Tuesday, May 13, 2014

nah, just what nicholas wade says about race...,

slate |  Wade’s argument has three parts: First, along with the divergence of physical traits such as skin color and types of earwax, racial groups have genetically evolved to differ in cognitive traits such as intelligence and creativity. Second, Wade argues that “minor differences, for the most part invisible in an individual, have major consequences at the level of a society.” Third, he writes that his views are uncomfortable truths that have been suppressed by a left-wing social-science establishment.

The word “inequality” does not appear in the book’s index, but what Wade is offering is essentially a theory of economic and social inequality, explaining systematic racial differences in prosperity based on a combination of innate traits (“the disinclination to save in tribal societies is linked to a strong propensity for immediate consumption”) and genetic adaptation to political and social institutions (arguing, for example, that generations of centralized rule have effected a selection pressure for Chinese to be accepting of authority).

Wade is clearly intelligent and thoughtful, and his book is informed by the latest research in genetics. His explanations seem to me simultaneously plausible and preposterous: plausible in that they snap into place to explain the world as it currently is, preposterous in that I think if he were writing in other time periods, he could come up with similarly plausible, but completely different, stories.

As a statistician and political scientist, I see naivete in Wade’s quickness to assume a genetic association for any change in social behavior. For example, he writes that declining interest rates in England from the years 1400 to 1850 “indicate that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save” and attributes this to “the far-reaching genetic consequences” of rich people having more children, on average, than poor people, so that “the values of the upper middle class” were “infused into lower economic classes and throughout society.”

Similarly, he claims a genetic basis for the declining levels of everyday violence in Europe over the past 500 years and even for “a society-wide shift ... toward greater sensibility and more delicate manners.” All this is possible, but it seems to me that these sorts of stories explain too much. The trouble is that any change in attitudes or behavior can be imagined to be genetic—as long as the time scale is right. For example, the United States and other countries have seen a dramatic shift in attitudes toward gay rights in the past 20 years, a change that certainly can’t be attributed to genes. Given that we can see this sort of change in attitudes so quickly (and, indeed, see large changes in behavior during such time scales; consider for example the changes in the murder rate in New York City during the past 100 years), I am skeptical of Wade’s inclination to come up with a story of genetics and selection pressure whenever a trend happens to be measured over a period of hundreds of years.

Wade’s attitudes toward economics also seem a bit simplistic, for example when he writes, “Capital and information flow fairly freely, so what is it that prevents poor countries from taking out a loan, copying every Scandinavian institution, and becoming as rich and peaceful as Denmark?” The implication is that the answer is racial differences. But one might just as well ask why can’t Buffalo, New York, take out a loan and become as rich (per capita) as New York City. Or, for that matter, why can’t Portugal become as rich as Denmark? After all, Portuguese are Caucasians too! One could of course invoke a racial explanation for Portugal’s relative poverty, but Wade in his book generally refers to Europe or “the West” as a single unit. My point here is not that Haitians, Portuguese, and Danes are equivalent—obviously they differ in wealth, infrastructure, human capital, and so forth—but that it is not at all clear that genetic differences have much of anything to do with their different economic positions.

15 comments:

CNu said...

Formerly, and for three decades, it was the NYTimes publishing Wade. Like a bad penny, his output turns up in high places, is accorded a high profile, and is peddled as legitimately scientific discourse. How difficult do you suppose it would be to recruit and promote a high-profile scientific consensus around this topic, much as exists around the topic of anthropogenic climate change?

How would you attack such a discursive consensus Vic?

woodensplinter said...

The Economist has discovered the gene for IQ http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21601809-potent-source-genetic-variation-cognitive-ability-has-just-been - that or the chemical basis for http://youtu.be/jOLqNOfzus4

woodensplinter said...

Wasn't all of this settled science a century ago? https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-aum_WBfKUxY/U3ELhfUagAI/AAAAAAADOUg/e3pyofwa6dc/w668-h787-no/RandMcnaley.jpg

Vic78 said...

I know the nimrods aren't following any real scientific procedure(can IQ be improved or are people really born that way? Does IQ matter success/failure? Are some races really smarter? Are some races really stupid?). Every one those questions can be dealt with using the scientific method. They aren't interested in real science. I say whenever one of them opens their assholes to talk about race, someone should request the funding to do a scientific study.


We might have to call the good doctor.

http://youtu.be/QOSPNVunyFQ

Vic78 said...

Someone named Don Steele gave the general idea for a race/iq study back in the mid 90s. He started out needing 50 million to get the needed resources. You get 10,000 Black kids that tested badly on the iq test and keep track of them. You get another group of 10,000 that tested badly and take them in. The first group you just make sure they're alive after four years. The second group you spend time schooling them, making sure they eat right and exercise, and track their progress. After four years we test both groups and see how it works out. They can put the results on 60 Minutes.

ken said...

"How difficult do you suppose it would be to recruit and promote a high-profile scientific consensus around this topic, much as exists around the topic of anthropogenic climate change?

How would you attack such a discursive consensus Vic?"

Great and deep and illustrative question. First of all for something like race or climate change consensus, or controversial topics like this, it's difficult to have deep consensus and have so much controversy, unless the minority have the platform. Perhaps you didn't work so hard to be this illustrative with this rebuke of the other article, but it was good... " The trouble is that any change in attitudes or behavior can be imagined to be genetic—as long as the time scale is right."



Of course this is how you build a mantra into your consensus, you start with observable facts in your lifetime and without any historical context you develop a current reason and a promoted consensus. The key to the promoted "overwhelming consensus" is that it it's unlikely the consensus is as strong as the promotion.


The key to countering a promoted consensus is to know the logic of the consensus by educating yourself about it. And a key to knowing if you should believe the consensus would be to read what the opposition's protests are about the logic of the studies that supposedly is the consensus.

woodensplinter said...

Well, that's not going to happen because "Magic Johnson doesn't care about black people".
1. No $50Million
2. No testing and enrichment
3. No methodical proof of anything


The NYTimes, Time Warner, etc - remain free to air whatever they want, whatever the establishment deems useful, and whatever drives unit sales, page views, and click-throughs.

CNu said...

rotflmbao...., why did it suddenly strike me as terribly funny that this dude's nickname is Magic Johnson, Sterling is upset that his little sidepiece is hanging out with Magic Johnson and that Magic Johnson just got Kanye'd in the comments section!!!

Magic Johnson doesn't care about black people priceless.comedy.gold.....,

Vic78 said...

No. 2 would be covered by the schooling part. That's where you get real educators(I'm not talking about Harris-Perry or Mike Dyson) to train the kids. No. 3 is covered by the question of race and iq. Is IQ genetic and set or are there environmental components to it? I'm surprised no one on the environmental side(the guys in the media) has suggested such a study. Instead I get to see Coates crying about his "friend" Sully talking about iq. The purpose of the suggestion would be to shut gene people down. We all know that they don't give a shit about science. I notice that Wade, Murray, and Sully don't know shit about genetics or epistemology. They are only interested in eugenics.

I like how the half wits in the media think it's a good idea to let the billionaires get on camera and speak their minds. Sterling said the wealthy Black folks would rather play golf with him than help the other Black folks. Sterling's cold blooded and I believe he's going to go down swinging.

Constructive_Feedback said...

The author and these scientists have NO PROOF of "Interspecial Evolution" (morph from one species to another)


I AGREE that a given phenotype of a species can MATE OVER TIME and alter the prevalence of a given species trait (hair color, eye color, skin color, height, -- all of these in aggregate become a RACE) but THERE IS NO PROOF that MAN was once a MONEY and more ignorantly - as Dr Neal Degrasse Tyson said the other day on "Cosmos" that after an ASTEROID hit the Earth, causing the 3rd major kill off which killed the dinosaurs that a FERRET-like creature who burrowed underground to avoid the damage of the loss of sunlight and vegetation - came back to the surface and THEN MAN EVOLVED FROM THIS FERRET.


This NY Times article ACCEPTS TOO MUCH WHICH IS FRAUD for it to have any credibility.

Constructive_Feedback said...

[quote]And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.[/quote]

The "Jesus Magic" Of The Secular Evolutionists.


FIND THE GRAVES of the HUMAN BEINGS from 10,000 years ago where YOU CAN SEE THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS between them and those of us WHO DON'T HAVE TAILS today OR demote your claims of SCIENTIFIC FACT down to a THEORY.


Just as the MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years allow them to insert "magic" of the physical sciences, cosmology and mineralogy - such as notions of "The Big Bang" where ALL MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE was in the size of the HEAD OF A PIN (their version of "How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin?"....................


SO TOO does the "Bigotry Of Infinite Time" allow them to conjure up various theories about the ORIGINS OF LIFE.
The MATTER that "BANGED" - though otherwise inert - was able to transform from "Goo To YOU" - because some MAGICAL FORCE made the collection of Elements that turned into Molecules and then into Stands Of Proteins and then into Amino Acids and then into SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS with MOTION and then into COMPLEX multi-celled organisms and then into SYSTEMS OF PERCEPTION of the PHYSICAL WORLD (sight, sound, smell, pressure, taste).


If these same scientists found an Intel 8088 processor chip - they would say that EVOLUTION based upon the FORCES OF NATURE AND TIME brought us the Snapdragon Processor - ignore the "Samsung" logo on top of the chip.

Constructive_Feedback said...

[quote]Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists.[/quote]


THE GREATEST HINT TO THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE AUTHOR!!!


Do you think that this same person would confront the "Systematic Racism Chasers" and tell them that while they GAIN MORE POLITICAL POWER based on the notion of the LEGACY OF CAPITALISTIC OPPRESSION - their incompetence at DEVELOPING the young people that have been assigned to their stewardship - are damaged as a result.

CNu said...

Magic Johnson doesn't care about black people...,

Vic78 said...

The answer for climate scientist and Black folks is the same; they both should seek power. Understand how this game works and act accordingly. Black folks have some mental block that tells them all they have to do is vote democratic and they've done their civic duty. Climate scientists believe that doing their jobs as scientists is enough. There's more to it than that. You aren't about to beat the Koch Bros by debating their flunkies. You have to shut the Birchers out of power. They have to be seen for what they are. The same goes for Wade and his people. Black folks have to get ruthless.

CNu said...

Stephen Gould been dead and Tim Wise can't carry this water for black public intellectuals forever.

That said, who exactly would you propose has the combined technical/intellectual chops - and high profile media access - to take this on in the public domain?

Chauncey'an'em get handed their ass every single time anybody above an 8th grade level of proficiency calls them out, thus the meticulously moderated echo chambers - oops - I mean - "safe spaces" and "salons" where they and the girls can hold forth free of intimidation by Internet bullies....,

When Zakharova Talks Men Of Culture Listen...,

mid.ru  |   White House spokesman John Kirby’s statement, made in Washington shortly after the attack, raised eyebrows even at home, not ...