Talk:Race (human categorization)

majority viewpoint, per commonly accepted reference text, Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Please see the Race (human) article on Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Per WP:OR, "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." EBO is a commonly accepted reference text (and probably one of the best). We should be able to take the viewpoints expressed on this article as the majority viewpoint. Egalitarians and fans of cultural explanations of race will be happy to read that '“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.' In other words, not sharing inward psychological characteristics. Editors trying to ground this page in solid, high-level analysis should mine the EBO article for all it's worth. Leadwind (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See the section on Current views across disciplines. Many scientists outside of US anthropology accept that race as a biological concept including anthropologists in several non-US nations. Even for the US, many forensic anthropologists accept race.Miradre (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If "[m]any scientists outside of US anthropology accept ... race as a biological concept," then you ought to be able to find "commonly accepted reference texts" that represent that view. If the commonly accepted reference texts are wrong, then we WP editors have a duty to be wrong in exactly the same way. WP doesn't describe what's actually true; it describes what the best sources say is true (even when those sources are wrong). I tell this to Christian apologists on religion pages all the time: if our best sources are wrong, then WP is dutybound to be wrong in the same way. It's frustrating (and maybe exhilarating) to be right when the "experts" are wrong, but WP is about what the experts say (right or wrong). Leadwind (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are sources in the section.Miradre (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there is obviously a huge debate on this very issue--whether "race" is sociological or biological--why are we amateurs trying to make the decison for readers which it is? What we need to do as disinterested editors is to present both sides fairly. That is what my suggested entry (above) tries to do. It puts up two racial classification schemes, followed by a copied section of that part of the current article which denies biological classification. there the claims are; let the readers decide what to believe. It seems to me the regnant editors here do not want readers to see any racial classification schemes whatever, even though that is the title of this article. (What is next? An article on flight, but we will not be allowed to mention airplanes?) Tholzel (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gould and Lewontin claims

See this [1]. I removed this since no source has appeared despite taking it up on the talk page and Maunus stating on the 27th March that "Point taken. I'll find the source for the claim and construct a better wording of the argument". Since none appeared I removed that statement. Please explain adding it back.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I still will, but the books are checked out rigt now. Anyway I don't buy for one second that you actually doubt that they say this, you are just trying to make me spend my time on this rather than other stuff. I will get the books, but not right now. If you were interested you could show your good faith by getting the books yourself - who knows maybe it would be interesting for you to read something written by someone with whom you don't agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You make the claim, you provide the source as per Wikipedia policy. WP:V is does not state that V does not apply because someone may add material in the future. I have already given plenty of time which is not required by policy. Unsourced material can be removed on sight. I very much doubt they have stated that intelligence is a wholly cultural construct.Miradre (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to be helpful, so here is a quote we can use meanwhile: "In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link." and (Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd 2005 American Psychologist 60:1)·Maunus·ƛ· 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You do agree to remove the Gould and Sternberg material? In regards to the Sternberg material that is undue weight to this one source and view. If going into such detail opposing arguments should be added also.Miradre (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No I do not and no it is not. I am not propsing to include this quote, I am showing you that not only Gould and Lewontin make this argument but also Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd. (and I can sure I can find more if I bother to look). This is a widely made and well known argument. Including it is not undue weight. Not including it would leave out a notable and prominent viewpoint.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the books you have in mind, Maunus? I can see if I have them. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the argument is made both in "Not in our Genes" and in "Mismeasure of Man".·Maunus·ƛ· 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I have stated before, even if IQ and race are completely social constructs, one could still study their relationships, including causal relationships, as one can do for income and occupations. It may be an argument against genetic explanations but it would certainly not be an argument against the relationship itself, which is what text currently claims.Miradre (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Maunus: Was there a reference needed for a particular view attributed to Sternberg? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No that view is pretty much established in the 2005 AP article - Miradre just claims it is undue weight to include it. I think when he wrote Gould and Sternberg above he meant Gould and Lewontin.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway the claim we need to source is the one that since Race and Intelligence are both cultural "folk" constructions with no precise scientific definition it is scientifically invalid to propose to explain variation in one in terms of variation in the other. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I meant Gould and Lewontin. As most likely a minority view among IQ experts Sternberg's should not be given undue weight. Right again on the last part, source and an explanation is needed for why one can study the relationship between the social constructs income and occupation but not race and IQ, assuming they are social constructs. Miradre (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sternberg's views are neither minority views among IQ experts nor Grigorenko and Kidd's among geneticists. As for your request for explanation you are asking for an answer to a question noone but you have asked. It is possible to study correlations between constructs but when those constructs are folk categories and not scientifically valid then neither is the correlation. It is like me studying the level of annoyingness in the population of people I don't like - it says more about me than about the objective world and hence is not science. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the only poll ever done so was the partially genetic explanation the most common alternative. You are arguing that one cannot study for example race and income? Or race and voting? Regarding IQ, you are denying that it is good at predicting many life outcomes?Miradre (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing I am summarising arguments by researchers. You know what those researchers think about "the only poll ever done" - which by the way says nothing at all about the scientific basis for believeing in biological race. Sternberg and other psychologists argue that the supposed predictive power of IQ is largely a circular construction - we define intelligence as that which makes someone succesful in our socity, then we measure it and see that people who are succesful in our society have more. Hardly revolutionizing science.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I know what a lot of hereditarians though about the poll. That it vindicated their views. Are you thinking of these thoughts or something else? Regarding IQ, your are mistaken regarding the argumentation. IQ measured in children and adolescents predicts their later life achievements.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am alluding to what Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd as well as other researchers have said about the poll. Of course hereditarians would feel vindicated - that is what was the purpose of the poll. Silent majorities however do not count and I really think it would behoove you to stop parading that old red herring. When all those silent psychologists start publishing their views and presenting arguments then they will have an influence on science, as long as they just keep their views to themselves they can keep believing in the reality folk concepts without being challenged which serves them best. I am saying that is is unsurprising that IQ in children predict achievement since we have built a society where success is defined as that you can get with a high IQ and high IQ is defined as that which gives you success.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering that a Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA was essentially fired for stating that one reason for poverty in Africa is low average IQ one can understand the fear of many lesser researchers of stating what they think. Does not invalidate the poll. Since IQ predicts later life achievement it would still be interesting to study its relationship to race even if both were social constructs. Just as race and voting, or race and income, are interesting to study and are studied by many.Miradre (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So you keep saying...·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

With good reason. That the IQ and race relationship would disappear if both were social constructs is just wishful thinking. The social construct argument is only an argument against the genetic explanation.Miradre (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Maunus: I'll look for the Mismeasure and Not in Our Genes but it may take a few days given all the juggling busying me elsewhere. What might also be relevant to debate in this thread from Not in Our Genes is discussion of the misapplication of heritability measured within groups as any kind of relevant yardstick for findings about between group differences. (This also can be cited to Sandra Scarr, I believe.) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a very good presentation of that argument by Alan R. Templeton which Miradre accuses me of misunderstanding and states has been falsified as "lewontin's fallacy". That is of course incorrect, but let that rest.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that Leowontin has made two widely cited arguments. One is the one marginalia cites above regarding IQ. The other argument is the one regarding genetic variety in races being higher than between races.Miradre (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are all aware of this argument. A high heritability for individual IQ does not necessarily prove anything regarding average group differences. But the hereditarians argue that it increases the probability of genetic causes also for group differences and that the most likely alternative, "the default alternative" is that heritability for group differences are the same as for individuals.Miradre (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing default about that assumption. It is based on specific premise that is not supported.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the default. In order to avoid it the non-hereditarians has to invoke some implausible and not found x-factor that is not measured by heritability because it affects all blacks equally but does not affect whites or affects whites equally but to a lesser degree than blacks. Or else argue that the environment for blacks is incredibly poor compared to whites which would decrease IQ to the size of the gap despite the high heritability. Neither of these explanations are likely. More reasonable objections are that the heritability figures are overestimated, in particular for blacks, or Flynn's argument about feedback effects making the heritability figure unreliable.Miradre (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As you eloquently describe it is the default only for those who have already decided that being black is a biological class and that intelligence is mostly hereditary. It should be fairly easy to find support for ones default hypothesis when it is based on the very assumption one wishes to prove.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is actually another misunderstanding. Let separate out all people have who have a genetic disorder, say cystic fibrosis. Do these people constitute a race? No. Is it still correct to state that this group has a 100% genetic difference to other people? Yes. So genetic differences between groups does not necessarily depend on the groups being "races". So even if race was disqualified as concept there could still be genetic differences between blacks and whites. The race concept is a much more wider claim than simply genetic group differences. Any genetic disorder causes genetic group differences. The race concept also involves for example geographic ancestry.Miradre (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Genetic differences do not depend on races. Correct. That is the reason nobody would flinch at the comment that people with Downs Syndrome have generally lower IQ than people without, or that low IQ as a result of downs syndrome is genetically determined. That is because people with downs syndrom is a category that is defined genetically. Race categories have a geographic ancestry component, but not a strong enough component to provide a necessary and sufficient condition for membership. A person identified as black in the US could for example have three grandparents from Continental Europe and one from Papua New Guinea - if his skin was dark enough and his hair culry enough he would be classified as an "african-american", while he would be much less likely to share any genetic markers with a person from Nigeria than with any person from Europe. If we now decided to correlate his intelligence to other American "blacks" and it turned out to be similar what would that prove?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is like arguing that animals have no subspecies because there are individuals in border regions who are difficult to classify. How people self-identify does not change their their ancestry. Furthermore, in the US the correspondance between self-identified race and predominant geographic ancestry is extremely good. For other nations likely less so. But even for mixed-race individuals one can make predictions based on their degree of mixture. This is not controversial for physical appearance. Mixed race persons on average have physical appearance intermediate between their ancestral races. It is only when one goes under the skin it becomes controversial and uncomfortable for many.Miradre (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops: I am afraid I don't understand this statement at all: "So genetic differences between groups does not necessarily depend on the groups being "races". So even if race was disqualified as concept there could still be genetic differences between blacks and whites." The difference between "being black" and "having cystic fibrosis" is that it doesn't matter which doctor you visit they'll diagnose you the same (if they are qualified) - however if you go to a racialist and ask them to telkl you if you are black or not there is no guarantee that the outcome will be the same in each case, because there is no definition comparable to the genetic one. (there is a funny quote in a book I forget which is from a forensic anthropologist saying that forensic anthropology is so accurate that he can sometimes correct people who thought they were one race but in fact were of another - believe that you've been discriminated against all your life and at your autopsy it turns out you were really white!) ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, for an individual race/geographic ancestry does not predict very well. Many blacks have higher IQ than the white average. Race is mostly interesting when looking at many individuals as an aggregate. Due to the Law of large numbers one can then see clear group differences which are important for society.Miradre (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus now claims that Gould and Sternberg now supports his view. Please explain how they resolve the problem with that scientists often study two social constructs. Such as income and occupations.Miradre (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at the Sternberg et all article. It is of course not as Maunus states. They only use the social construct argument against a genetic explanation. First regarding IQ they state "In summary, it is probably more accurate to refer to existing studies as assessing the relation between “IQ” or “psychometric g” and what is labeled as race than as assessing “intelligence” and these other constructs". I see no problem with that. No hereditarian has claimed that IQ or g measures everything that people think is part of intelligence. More importantly, in the conclusion they make a comparison to race and disease. Different races have different incidences of various diseases. They argue that to say that this is due to genetic factors is impossible. Then they compare this to race and IQ and say that the same thing applies there. The Sternberg article only argues against the genetic explanation. Not that one cannot study race and IQ.Miradre (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading it rather selctively, indeed one might say that you are missing the main point entirely. Luckily they summarise that in the abstract of the article: "In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends."·Maunus·ƛ· 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is you who are selectively quoting. More fully: "They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends." Thus, they are talking about other intelligence constructs. In the conclusion they make a comparison to the study of race and diseases which they they do not disagree with. Only the the claims that common diseases have partially genetic racial differences. This they compare to race and IQ studies.Miradre (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is what they state in the conclusion "Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currentlyindicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these social defined groups" Thus again, they are criticizing the genetic theory.Miradre (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't contradict what I am saying, unless you twist the obvious meaning out of whack. They say that neither race nor intelligence is a well defined concept, but rather fuzzy folk ones, and that one cannot do science by correlating folk concepts.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then one could not study race and disease, which they do state is possible.Miradre (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because disease is not a folk category, but a medical one?·Maunus·ƛ· 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you do admit it is possible to study the relationship of race to other variables? Miradre (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do, anything else would make no sense. You can study income differences between blacks and white e.g. And also you dodn't need to get me to admit anything. These are Gould and Sternberg et al.'s arguments not mine.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the conclusion they compare race and disease research to race and IQ research and argue that in both cases one cannot conclude genetic explanations for differences. In the article they argue two somewhat different points. One cannot study "Race and intelligence" because "intelligence" as a concept is too diffuse. Secondly, while one can study race and IQ, the genetic explanation is false.Miradre (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is also how I read the article. Glad we agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the article text should be clarified regarding the view of the Sternberg article.Miradre (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Today most scholars that study race see it as a social construct"

Race should not be defined by social 'scientists', but by evolutionary biologists, medics, etc. - in brief: science should trump ideology in an encyclopedia. The notion that a "social construct" generated people of different skin color, facial and skeletal features, different hair etc. is beyond ridiculous. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Now go read some basic literature about the issue and we may be able to have a conversation.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I do have some reservations about this claim. Of course, trivially, it is true. Race is a social construct, in the same way as species, or any concept. But I think the implication here is that it is just a social construct, and of no biological utility. While this opinion is doubtless expressed by most cultural anthropologists affiliated with the American Anthropological Association, it is a bit of a leap to "most scholars". In fact the paper by Strkalj, "The status of the race concept in contemporary biological anthropology", would indicate that the opposite is true. QuintupleTwist (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, AAPA, AAA and UNESCO says otherwise.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO, Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences, 1951: "Human races can be, and have been, classified in different ways by different anthropologists. Most of them agree in classifying the greater part of existing mankind into at least three large units, which may be called major groups (in French grand-races, in German Hauptrassen)." QuintupleTwist (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the existence of races as a concept. It is the grounding of this concept in readily-defined biological differences which many scientists do not endorse anymore. But as a concept based in society, races are real (but end to cqnge from society to society).--Ramdrake (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Strkalj, The status of the race concept in contemporary biological anthropology, 2007, most scientists do endorse grounding this concept in defined biological differences. Without intention to patronize, there have been some developments in biology in the last 56 years. QuintupleTwist (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Strkalj, acceptance of the concept varies, and is highest in China, Russia and Eastern Europe. It is lowest in Western Europe and North Americs (where most anthropologists are found).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment on your claim that most anthropologists are found in the West (should be easy to check). The original statement concerned biological anthropologists studying human variation, the relevant field. Strkalj reports utilization (not just acceptance) of the concept in this group at around 50% in the West, and near 100% in other parts of the world. QuintupleTwist (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

About Strkalj

And I have reverted again. My contention is that user Quintuple Twiqt is misreding Strkalj when he contends 50% acceptance of the race concept in the US and Europe. In the same article, I read 70% rejection or so. And other quthors such as Lieberman go up to 85-89% rejection inntheir latest survey results (about 2002).--Ramdrake (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If we go by your figures, which I will dispute for several reasons, you need to provide a source demonstrating that there are twice as many biological anthropologists in the West than in Eastern Europe, Russia and China.

And do not revert my copy edits at the same time. They were in a separate edit and you need to revert separately. Anything else is simple vandalism. QuintupleTwist (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to avoid your edits reverted in group, then structure them so they can be undone separately.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun, I'm being called a vandal by a POV-pushing sockpuppet of a banned user...;) As I haver reverted twice already, I'm not getting into an edit war, but if somebody can talk some sense into QT, and convince him/her to discuss on the talk page rather than launch in a pointless revert war, I would appreciate the help. I believe I gave it a good try.--20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ramdrake keeps reverting copy edits along with the statement he disagrees with. "However as biological studies through the twentieth found biological basis for the classification it became clear that the primary factor in racial classification was social conventions developed in the colonial period." Is unsourced and makes no sense.

"Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted[9][26] and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities[27] of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately." Is repeated twice in the same paragraph.

It is not my responsibilty to structure my edits so that you can effortlessly revert what you disagree with. How could I even do that? Ramdrakes behavior is now so rude that it appears calculated to provoke a hostile response. I imagine that this would not be looked upon favorably should it be brought to the attention of administrators. This is a warning to desist before that becomes necessary.

Ramdrake asserts that I am "a sockpuppet of a banned user". Can he elaborate on that?

There is no source to imply that the concept of race is not often used since the early twentieth century ("In the early twentieth century it was often used as a biological term, race denoting genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits"). None of the sources for this examine Eastern Europe, China or Russia, where a near 100% acceptance is found (China recently surpassed the US in number of PhDs). In fact, the concept is alive and well, even in the West. Figures from Lieberman's study are cited, but he was looking at scholars from inappropriate fields, and only members of the AAA. Clearly this is a poor sample for an international overview, and even that showed a 30% acceptance, not supporting an implied demise. QuintupleTwist (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)