[quote=“lil.greggy, post:1720, topic:228119, full:true”]
therajraj:
So if we operate under the premise that “racial genetics” are only the genes/traits that we ascribe as commonly associated with certain races due to their evolutionary origins, we have to also acknowledge that there are still the occurrences of 1) recessive traits/multiple phenotypes within those populations, and 2) mutations of those traits. If “race” were bioogical, the parameters would necessitate definitive genetic distinctions (essentially a check list of genotypes/phenotypes that are paired to a specific race), not just statistical tendencies (e.g. African Americans are more likely to have, but not always, distinctive facial structures apparent when a skull is examined). If a person is distinguished as half-white and half-black but has a genotype shown in a DNA test to be 55% of European ancestry/traits and 45% sub-Saharan ancestry/traits, we still distinguish them racially as half-white and half-black.
I feel like I’m just going to have to keep explaining my explanations, but oh well.
Here is a definition of race I posted in another thread:
I should first explain my definition of “race.” In biological tradition the word race is simply synonymous with the terms “subspecies” or “variety.” The basic unit of classification in modern taxonomy is the species. A species is usually said to consist of a set of individuals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. If the offspring are not healthy and fertile, then the parent types are considered separate species. Mules are usually sterile so horses and donkeys are thought to be separate species.
However, in biology things are often fuzzy around the edges, and so it is with species. Sometimes what are considered to be separate species in nature can and will freely interbreed when brought together by man. Sometimes their hybrid offspring are partially or fully fertile. As one example of the fuzziness of species, consider Canis familiaris, the common dog, and Canis lupus, the Eurasian wolf. They are considered to be separate species because their habitats and life-styles are different. Within the dog species itself there are many varieties that are quite different in physiology and behavior. The tiny Mexican Chihuahua, would have a hard time mating with an Irish Wolfhound, but they are considered to be of the same species.
When wolves encounter dogs, they usually eat them. But sometimes they mate with them. When they mate it is almost always the male wolf with the female dog. The reverse is rare — male dogs are almost never able to mate with female wolves. The hybrid puppies are usually fully fertile, so by this definition Canis lupus and Canis familiaris are not different species. The point is that species and races are concepts of classification that often blur around the edges. This is because of the very nature of biological reality.
These days humans are thought to constitute one species — Homo sapiens. Humans are in many respects typical of geographically widespread mammalian species in that we are polymorphic (meaning we have “many forms”). This is what appears to us as individual differences. The bell-curve distribution of so many traits — height, weight, strength, intelligence, and the like — illustrates polymorphic traits. We are also typical among widespread mammals in being a polytypic species. Polytypic means “many types;” it is simply a fact of biological reality that not all different groups of humans are the same. Naturally occurring polytypic groups within a species are called varieties, subspecies, or races.
Glayde Whitney
ActivitiesGuy:
Sure. I appreciate the fact that an alpha such as you gives a beta like me a command, and good, dutiful beta that I am, I will oblige.
Before we begin, I should note that
the study is in “pre-print” and has not been peer-reviewed by experts in that field
while I am well-versed in reading scientific papers in general, this lies in a different portion of science than my wheelhouse.
I am guessing that you found this through a blog post on the Unz Review (IQ Brain Map?, by James Thompson - The Unz Review ), which fashions itself “An Alternative Media Selection: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.” Despite the warnings going off in my head upon reading that tagline, I found the blog post to be quite reasonably written, and would encourage anyone to read that for a decent layman’s breakdown of what the study did and what they found. It’s basically the same thing that I would have written here, and my reaction to the paper essentially mirrors James Thompson’s conclusion:
“I think that the paper is exciting and innovative, and may well be right. However, I have got used to modern genetics papers, which commonly find an excellent match between genetic and behavioural measures in sample sizes of 100,000+ only to find that the match crashes down when tested on a new sample of 25,000+ .”
Papers such as this can easily “over-fit” their own data, conclude that they have found something exciting (mapping brain networks can predict intelligence!) only for the supposedly groundbreaking algorithm to be essentially worthless when tested on a different sample of people.
Okay now what does this specifically mean here:
[quote]
Finally, variation in the degree of human MSN nodes accounted for about 40% of between-subject variability in IQ. Morphometric similarity mapping provides a novel, robust and biologically plausible approach to understanding how human cortical networks underpin individual differences in psychological functions. [/quote]
No one gives a fuck what Mensa does.
It means it’s effectively is an IQ test.
Ok? So you realize that polymorphic traits are the biological aspect and distinguishing polytypic groups within a species is a social construct, right?
Why do you always post things that contradict your argument?
1 Like
therajraj:
Finally, variation in the degree of human MSN nodes accounted for about 40% of between-subject variability in IQ. Morphometric similarity mapping provides a novel, robust and biologically plausible approach to understanding how human cortical networks underpin individual differences in psychological functions.
Um, exactly what it sounds like?
I don’t really know how to simplify this any better for you, lol, but I will try.
In lay terms, the brain imaging they performed (“morphometric similarity mapping”) showed a statistically significant but fairly modest relationship (40% of variance is better than zero, but it’s also not 100% predictive, either) with IQ, indicating that maybe we’re kinda-sorta on the way to quantifying how brain structure and function works?
That’s about the best lay-explanation I can come up with.
Dunning-Kruger, basically. He’s not smart enough to actually read and understand the scientific stuff that he posts, so he just assumes they support what he says, and when it’s explained why it doesn’t support what he says, he either doubles down or changes the source to something else.
For one good example, a few hundred posts earlier in this thread, check out his first post on “g factor” and my responses explaining why the pretty picture he posted actually didn’t support his point, but contradicted it.
4 Likes
ActivitiesGuy:
therajraj:
Finally, variation in the degree of human MSN nodes accounted for about 40% of between-subject variability in IQ. Morphometric similarity mapping provides a novel, robust and biologically plausible approach to understanding how human cortical networks underpin individual differences in psychological functions.
Um, exactly what it sounds like?
I don’t really know how to simplify this any better for you, lol, but I will try.
In lay terms, the brain imaging they performed (“morphometric similarity mapping”) showed a statistically significant but fairly modest relationship (40% of variance is better than zero, but it’s also not 100% predictive, either) with IQ, indicating that maybe we’re kinda-sorta on the way to quantifying how brain structure and function works?
That’s about the best lay-explanation I can come up with.
Dunning-Kruger, basically. He’s not smart enough to actually read and understand the scientific stuff that he posts, so he just assumes they support what he says, and when it’s explained why it doesn’t support what he says, he either doubles down or changes the source to something else.
For one good example, a few hundred posts earlier in this thread, check out his first post on “g factor” and my responses explaining why the pretty picture he posted actually didn’t support his point, but contradicted it.
I’m surprised you didn’t use a movie quote to answer this question?
Literally everything you have posted is everything I have said just using different words. “Genetic patterns” = “genetic statistical tendencies.” Do you know how scientists distinguish things like that? Terms that are social constructs. Biological constructs are definitive. I.e. It would be like saying that there is a universal African American facial structure, when in fact that is not the case. There is simply a genetic tendency, or pattern, of common facial structure most commonly found in African American populations.
Read your own shit
3 Likes
You’re right, there is a perfect movie quote here:
3 Likes
lil.greggy:
Read your own shit
The story of this thread.
P.S. we don’t use the AFQT anymore…
1 Like
lil.greggy:
Literally everything you have posted is everything I have said just using different words. “Genetic patterns” = “genetic statistical tendencies.” Do you know how scientists distinguish things like that? Terms that are social constructs. Biological constructs are definitive. I.e. It would be like saying that there is a universal African American facial structure, when in fact that is not the case. There is simply a genetic tendency, or pattern, of common facial structure most commonly found in African American populations.
Read your own shit
But there are definitive biological aspects for certain groups unique to them. You realize the people in this thread who believe race is purely sociological correct? They deny any biological basis to race
I posted this earlier: Some black males have a Y chromosome other humans do not have
Go to NBCNews.com for breaking news, videos, and the latest top stories in world news, business, politics, health and pop culture.
I’m not talking to those people. I’m talking to you.
And no, there is not a single trait that is entirely unique to a racial group (please see previous statement about mutations, . We have very specific terminology for people that have traits completely unique to them, like down syndrome, but race is not one of them.
1 Like
This. Literally. Is. About. An. Individual.
Please, read it properly and apply to my previous statements.
1 Like
To others reading this thread: @lil.greggy has already admitted he accepts intelligence is affected by genetics:
This single sentence is basically the crux of what pretty much everyone has tried to point out for 1700+ posts now.
So does everyone else… I honestly think you should re-read everyone’s posts 3 or 4 times before responding. It would help, a lot.
1 Like
