizer thinking" requires reading, writing and the ability to think and write coherently. Such things did not begin in Europe but in tropical/subtropical Ancient Egypt/Kush and Mesopotamia.
The Neanderthal humans adapted to Ice-Age Europe and Eurasia for some 300,000 years--as their body plans demonstrate(Allen's Rule) but they were not intellectual;y superior to the in-migrating peoples originally from Africa. The technology produced by the Nenaderthals proves this point.
But the people who became Europeans did not develop any technology or cultural practices that put them above other populations because it was only some 1,000 years ago out of 45,000-15,000 years that Europeans have in Europe that they were introduced to reading, writing and agriculture.
Apart from the Cave paintings in Lascaux(France) and Stone Henge in England what else is there of note produced by these supposed "systemizers"?
ON HUMAN GENETIC DIVERSITY
Why the fuss? Genetic diversity exists even in families. [b]Blood types differ; tissue types differ; personalities differ; suceptibility to ceratin diseases differ, etc., etc.
ON INTELLECTUAL DIFFERENCES
IQ tests measure IQ--which result from a combination of individual abilities nurtured or not nurtured in particular environments.
The point is that IQ scores are obviously greatly determined by the cultural environment. See the work by New Zealand psychometrician, James Flynn. Flynn argues that in the West IQs have been rising from generation to generation--which could not be the result of genetics.
It is fact that individuals who score high on IQ tests come from cultural backgrounds that stress the kinds of cognitive skills and cultural conditioning(education from birth, etc.) that are appropriate for later success in modern technological society.
But the argument that Europeans and Asians are more cognitively able naturally than Africans is just bogus.
For example the IQ spread in Europe is obvious--eeven when you take the scores of the nativists. Sweden scores 101 while Greece scores 91 and Ireland 93.
Iran scores 83 Iraq scores 87 Saudi Arabia scores 83 Nepal scores 78 Guatemala scores 78 India scores 81 Pakistan scores 81 African Americans score 90 according to latest research by Flynn and Dickens(2006)
The argument is made that East Asians score higher than anybody else on IQ tests. Well, only in places like Japan(105), Koreas(105) and Taiwan(104)
But here are the scores of their other East Asian kin-folk: Cambodia 89 Burma 86 Indonesia 89 Philippines 86 Laos 89 CHINA 100 Thailand 91
Obviously the national differences in scores are due to levels of industrialization[and education] and the rural/urban divide.
The claim made by psychometrician Lynn and others is that the average IQ in Africa is 70. But this could be a disingenous ploy just to show that African populations are less intelligent than other populations. The reason is that in his previous reporting on IQ scores in Africa, Lynn stated that the IQ of Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa(Zulus) ranged from 80 to 88 done s ome years ago(1950s to 1970).
THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF IQ The social fucntion of IQ scores is simply to reinforce one of the core beliefs of the Eurocentric West--i.e., that Africans/blacks are not naturally on par intellectually with whites. Thus the present social positions of blacks in whites scoieties is natural and to be expected and that the present technological level of Africa is to be explained by the same reason.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: With regards to something as highly complex as the brain, I highly doubt that "intelligence" can be pinned down to a single definitive section of it, not to speak of the questions pertaining to how to both qualify and quantify intelligence and the role of environment in the equation.
Evergreen Writes:
So, because the brain is “highly-complex” we are therefore unable to measure intelligence? There are many “highly-complex” things that are measurable.
Intangibles can be measured, if the measurer is sophisticated enough. The wind is intangible, yet we measure the wind through the force it brings to bare.
Shouldn’t one be able to measure intelligence through the expression of ones ideas? An idea is defined as something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
If intelligence is immeasurable, then ideas, the by-product of intelligence are immeasurable as well. Ideas are typically measured using the scientific approach. If ideas are no longer measurable then science has no value. Is it your position that there is no scientific approach to measuring an idea?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Systemizer thinking" requires reading, writing and the ability to think and write coherently. Such things did not begin in Europe but in tropical/subtropical Ancient Egypt/Kush and Mesopotamia.
The Neanderthal humans adapted to Ice-Age Europe and Eurasia for some 300,000 years--as their body plans demonstrate(Allen's Rule) but they were not intellectual;y superior to the in-migrating peoples originally from Africa. The technology produced by the Nenaderthals proves this point.
quote:Cro-Magnons :
If this study does nothing analysis does nothing else, it demonstrates the of-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are "us" is more of a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains.
The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The reasons for skin color variance among different populations was discussed numerous times in this forum including here!
The problems is when blacks get so caught up in the white racist myth of skin color correlating to other factors like intelligence, that they end up repeating the same fallacy only inverted in favor of blacks.
I've followed that which is why I am still asking the question. Even in Siberia there exists a need for a biological means to filter infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Are you suggesting 30,000 years ago Siberia/Europe was as dark as a cave? That would explain why these skin pigments were devolved and why cases of skin cancer were treated by covering the area with a piece of raw meat...for weeks/months. If not, the condition seems to be closer to Albinism.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The reasons for skin color variance among different populations was discussed numerous times in this forum including here!
The problems is when blacks get so caught up in the white racist myth of skin color correlating to other factors like intelligence, that they end up repeating the same fallacy only inverted in favor of blacks.
I've followed that discussion, which is why I am still asking the question. Even in Siberia there exists a need for a biological means to filter infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Are you suggesting 30,000 years ago Siberia/Europe was as dark as a cave? If not, the condition seems to be closer to Albinism. That would explain why these skin pigments were devolved and why cases of skin cancer were treated by covering the area with a piece of raw meat...for weeks/months.
Blacks are conscience of the truth, therefore they understand the difference between being able to process sunlight and extract vitamin D, and having to drink cow's milk to obtain it. That sounds like a pretty vital and significant difference to me. Perhaps you can provide additional information?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IQ is not an objective scientific mean to measure intelligence. IQ test are based on local cultures, it is well known that South Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese are the most westernized countries in the world outside Europe and North America, no doubt they score higher in IQ tests, China will come closer soon...that's why Indians score lower even though they have the most developed outsourcing business and the largest population of scientists or Nobel prize winners compare to East Asian countries I just mentioned, indeed the majority live in terrible poverty. If you made an Asian IQ test, African IQ test, European IQ test instead of a standardized American IQ tests, well things will change drastically.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: IQ is not an objective scientific mean to measure intelligence. IQ test are based on local cultures
Was that directed at me? I was just pointing out the apparent fact that the ones who assigned mentally functional Africans scores that are designated in the disabled category, should really check to at least see if it made any sense.
quote:South Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese are the most westernized countries in the world outside Europe and North America, no doubt they score higher in IQ tests,
Not to mention because of their significantly lower population accompanied by western economic influence, they most likely have a proportionally less amount of people that experience a stagnated intelligence due to poverty(might i add their emphasis on academics is quite high as well).
Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
With regards to something as highly complex as the brain, I highly doubt that "intelligence" can be pinned down to a single definitive section of it, not to speak of the questions pertaining to how to both qualify and quantify intelligence and the role of environment in the equation.
Evergreen Writes:
So, because the brain is “highly-complex” we are therefore unable to measure intelligence?
Where was that stated?
The question is: how do you first qualify "intelligence" and measure it, and is there a single specific part of the brain that can unequivocably be said to be entirely responsible for what is deemed "intelligence", and whose specific function(s) in quantifying "intelligence" between individuals has been determined? If you have the answer, I'll be happy to examine it.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
There are many “highly-complex” things that are measurable.
Non-issue. We are dealing with the brain, whose whole function and *everything* about it has to do with coordinating the central nervous system, which serve to coordinate consciousness, direct behavior, as well as sensitivity spurred by external and internal stimuli.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Intangibles can be measured, if the measurer is sophisticated enough. The wind is intangible, yet we measure the wind through the force it brings to bare.
Red herring. "intelligence" is the issue, and the brain is the driver behind it. How do you define it, and how do you measure it? What is the specific determinant inside the brain that enables one to predetermine the *quantity* of intelligence across individuals?
quote:Originally of Evergreen:
Shouldn’t one be able to measure intelligence through the expression of ones ideas? An idea is defined as something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
Nonsense; everyone is capable of expressing ideas at some level or the other. The question is, how do you quantify 'intelligence' along typological lines, as the article notes, whereby one can determine if people with recent ancestry from a certain geographical location, are innately "intellectually" superior to others with ancestry from another designated geographical local? What are the parameters of such a quantative analysis? You tell me.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
If intelligence is immeasurable, then ideas, the by-product of intelligence are immeasurable as well. Ideas are typically measured using the scientific approach. If ideas are no longer measurable then science has no value. Is it your position that there is no scientific approach to measuring an idea?
Well, an idea can either be objective or not, and it can be coherent or not? Just about any individual with brains is capable of expressing some form an idea. Is it your position that measuring an "idea", is what constitutes "intelligence"?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intelligence is specialized. Meaning, not everyone is meant or has the capability of being as as example, a musical artist. No matter how high their IQ score, it has nothing to do with how well they compose, play, sing, or even manage music.
It's irrational to believe with proper training someone that should have been a mechanical engineer can be trained and be effective as a helicopter pilot, or vice versa.
Forming an idea, and implementing that idea are two distinctly different talents, requiring two different sets of skills. Some companies, for example have professionals that conceive concepts at a high level, while other professionals actually convert that idea into a workable design. Often, the two are not interchangeable. Only specialized testing in each area can determine who has the optimal skill set for the task. Generalized testing, such as IQ, can help identify strengths and weaknesses, and that's about all.
Intelligence is measurable, but within myopic defined and realistic parameters. Perhaps, they should rename what is passing today for an intelligence test as, Generalized Proficiency Quota.
The only useful test of intelligence is in real world performance in specialized areas of interest.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with intelligence being a vague and broadly defined term to begin with, that cannot be accurately measured in any real sense. And intelligence is not talent, where different individuals have exceptional capabilities in certain areas that others lack. But what I am against is this notion that any sort of measures of "intelligence" are really an indicator of how much prosperity and success will be achieved by the individual. Success and prosperity are determined by socio economic factors than abstract notions of intelligence or general aptitude. A person with a HIGH IQ rating will never succeed in a society that does not protect human rights, does not have a stable government, access to capital, infrastructure and does not have FREE and OPEN economic opportunites for ALL members of the population. Conversely, a person with a lower IQ will stand a much better chance of success in a society which has human rights, a stable government, access to capital and so forth. Those are the things that are the keys to the success of the individual, not abstract test scores.
And, point in fact, the reason why those other factors are important are seen quite acutely in populations of Africans in countries that were formerly under a system of outright racist oppression and subjugation. The idea that blacks will succeed in a socio economic system that has been trying to DESTROY blacks and KEEP them from moving up the economic ladder is ridiculous. Yet and still many millions of Africans all over the world are operating under such an assumed position that GOES AGAINST all logic and the facts. Therefore, when statistics showing that blacks are REGRESSING in the last 30 years in terms of overall economic success, what do you think the culprit is? The system itself? Or the intelligence of blacks? Here's a hint: the only INTELLIGENT answer is to destroy the system that has been holding you down and THEN build a system that is designed to lift YOU up, not accept blindly in the fantasy that somehow you can "catch up" after 300 years of being robbed, raped and beat to keep you down.
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Decades after the civil rights movement, the income gap between black and white families in the United States has grown, says a new study that tracked the incomes of some 2,300 families for more than 30 years.
Incomes have increased among both black and white families in the past three decades -- mainly because more women are in the work force. But the increase was greater among whites, according to the study being released Tuesday.
One reason for the growing disparity: Incomes among black men have actually declined in the past three decades, when adjusted for inflation. They were offset only by gains among black women.
Incomes among white men, meanwhile, were relatively stagnant, while those of white women increased more than fivefold.
"Overall, incomes are going up. But not all children are benefiting equally from the American dream," said Julia Isaacs, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
Isaacs wrote a series of three reports that looked at the incomes of parents in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and of their grown children 30 years later. Isaacs compared the incomes of parents who were in their 30s with the incomes of their children, once they reached the same age group.
Parents have long hoped that their children would grow up to be more successful than they were. Hopes were especially high for black children who came of age following the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The reports found that about two-thirds of the children surveyed grew up to have higher family incomes than their parents had 30 years earlier.
Grown black children were just as likely as whites to have higher incomes than their parents. However, incomes among whites increased more than those of their black counterparts.
The result: In 2004, a typical black family had an income that was only 58 percent of a typical white family's. In 1974, median black incomes were 63 percent those of whites.
"Too many Americans, whites and even some blacks, think that the playing field has indeed leveled," said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League.
It has not, he added.
"We are like fingers on the hand," Morial said of black and white Americans. "We are on the same hand, but we are separate fingers."
Morial blamed the disparities on inadequate schools in black neighborhoods, workplace discrimination and too many black families with only one parent.
"The public policy commitment to this has been sketchy over the last 30 years," Morial said. "There has not been a real focus on this." Don't Miss
* Economic Mobility Project * Brookings Institution * National Urban League
Perhaps most disturbing, middle-income black families do not appear to be passing on higher incomes to their children in the same way that white families have, Isaacs said.
She found that only one in three black children from middle-income families grew up to have higher incomes than their parents.
"That means a majority ended up slipping down," Isaacs said.
Among whites, about two-thirds of the children from middle-income families grew up to have higher incomes than their parents, she said.
On a positive note, black children from poor families were much more likely to grow up to have higher incomes than their parents, Isaacs said.
Isaacs compiled the reports for the Economic Mobility Project, a collaboration of senior economists and researchers from four Washington think tanks that span the ideological spectrum. The project is funded and managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Isaacs used survey data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which is conducted at the University of Michigan.
posted
The reality is that DNA will be the latest tool in the tool box to start initiating control over 'others' (wotever that means) because it will be used as the 'endall' for societal problems!
From my work experience, DNA was to be part of a origin background (where we all came from, where we stayed, where we ended up!), our makeup (how we share the same genetic structure, how we differ within that DNA context, how we are different genetically) and how we can use DNA technology for bettering health and more preventative measures by seeing if we spot the disease within the strands and how we can 'shortcircuit' that strand to increase lifespan.
Now we see people using it as a eugenics tool to tell whose cepahalic index is bigger, which group is more intelligent!
The more they change, the more they remain the same!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, it is all just a case of new science, old prejudice! Physical anthropology for example is a great scientific discipline whose roots however came from white Eurocentric bias, which unfortunately still lingers in the discipline.
The same bias and prejudice has found its way into genetics which is made even worse by its roots-- eugenics.
Thus instead of conducting objective research like uncovering what genetic differences are there between different human populations, instead subjective (bias) research is employed in an attempt to 'verify' previous beliefs that certain differences make some populations superior to others.
Of course those of us who are scientists or into scientific studies and the relating methods and discourse are full aware of the implications of such subjective, biased, research. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, IQ tests only reveal exposure to knowledge, not intelligence.
More exposure to knowledge, the higher your IQ becomes. This seems obvious, but for some people it isn't taken in this manner. As example, some people believe intelligence is racial based.
I often get the sense that the people who promote and embrace IQ test scores as indication of their intelligence have low self-esteems; a grasping for straws thing.
I expect those same persons will embrace the 1 percent difference in human DNA, to somehow lift their self-esteems.
They will find cause to declare the 1 percent difference somehow makes them super beings, a unique minority.
DNA testing will continue the racism and discrimination already used by those among us fed on racism and discrimination in their societies.
Expect declarations of pure and impure DNA, mongrel and purebred lineages, in future debates.
Supremacists are not going to give up their place as the supposed super beings, unless forced.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic