14 thoughts on “Genetics And Racial Quotas”

  1. I’m not going to make some deep point about who is right and why. I was just reading Barone and saw something that made me chuckle. First I’m going to quote Barone, and then I’m going to quote Reich:

    Barone: Reich was responding to anticipated resistance to his forthcoming book, “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past.” The “well-meaning people” Reich references here are those who argue that race is a “social construct,”[…].

    Reich: It is true that race is a social construct.

    1. Bob, you have a long history here of arguing that race is a social construct. Here’s something recent.

      Target has agreed to pay $3.74 million to settle claims that its background criminal checks discriminated against thousands of black and Latino applicants.

      Black Americans are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites, according to the NAACP. “Because of bias and standardized racism at every stage of the justice system, African Americans and Latinos are convicted at rates that are much higher than whites,” he said.

      Would you care to offer your opinion about the proposition that differences in incarceration rates are a result of “standardized racism at every stage of the justice system”?
      If race is just a social construct, how should the $3.7 million be equitably distributed?

    2. cntrl+f doesn’t find your second “quote”.

      Race could or not be a social construct depending on how one defines race. Our friends to the left are currently in the midst of changing language to suit whatever needs they have at the moment to support their marxist tilt.

      People who say race doesn’t exist often point to little difference in DNA. But no one who thinks there are different races think that each race is a different species, which is the attack leveled at them.

      It is true that while there are biological difference between different groups of people that those differences are very small in the grand scheme of things. Those small differences to lead to some rather diverse appearances, which tell our human story. The rich tapestry of our human history should not be expunged because people want to say we are all the same. Instead that history should be embraced.

      We are not all the same. All cultures are not the same. All religions don’t worship the same god(s). Everyone is born with a spectrum of attributes and when populations are isolated enough genetically, nature takes a hand in how we evolve. This isn’t something to hide from any more than it is something people should feel supreme about.

      1. I’m sorry I don’t have time to participate in this thread, but the second quote was from Reich’s article which Barone linked to, and which Barone is referring to throughout the article. Here is a direct link:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

        Do a control-f on “construct” to find the quote, and the surrounding context.

        But everyone reading this should do themselves a favor, and read the whole article by Reich. It is well worth reading what Reich himself said, and not just what Barone says about Reich.

        1. I also strongly recommend Reich’s follow-up in the NTY:
          ‘How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics’
          https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/opinion/race-genetics.html

          Since many of you will find the NYT’s paywall to be an impediment (even though you can read NYT articles in a variety of ways without paying), I’ll quote:

          —————

          Indeed, we have known for almost a half-century that for the great majority of human traits shaped by genetics, there is far greater variation among individuals than populations.

          This means that when a teacher looks around a classroom of students of diverse “races,” she or he shouldn’t see them as members of fundamentally different groups of people. “Race” has trivial predictive power about an individual person’s biological capabilities. Even if there are slight average differences among groups of humans, individuals from any group are capable of excelling in any realm.

          […]

          From my point of view, it should be possible for everyone to hold in their heads the following six truths:

          1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

          2. There are clear genetic contributors to many traits, including behavior.

          3. Present-day human populations, which often but not always are correlated to today’s “race” categories, have in a number of instances been largely isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years. These long separations have provided adequate opportunity for the frequencies of genetic variations to change.

          4. Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits, even though we know that the average genetic influences on behavior and cognition are strongly affected by upbringing and are likely to be more modest than genetic influences on bodily traits or disease.

          5. The genetic variations that influence behavior in one population will almost certainly have an effect on behavior in others populations, even if the ways those genetic variations manifest in each population may be very different. Given that all genetically determined traits differ somewhat among populations, we should expect that there will be differences in the average effects, including in traits like behavior.

          6. To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public. And it encourages people not to trust the honesty of scholars and instead to embrace theories that are not scientifically grounded and often racist.

          In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the difference are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).

          1. This means that when a teacher looks around a classroom of students of diverse “races,” she or he shouldn’t see them as members of fundamentally different groups of people.

            In a melting pot society this is true but we have a group of people here who atomize everyone based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex, age, weight, ect. They do this because they think skin color determines how/what people think and their life experiences. Really, that isn’t the case and it is nice to see an academic put forward traditional conservative viewpoints knowing that can lead to deplatforming.

            1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

            Its both and there isn’t anything wrong with that. I stated below why there is this shift in the PC use of race. I view it as a bit misguided because as you note, we are all individuals and there is a lot of variation between individuals, which I also noted below.

            Its cool that some people are finally coming around to conservative views on race and individuality. But I think its tragic that it is framed as epiphany rather than independent discovery especially since a view on what constitutes race is being used to delegitimize people who already held the view that people are individuals and that a person’s skin color doesn’t give them magic powers.

            Our friends to the left are the ones that need this lesson but rather than focus on individuality will instead use the definition of race to attack people as being racists, even though their targets already held the view of looking at people as individuals and not that someone’s race predetermine’s their beliefs and actions.

            I think we will bring everyone together eventually but when it happens our friends to the left will be like, “We won, we won! Finally got you to change.” and our friends to the right will be like, “We were never your enemy. Glad you guys finally agree with us.”

          2. 1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

            The way I see it, and I’m not sure this makes it a social or a biological category, is that Humans instinctively categorize everything they’re aware of, including people. Then we instinctively assign characteristics to the things in each category based on the information that we’re aware of about those things (including people).

            So if you live in a society in which elderly people are widely reported to be violent offenders you’ll instinctively bias your assumptions about the elderly people you meet towards an expectation of them being more likely to also be violent offenders.

          3. The way I see it, and I’m not sure this makes it a social or a biological category, is that Humans instinctively categorize everything they’re aware of, including people.

            This is true. We give everything a category, it is how our minds work. There is some truth to your second point but our minds use lots of information to make judgements, not just something as broad as age or race. Facial expressions, clothing, character, ect.

            I get what you are alluding to but I think you are wrong about your thoughts and they are based more on your own stereotypes.

          4. but our minds use lots of information to make judgements, not just something as broad as age or race. Facial expressions, clothing, character, ect.

            Hence my subsequent comment.

        2. but the second quote was from Reich’s article which Barone linked to

          No, the second quote is from the Washington Post article that I linked to, just like the first one. “he said” refers to Samuel Spital, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I am having no trouble seeing it.

  2. Often what is an offensive word isn’t determined by the word but by who uses it. If you don’t like the person, than whatever word they use is automatically offensive. In many ways, this is the heart of PC or setting oneself above those you think are your inferiors.

    The link expresses the worry that the wrong people will use genetic differences between groups the wrong way. Some will. But notice the current attitude among the anthropologists, that there are no differences between races. The reason why this view is popular is not because there are no differences between populations but because the wrong people have the wrong views about differences between populations.

    IMO, the better way to go, as also noted in the link, is just to acknowledge that there are differences between populations and that it doesn’t matter when we treat each other as individuals. How could anyone study history or human evolution and then not think its cool that we have different races?

    Also, it should be noted that those who like to view group vs individual as a way to prop themselves up always fail to realize the enormous overlap in population bell curves and that few people are land on the right tail. Most land in the middle, putting them right with the people of other groups they feel superior to but I suspect that many who think this way are actually a little farther to the left (in both senses).

  3. As a social construct, there will never be “race equality” in America. There’s too much vested interested in keeping it otherwise. To claim otherwise at any point (and on either side of the “divide”) would make you victim to claims of being socially unjust. Truth doesn’t factor into it. The only way out is to start a new society. Probably on Mars, where survival depends upon unity not division and “self-identity” and “victim-hood”. This by no means denigrates what happened in the past. But those that would stay in the past for their identity cannot move forward into the future. It’s interesting, the same could happen on Earth, but no one is interested in starting new countries these days. I suppose because technology has driven us to the point of defacto world government whether we recognize it or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *