Should we research differences in our brains?

[Mathematician]

Implicit in most notions about social justice between different 'races' and ethnicities is an assumption that the general populations of all people display unsignificant differences in their intelligence. Recently some very prominent biologists and chemists have come out to dispute this common thread of reason, though.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the controversial remarks made by the famous geneticist Doctor Watson concerning endemic differences between the intelligence of "Whites" and "Blacks." The media responded to his statements by treating them as a gaffe, and probably rightly so as it's hard to put one's thumb down on what constitutes intelligence, but it opened up a new dimension to the debate over eugenics. As we continue to explore human genetics in pursuit of solutions to common diseases (and more commercial reasons, like 'designer babies), questions about the prevalence of traits or characteristics independent of sociology may emerge. Traits like critical thinking, modesty, or an ability to learn.

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

Should it be taboo to explore such issues?

Is someone who finds evidence of said differences a racist?

 

[dust1n]

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

Yes.

Should it be taboo to explore such issues?

No.

Is someone who finds evidence of said differences a racist?

Well they might be, but certainly not because the evidence itself.

It should be explored.. for the sake of curiosity, but they should have no bearing in determining the worth of a person.

 

[*Anne*]

I can understand wanting to explore it for scientific reasons, but I'd be afraid of unintended consequences. For example, uncovering a possible genetic trait that could be used by one group to discriminate against another.

 

[jimmy button]

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

No, 99% of all our genetic makeup as humans is exactly the same. There could just as easily be more difference in two brothers than there would be between two people from different sides of the planet.

Should it be taboo to explore such issues?

No

Is someone who finds evidence of said differences a racist?

If a statistical difference was found, then only by acting on such difference could you be considered a racist. If you simply bring forth data and behave in a humble and cultural relativistic manner than you will be respected despite whatever data you have brought forth.

 

[Falvlun]

It should be explored.. for the sake of curiosity, but they should have no bearing in determining the worth of a person.

It shouldn't, but it's hard to say that it wouldn't. As it stands, we can rebut a racist comment by saying that there really is no underlying differences between the races, so your claims are bunk.

But what if underlying differences were found? Racism would still not be justified, but it would be harder to combat it. If Race X was found to be less intelligent than Race Y, and a racist says that "Race X are less intelligent than Race Y", then how do you respond?

However, to be honest, I don't think that statement could ever be found to be true, since race is simply an invented term to classify people largely on skin color and not much else. There's too much genetic diversity among people of the same skin color to be able to classify them as one homogenous group.

I was also thinking that we currently do have some positive stereotypes associated with different races. Like that Africans and those of African descent tend to be better atheletes than those with a more European background. Or that Asian kids are better at math (although, I've heard this has a lot to do with the way their language deals with numbers, and how they teach it.) In regards to African-Americans and sports, the stereotype appears to be true. Does this mean that a difference in a race has already been acknowledged and found to be true?

 

[Smoke]

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

I know for a fact that they do. But as far as I know, the differences are mostly if not exclusively superficial.

 

[dust1n]

It shouldn't, but it's hard to say that it wouldn't. As it stands, we can rebut a racist comment by saying that there really is no underlying differences between the races, so your claims are bunk.

But what if underlying differences were found? Racism would still not be justified, but it would be harder to combat it. If Race X was found to be less intelligent than Race Y, and a racist says that "Race X are less intelligent than Race Y", then how do you respond?

What does this have to do with determining the worth of a person?

Granted, I share your concern with such arguments; but generalizations are no concrete it would not be safe to imply that someone in Race X is automatically smarter than someone in Race Y, even if on the average of people from both races, that holds true. Granted... a mature society could handle this situation quite well.. after all, if anyone race wants to gain more intelligence, they simply need to be given an education.

 

[jimmy button]

Like that Africans and those of African descent tend to be better atheletes than those with a more European background. Or that Asian kids are better at math (although, I've heard this has a lot to do with the way their language deals with numbers, and how they teach it.) In regards to African-Americans and sports, the stereotype appears to be true. Does this mean that a difference in a race has already been acknowledged and found to be true?

If you look closely at your statement here you will find the answer to your question posed at the end.

In regards to Asian kids being better at math you said it is possible that it is due to the way their language deals with numbers, and on the subject of Africans that they are superb athletes. What I am compelled to believe is that there is simply a cultural explanation for these stereotypes. As I said above there is no statistically consistent difference in DNA from two people of the same race. So it would imply that the second most influential force shaping ones self would be the reason for these observed stereotypes, and that is culture.

 

[Duck]

Implicit in most notions about social justice between different 'races' and ethnicities is an assumption that the general populations of all people display unsignificant differences in their intelligence. Recently some very prominent biologists and chemists have come out to dispute this common thread of reason, though.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the controversial remarks made by the famous geneticist Doctor Watson concerning endemic differences between the intelligence of "Whites" and "Blacks." The media responded to his statements by treating them as a gaffe, and probably rightly so as it's hard to put one's thumb down on what constitutes intelligence, but it opened up a new dimension to the debate over eugenics. As we continue to explore human genetics in pursuit of solutions to common diseases (and more commercial reasons, like 'designer babies), questions about the prevalence of traits or characteristics independent of sociology may emerge. Traits like critical thinking, modesty, or an ability to learn.

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

Should it be taboo to explore such issues?

Is someone who finds evidence of said differences a racist?

The problem that I have with the whole 'race' thing for humanity is that we are all the same 'race', the only differences between humans of different geographical origins are cultural and appearance related. Humanity is Humanity.

Do some genetic qualities tend to cluster in geographic regions? Undeniably. For instance, there is a distinct cluster of pale skin, light colored eyes and light colored hair in the northern regions of Europe.

There should not be a taboo regarding genealogical research, nor research regarding one's genetic history.

Depending on how one approached the idea of genetic distinctions between groups of people, the research could be perfectly benign or completely racist. If one were trying to find genetic distinctions for the purpose of identifying the source of vulnerability to a particular disease, or to find the source of an apparent immunity to a disease, then discovering that some genetic characteristic or marker that distinguished persons from one region and then pointing that out in some variety of publication would not be racist. To claim that that distinctive characteristic made that group of people superior to all others, and that that group of people should have dominion over all other peoples because of that distinctive characteristic would be racist. To begin your research with the premise that people from xx location share yy characteristics and are superior to others from region ww, that would make your research and your data tainted with racism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can understand wanting to explore it for scientific reasons, but I'd be afraid of unintended consequences. For example, uncovering a possible genetic trait that could be used by one group to discriminate against another.

I wouldn't worry. All genetic differences look to be so small that no one would gain anything more than bragging rights about their group
having a 0.82 higher average IQ score. Besides, the rancor & racism we see now are based upon non-scientific biases anyway...plenty
of great reasons to be ignorant bigots already! I'd say there's no good reason to do the studies, but there is a very good reason not to
prohibit them - the conspiracy buffs would have too much fun with that.

It reminds me about some study I heard of wherein atheists were found to be a couple points better than believers. It hasn't been
given much prominence that I've seen. But true or not, I'm more concerned about my room temperature IQ bringing down the average.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Personally, if I were a researcher, I wouldn't touch anything to do with race with a ten-foot pole.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since I'm going to school to be a psychologist, I say we should. It means some form of future job security for me.
But seriously, I don't see why it shouldn't be studied.

 

[Beyondo]

Implicit in most notions about social justice between different 'races' and ethnicities is an assumption that the general populations of all people display unsignificant differences in their intelligence. Recently some very prominent biologists and chemists have come out to dispute this common thread of reason, though.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the controversial remarks made by the famous geneticist Doctor Watson concerning endemic differences between the intelligence of "Whites" and "Blacks." The media responded to his statements by treating them as a gaffe, and probably rightly so as it's hard to put one's thumb down on what constitutes intelligence, but it opened up a new dimension to the debate over eugenics. As we continue to explore human genetics in pursuit of solutions to common diseases (and more commercial reasons, like 'designer babies), questions about the prevalence of traits or characteristics independent of sociology may emerge. Traits like critical thinking, modesty, or an ability to learn.

Do you believe people who trace their immediate ancestors back to different parts of the Earth differ statistically in certain genetic qualities?

Should it be taboo to explore such issues?

Is someone who finds evidence of said differences a racist?

Looking for differences based on race only seems racists. But looking at genetics for certain qualities shouldn't be taboo but the specimens that have these qualities have to be specifically identified. The reason being is that such genetic qualities will occur in other races the question is with what frequency. But when it comes to intelligence certain qualities may actually stem from deformities such as limited interconnectivity between right and left hemispheres of the brain. Some unusual genetic mutations that are specific to ancestry tend to be of a disease resistance or vulnerability nature and not intelligence.

I think that many believe genetics caused the scientific revolution in western society but all the evidence points the cause to cultural attitudes.

 

[Beyondo]

Looking for differences based on race only seems racists. But looking at genetics for certain qualities shouldn't be taboo but the specimens that have these qualities have to be specifically identified. The reason being is that such genetic qualities will occur in other races the question is with what frequency. But when it comes to intelligence certain qualities may actually stem from deformities such as limited interconnectivity between right and left hemispheres of the brain. Some unusual genetic mutations that are specific to ancestry tend to be of a disease resistance or vunerablity nature and not intelligence.

I think that many believe genetics caused the scientific revolution in western society but all the evidence points the cause to cultural attitudes.

Also cultural attitudes will have an influence on conditioning and therefore produce a culturally biased brain wiring.

 

[Smoke]

Personally, if I were a researcher, I wouldn't touch anything to do with race with a ten-foot pole.

I think scientists should learn all they can learn and not be afraid to tell the truth. However, a scientist who spent his time comparing the "races" would seem to be moved more by the racism of American society than by any genuine scientific concern. First, they need to explain how they arrived at a scientific definition of each "race."

Here's a "white" person and here's a "black" person, but what does that mean? All it really means is that that's how they identify in our racist society. Break it down for me. Some black people have no more African ancestry than some white people; and what's the scientific meaning of "African" and "European", anyway? If you want to do real science, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Questions of "race" might be legitimate for social scientists, but social science is not hard science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Looking for differences based on race only seems racists.

Can't it be out of curiousness at an academic level? It would be like saying that looking for differences between men and women is being sexist. But there are several differences between men and women but it doesn't automatically make any researcher sexist. It just shows that women tend to be better with words, men tend to be physically stronger, and men and women tend to perceive things differently. I don't see why looking for and finding any racial differences would make someone racist. If the person was doing it to exploit the difference as a racial superiority, then the researcher would be racist, but such individuals who would be conducting such research would be in the minority.

 

[Eliot Wild]

It just shows that women tend to be better with words . . .

William Shakespeare beggeth to differeth.

Actually, I'm just kidding, you are probably correct. God knows every girlfriend I've ever had could out argue me. That's why I would usually try to settle disputes with arm wrestling . . . sadly, some of 'em beat me in that too.

I agree with the sentiments of Shadow Wolf's post. I think there is a hypersensitivity among the general population, at least here in the States, when it comes to racial issues, and that sensitivity often stands in the way of us learning about our differences and even embracing them.

 

[Beyondo]

Can't it be out of curiousness at an academic level? It would be like saying that looking for differences between men and women is being sexist. But there are several differences between men and women but it doesn't automatically make any researcher sexist. It just shows that women tend to be better with words, men tend to be physically stronger, and men and women tend to perceive things differently. I don't see why looking for and finding any racial differences would make someone racist. If the person was doing it to exploit the difference as a racial superiority, then the researcher would be racist, but such individuals who would be conducting such research would be in the minority.

Ah...That's not exactly what I'm talking about. If one is to do research then you have to be objective which includes removing variables that would distort findings. If a researcher decides to find out if indeed Asians are better at math because of genetics that is already a biased approach! If one is to explore the human genome and then discover that there are tendencies by race than that's ok.

BTW, most research into differences in intelligence between men and women is biased, down right sexist! Most if not all research into this area do not detail conditioning that is culturally biased. So how can researchers claim girls aren't as good as boys or boys not as good as girls in anything when society conditions them differently?

 

[MSizer]

Stats will always be misinterpreted and some people will always use them to draw fallacious conclusions and trick gullible people with them. That's inevitable. I don't believe that's a reason for withholding the gathering of information.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think scientists should learn all they can learn and not be afraid to tell the truth. However, a scientist who spent his time comparing the "races" would seem to be moved more by the racism of American society than by any genuine scientific concern. First, they need to explain how they arrived at a scientific definition of each "race."

Here's a "white" person and here's a "black" person, but what does that mean? All it really means is that that's how they identify in our racist society. Break it down for me. Some black people have no more African ancestry than some white people; and what's the scientific meaning of "African" and "European", anyway? If you want to do real science, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Questions of "race" might be legitimate for social scientists, but social science is not hard science.

Well, whether there is relevant science to be done or not, and whatever the scientists motivations are, it seems like a really bad choice of research. I'm not a geneticist, nor a biologist, so I can't say whether there are any significant genetic differences between what we define as races, but, even if there were, any type of research which goes against political correctness is career suicide.