Behavior due to race would be interesting. Hard to test though. Which behavior? In the US we have large groups of different “races” whose behavior, I would suggest, is more American than you think. When Asian Americans go to Asia, they find out how American their behavior is.

If Beth is somehow suggesting there is more genetic overlap between people if the same “race” than outside of that race, there is some overlap for blood transfusions. But my understanding is when it comes to the human genome or major histocompatibility complex there is no correlation.

And besides this has nothing to do with behavior.

Racist masking as someone genuinely interested in genetics without will or resources to actually study and learn something on their own…

Greg: Not really, no.
…
Greg… You are being silly. I think, I know what you are trying to say…

If we want to define racial groups in such a way that there are very strong correlations with many important traits other than the ones we use to actually define the groups, it cannot be done. The common definitions of “race” people actually have very little predictive value towards anything other than superficial traits. They are not very meaningful categories except for the fact that we have all sorts of social constructs built up around them which endow “race” with meaning.

And, yes, there are exceptions such as sickle-cell… but a better categorization scheme actually based on cladistics instead of rather highly variable superficial traits correlated with ancestry (if even that) would be far more informative for that.

And, of course, the fact that we have routine “interracial” breeding (and have had in all but a few odd-ball communities since before homo sapiens existed as a species) means that even ancestry isn’t all that predictive.

For people who know what they are talking about, “heritable” means there is some non-zero genetic component to variation in a trait. However, for far too many people “heritable” means that a trait is mostly due to a genetic component. Pretty much everything is heritable, the question is always how heritable. It is actually rather difficult to determine even when you can do precisely controlled breeding experiments, which we can’t do on people.

As for the general false equivalence… Yeah, Moody is right on this. There is no equivalence because the important thing being discussed isn’t just “believing things which aren’t true”. The key issue is that conservatism, especially the authoritarian sort, is intrinsically more prone and has built up structures to preserve and promote false beliefs. Liberalism is actually opposite of conservatism on this front… almost definitionally so.

What I’m referring to is this: …

I’m sorry, but I’m not clear on whether my response was an adequate answer to your question in comment # 10: “But then, do you leave it at that and assume there is a genetic variation underlying the phenotypic variation?”

If my response didn’t adequately answer your question, then I would respectfully request that you re phrase the question.

You donâ??t think that men and women have an identifiable difference in mean height? Am I mistaken about believing this difference exists and has been demonstrated? Iâ??m fairly sure Iâ??ve seen convincing empirical evidence for it. If you doubt it, I can try to find it again.

I said by sex. You are mistaken, otherwise, yes. There are genes that relate in a large way to height between populations, and there probably are some genetic factors (there is reason to believe that) but the variation in height in a given population across space or over generational time (and in many cases, “across space” is equivalant to “across time” because of demographic transitions happening) is generally not accounted for by underlying genetic variation.

You will easily find examples proving me wrong in basic textbooks. But if you look at the examples you’ll see that the presume a “continuous” genetic variation and they’ll be a little story about genes, but no reference to the genes causing the histogram (or whatever) about variation in stature in that data set.

This seems self-contradictory. I’m mistaken about men and women having an identifiable difference in mean height even though you expect that I can easily find examples proving you wrong in basic textbooks?

Here is empirical evidence for what I’m referring to. This is from table 8 of Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960â??2002 published by the CDC found which can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5212/docs/nchs-ad347.pdf
For adult men (20 years and older) in the U.S., the average height from the 1999 – 2002 time period is 69.2 with a standard error of 0.1. For adult women (20 years and older) it is 63.8 with a standard error 0f 0.1. This difference of 6.6 inches fall well outside the expected variation in mean height and allows me to conclude that there exists a statistically significant difference between men and women with respect to height.

That a mean difference exists is consistent over time despite changes in the mean height for both genders (the mean heights for men and women from 1960 to 1962 are given as 68.3 and 63.1 respectively with standard errors of 0.1).

The relationship between gender and height is robust over time and, to the best of my knowledge, over different cultures, geographic locations, etc. This leads me to believe that there is a genetic component to adult height because gender is well established as a genetically determined trait. I am not understanding why you consider this incorrect.

Also, I don’t disagree that “the variation in height in a given population across space or over generational time (and in many cases, “across space” is equivalant to “across time” because of demographic transitions happening) is generally not accounted for by underlying genetic variation“.

That statement does not contradict my claim that there is a genetic correlate of adult human height any more than the fact that some women are taller than some men negates the idea that a real and credible difference exists between the mean heights of men and women.

Right, you are not understanding me.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to clarify my misunderstanding of what you are saying.

Let me explain it again. Humans have traits, some of which vary because of underlying genetic variation.

Okay. I don’t have any issue with this statement.

Much of that genetic variation is random across populations and thus correlates with geography at best, with some inter-trait correlation, but really, very little.

I don’t have an issue with the first part of this statement. I would appreciate it if you could indicate more precisely what you mean by very little inter-trait correlation. Do you mean that very few traits are strongly correlated within a population? Or that the correlations that do exist between traits within a population are generally rather weak? These are rather different interpretations of what you said. I would like to know which interpretation you meant.

It is very difficult or impossible most of the time to draw lines between groups of people with natural population spread.

Okay. I don’t disagree with this either. However, the fact that the boundaries are fuzzy does not negate that the groupings are real and credible. The boundaries for gender are far fuzzier these days that previously realized with the recognition of transexual individuals. Nevertheless, male and female still form real and credible groupings despite the fact that not all individuals are clearly one or the other.

Given that sample one can find a tidy means of separation of people looking at their skulls. The ability to do so has been overestimated, but it could be done to some extent. But if you add in people from other parts of the world, the tidy means of separating groups becomes harder and harder until we come to the point that it becomes impossible. This is a reality that physical anthropologists have come to understand decades ago. I’m not telling you something new here. But even so, the received knowledge in other fields or among the general populous is a very race-based model.

This is the part where you are losing me. I haven’t said anything about an estimate of the ability to make such distinctions, merely that I think it can be done to some extent. Here, as previously, you seem to be simultaneously both denying and admitting that it can be done. This is very confusing.

Some physical attributes ARE correlated with racial groups, most notably skin tone and eyes.

Not really, no.

And here you seem to completely break from reality. How do you reconcile the claim that there are no physical attributes correlated with racial groups with the statement “the skull had an Eskimo basicranium in the back, causasoid in the front, the back of the head was African and the face Native American.”

It seems to me that you are attempting to claim that real and credible groupings by race don’t exist because not all individuals fit into those categories but fall into multiple categories. But that fact does not contradict the idea that real and credible racial groupings exist.

If â??Eskimoâ? â??Africanâ? and â??Native Americanâ? are not real and credible groupings in your field, why are using them as descriptive of various parts of a particular skull?

Now you are just being thick, Beth. I’m not using these terms to prove that they don’t exist.

You made the statement as part of an example disputing the claim that real and credible racial groupings exist. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to term me ‘thick’ for thinking you were attempting to use racial groupings to establish that racial groupings don’t exist.

You told me that physical anthropologists could tell these races apart. I gave you an example of how it does not work.

No, I never said that. What I said in comment #9 was forensic scientists are able to provide meaningful information about unidentifiable corpses, telling investigators with reasonable probability bounds whether the deceased was of Caucasian, Asian or African descent based on physical characteristics? Note that I referred to forensic scientists, not physical anthropologists. Nor did I claim that such scientists could tell the race of an individual. I said they could give probabilistic estimates of the race of an unidentified individual. Now, I may, in fact, be mistaken about what forensic scientists can actually do in that regard but your response did not establish that.

With my answers to your most recent questions, you have all the information you need to understand how this works at the level you are approaching it, if that is your desire.
The next level for you will be to take a couple of classes in the subject!

I don’t plan on taking any courses in the area any time soon, though no doubt it would be fascinating if I could work them into my schedule. Thank you for your attempts to educate me regarding the nuance of your field, but I am still not understanding why you claim that racial groupings are not real and credible when they are clearly used descriptively within your field as per the example you gave in comment #10.

What I’m referring to is this: A heritability estimate based on familial data indicates the possibility of a genetic cause of observed variation in some behavioral study. Such an estimate by itself does not prove a genetic underpinning, but the underpinning is assumed, and a paper is published that says “posssible genetic cause of this behavior bla bla bla…” That paper then gets added to the list of examples of genetic causes, even though it should not be, and this list grows longer and longer with similar papers … suggested but not proven cases … and the lenght of the list of studies becomes the “proof” of a general class of genetic causes of a general class of behaviors.

You donâ??t think that men and women have an identifiable difference in mean height? Am I mistaken about believing this difference exists and has been demonstrated? Iâ??m fairly sure Iâ??ve seen convincing empirical evidence for it. If you doubt it, I can try to find it again.

I said by sex. You are mistaken, otherwise, yes. There are genes that relate in a large way to height between populations, and there probably are some genetic factors (there is reason to believe that) but the variation in height in a given population across space or over generational time (and in many cases, “across space” is equivalant to “across time” because of demographic transitions happening) is generally not accounted for by underlying genetic variation.

YOu will easily find examples proving me wrong in basic textbooks. But if you look at the examples you’ll see that the presume a “continuous” genetic variation and they’ll be a little story about genes, but no reference to the genes causing the histogram (or whatever) about variation in stature in that data set.

If I am understanding you correctly, this statement indicates that one can do better than random chance by using certain physical markers as predictive of racial groups. Thatâ??s another way of expressing the idea that real and credible groupings do exist, which is the point you are disputing. That the success rate is lousy is irrelevant. If you can use such correlates to achieve a better than random chance success rate, then the groupings can be considered real and credible. Not terribly useful perhaps, but that’s another question.

Right, you are not understanding me.

Let me explain it again. Humans have traits, some of which vary because of underlying genetic variation. Much of that genetic variation is random across populations and thus correlates with geography at best, with some inter-trait correlation, but really, very little. It is very difficult or impossible most of the time to draw lines between groups of people with natural population spread. The line between white and black americans is non-existent, if you draw it where it should be, between ancestral europeans and ancestral africans going back, say, a few centuries. The line only exists because people got on boats and went to a new land where they then formed a contrast. Those were not real races until the arbitrary movement of people created an artifical “race” like entity.

back in certain parts of the US many decades ago it was common to find Europeans who were mainly German with some Irish and English, Africans who were mainly West and western Central Africans; Asians who were mainly Chinese and maybe Native Americans. Those are not races: Those are arbigrary patches on this larger continuum, samples by people with boats, if you will, and brought together in, say Massachusetts near some physical anthropologist who collects their skulls.

Given that sample one can find a tidy means of separation of people looking at their skulls. The ability to do so has been overestimated, but it could be done to some extent.

But if you add in people from other parts of the world, the tidy means of separating groups becomes harder and harder until we come to the point that it becomes impossible.

This is a reality that physical anthropologists have come to understand decades ago. I’m not telling you something new here. But even so, the received knowledge in other fields or among the general populous is a very race-based model.

Some physical attributes ARE correlated with racial groups, most notably skin tone and eyes.

Not really, no.

If â??Eskimoâ? â??Africanâ? and â??Native Americanâ? are not real and credible groupings in your field, why are using them as descriptive of various parts of a particular skull?

Now you are just being thick, Beth. I’m not using these terms to prove that they don’t exist. You told me that physical anthropologists could tell these races apart. I gave you an example of how it does not work.

With my answers to your most recent questions, you have all the information you need to understand how this works at the level you are approaching it, if that is your desire.

The next level for you will be to take a couple of classes in the subject!

That can be the case. But then, do you leave it at that and assume there is a genetic variation underlying the phenotypic variation?

Iâ??m not sure what you mean by this. Do I leave A at B and assume there is â?¦.? Could you clarify what â??itâ?? and â??thatâ?? refer to in your sentence above?

In general, I assume that if there is clearly a genetic component to a physical attribute (â??you have your motherâ??s eyesâ?), I assume a genetic variation underlies the phenotypic variation. Does that answer your question?

There is not a genetic component to variation in height in human groups that matters that has ever been identified.

You donâ??t think that men and women have an identifiable difference in mean height? Am I mistaken about believing this difference exists and has been demonstrated? Iâ??m fairly sure Iâ??ve seen convincing empirical evidence for it. If you doubt it, I can try to find it again.

If, on the other hand, you meant that there is no mean height difference between different â??racesâ??, then I have no idea if you are correct or not. Height was merely an attribute I was using as an example of a trait with a known genetic component. If you are still disputing that it does, I’ll look for empirical evidence of the mean difference in height between males and females.

I’m a physical anthropologist, Harvard trained and everything. We can’t do that. That’s TV.

The credentials are quite impressive, but your denial of the ability to form real credible racial groupings is undermined by your very next sentence.

If you start with three or four or five distinct artifical groups and everybody is in those groups, then you can do it with a better than random but still pretty lousy success rate.

If I am understanding you correctly, this statement indicates that one can do better than random chance by using certain physical markers as predictive of racial groups. Thatâ??s another way of expressing the idea that real and credible groupings do exist, which is the point you are disputing. That the success rate is lousy is irrelevant. If you can use such correlates to achieve a better than random chance success rate, then the groupings can be considered real and credible. Not terribly useful perhaps, but that’s another question.

But the existence of these artificial groups is historically contingent.

Yes. So? Is this supposed to negate the idea that racial groupings might have genetic correlates? It seems to me to be additional evidence supporting the idea.

There have been times and places where this kinda works, times and places where it does not work. But it is always artificial groups… humans are clinal in their variation and most of these traits are uncorrelated into racial groups.

Again, yes, So? How does this negate my point that there are genetic correlates with various physical attributes? Some physical attributes ARE correlated with racial groups, most notably skin tone and eyes. Is it really â??groundlessâ?? to presume some genetic correlate with those attributes?

One of my favorite oral exams for my students was to give them a skull and ask “cause of death and ethnic identity please” … the cause of death was obvious. The sharp object was still embedded in the cranium. Regarding the “racial” markers you noted, the skull had an Eskimo basicranium in the back, causasoid in the front, the back of the head was African and the face Native American.

If â??Eskimoâ? â??Africanâ? and â??Native Americanâ? are not real and credible groupings in your field, why are using them as descriptive of various parts of a particular skull?
Your claim that such groupings do not meaningfully exist is unconvincing when you use such groupings descriptively in your attempt to disprove they exist.

A need for a different approach to human variation that does not fetishize races.

What do you mean by fetishize races? What approach do you foresee your profession using that would be free of that â??fetishâ??

That can be the case. But then, do you leave it at that and assume there is a genetic variation underlying the phenotypic variation? If you are part of that particular school of psychology, one generally does. The more cases like that … where the undemnostrated assumption is made … the more likely researchers are to presume the assumption later. The citations build up in number but never in quality.

I’m not sure where you get this idea that I’m claiming we understand genetic variation to height. The only claim I’m making is that we understand that there exists a genetic component to adult height, not that we understand the details of how that happens.

There is not a genetic component to variation in height in human groups that matters that has ever been identified.

Why, yes. Yes I have. Do you dispute that forensic scientists are able to provide meaningful information about unidentifiable corpses, telling investigators with reasonable probability bounds whether the deceased was of Caucasian, Asian or African descent based on physical characteristics?

Why, yes, I do! I’m a physical anthropologist, Harvard trained and everything. We can’t do that. That’s TV.

If you start with three or four or five distinct artifical groups and everybody is in those groups, then you can do it with a better than random but still pretty lousy success rate. But the existence of these artificial groups is historically contingent. There have been times and places where this kinda works, times and places where it does not work. But it is always artificial groups… humans are clinal in their variation and most of these traits are uncorrelated into racial groups. One of my favorite oral exams for my students was to give them a skull and ask “cause of death and ethnic identity please” … the cause of death was obvious. The sharp object was still embedded in the cranium. Regarding the “racial” markers you noted, the skull had an Eskimo basicranium in the back, causasoid in the front, the back of the head was African and the face Native American.

That is because the puruvian group represented by this particular skull was not in the original forensic sample everyone uses. And if you put all groups into that sample, do you know what you get? A need for a different approach to human variation that does not fetishize races.