Human Races are like Dog Breeds: An Effective Analogy in Racial Debate
By • 3/6/08Once when I was trying to explain my views on race to my mother, a hidebound race denier, I told her different human races were like different dog breeds, distinct not only in appearance, but behavior. I still remember her reaction: “Oh, that’s so racist!” she said in a tone of disgust. It was different from her usual responses to my attempts to convert her to race realism. Generally, she’s patient, though snippy, during these conversations. However, she was unable to restrain her anger at my comparison of human races to dog breeds. There was something in the idea that deeply shocked and disturbed her.
I must say that I was very gratified by my mother’s reaction. I’m not a sadist. I don’t like causing my mother pain. But people don’t respond like mother did to a statement unless it wrenches their minds into a different configuration. We realists must do this kind of psychological violence to people in order to transform their perspectives, just as a psychologist must sometimes make painful revelations to a patient in order to cure him. A shocking analogy will stick in the brain and gradually change the way that people view the world.
It was plain that my mother had never perceived any analogy between dog breeds and human races. The comparison is effective because it communicates the race realist perspective so concisely. After all, everyone knows that dogs differ in behavior. Russell terriers are fearless, courageous, independent, intelligent, and comical, whereas a Rottweiler is calm, confident, stubborn, and protective. Everyone also accepts that these differences in behavior must be innate. Imposing this commonsensical understanding of dog breeds onto human races forces people to see racial differences in a new way.
Moreover, the comparison is natural. After all, why shouldn’t human races be comparable to dog breeds? The analogy will inevitably have a logical appeal to race deniers even though they find it abhorrent.
Race deniers are likely to answer back that the comparison is not apt because there are greater genetic differences among dogs than among humans. However, I discovered today from John Goodrum’s useful and amply footnoted Race FAQ that this is untrue. In fact, human beings are substantially more genetically diverse than dogs are. Geneticists measure genetic diversity within a species by determining the average heterozygosity of the species’ genome, or the likelihood of its having more than one variant of any given gene. Humans have an average heterozygosity of around 0.7, whereas dogs’ is about 0.4. It’s quite reasonable to argue that whites and blacks are behaviorally more different from each other than Chihuahuas and Collies.
So I heartily recommend this analogy to all realists in their efforts to convert the racially unaware.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Just to alert all of you to a better, more citable source on the issue of human races being more genetically diverse than dogs: Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele’s “Race: The Reality of Human Differences” is possibly the most mainstream argument of our time for racial differences. The book covers this analogy and many other issues in concise, very accessible language. Every one of us should own a copy, and you can find great reviews of the book on vdare.com (just search for the title there). The authors are a UC Berkeley professor (believe it or not) and the editor of “Skeptic” magazine.
Also, be ready for the obvious counterargument that certain blacks, whites, etc. seem to completely break their race’s mold, and that human behavior in general seems much less predictable than that of a particular breed of dog. I don’t really have a good counter to this, other than the fact that dogs of all breeds can run completely counter to their breed’s nature, given a different environment (soft pit bulls, fierce collies, etc.)
By on 3/6/08 at 8:04 pm
“After all, why shouldn’t human races be comparable to dog breeds?”
Actually, Ian, dog breeds are a lousy analogy (as I believe I explained to Jared Taylor years ago). The reason is… collies, pit bulls, greyhounds, etc., have been selectively bred over generations to produce particular behaviors.
The accentuation of these behaviors are dictated by an overseeing intelligence. As with domesticated horses.
Whereas humans breed “in the wild.”
Logically, you’d have to compare another non-domesticated species. Like, say, bears.
But you’d sound like an idiot claiming that “Polar bears don’t behave like grizzlies.”
By on 3/6/08 at 8:45 pm
This is so obvious and logical of a comparrison that it amazes me that this is not realized by all!
By on 3/6/08 at 9:20 pm
Undercover Black Man wrote:
“Actually, Ian, dog breeds are a lousy analogy (as I believe I explained to Jared Taylor years ago). The reason is… collies, pit bulls, greyhounds, etc., have been selectively bred over generations to produce particular behaviors.”
Just because it is a good analogy to illustrate one facet of the situation does not mean that it must cover all facets of it.
Undercover Black Man wrote:
“Logically, you’d have to compare another non-domesticated species.”
Incorrect. You would have to compare non-domescicated subspecies (i.e. races within a species). A good analogy would be Presbytis senex monticola and P. senex senex, which are classified as two races of monkeys within the same species, the former living in a low-country dry zone, the latter living in the mountains. There is considerable gradation of characters between the two races as one ascends the mountains. As with humans, genetic isolation is only partial, and there is a blending of characteristics in contact or transitional areas. (Of course, no political points are to be scored by denying the reality of ‘subspecies’ as applied to Presbytus senex on the basis of intermediary populations.)
There are also those who say that because people have not always agreed on the precise number of races that exist, race is therefore an invalid concept and dependent on social context. Numerous analogies from the animal kingdom can be used to destroy this argument. For example, not everyone agrees on the number of races of the crested newt and the delimitation of those races. Some regard dobrigicus not as a race but as a subrace of danubialis, whereas others regard these as separate races. Similarly, carnifex and karelini have been regarded as belonging to the same race. But all are agreed that it would be invalid to classify dobrogicus as a subrace of karelini. All are agreed that the concept of subspecies, or race, applied to the crested newt is valid and sound.
But, as I say, no political points can be scored by denying the concept of race or subspecies as applied to non-human animals, even using precisely the same arguments that are used to deny race in humans.
By on 3/6/08 at 10:00 pm
“But you’d sound like an idiot claiming that “Polar bears don’t behave like grizzlies.”
—Wrong, and wrong again, UBC.
It’s not a matter of degree—quantitative versus qualitative [as in yes or no, not “.4 versus .7”], which was my point above. I have no doubt that grizzlies and polar bears have significant behavioral differences, to people who have an interest in noticing those differences. (In this case, that would be large-animal biologists, probably university researchers.) Any reasonable person would surmise that the differences exist, detectably.
You’d sound like an idiot saying “Polar bears behave exactly like grizzlies”.
Humans associate with and breed—consciously—with those are like them. There’s your “overseeing intelligence”, whether or not the individual person articulates that particular phrase mentally or verbally.
But even your “overseeing intelligence” is completely unnecessary for “selective” breeding: no intelligence needed when there’s physical [as in geographical] separation, beyond the initial impulse to leave the ‘hood, or continent, as the case may be.
Finally, differences in dog breeds could not be bred for if they could not be seen to begin with. Again, a matter of degree versus principle. Principle is what matters.
By the way, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
By on 3/6/08 at 10:22 pm
Dr. Jobling,
How did you become a race realist if it was not promoted in your early life? I find most people get persuaded early in life, if not by nurture than by experience or observation.
I have a mother-in-law that talks like a Conservative but votes Left consistently. She complains about everything yet does no investigative work when casting her ballot. She cannot be reasoned with. She complains about taxes yet didn’t know that it was two Democratic presidents that started taxation on Social Security. She complains about illegal (and legal) immigration yet cast her vote for Clinton the other day. This is the type that is ruining our country. The babies of the 1920’s and 1930’s (forget about the MTV crowd!). They are pushing the multicultural button yet refuse to acknowledge the problems it is leaving for their descendants! If I ever tried to convince her with the dog breed analogy, she would never get it. I think it is a great idea but I’m not quite sure it will convince the masses. And that’s what we need to do, convince the masses.
By on 3/6/08 at 10:57 pm
*Undercover Black Man on 3/6/08 at 7:45 pm
*Whereas humans breed “in the wild.”
*But you’d sound like an idiot claiming that…
That was only true in prehistoric times. Ever since the agricultural revolution and start of urbanization, a different set of selection pressures were present. These could be viewed as man made selection pressures although they are a continution of the divergent evolution, including intelligence and pigmentation, casued by contrasting temperate/tropical conditions.
Agriculture and urbanization could be the “natural” course that ice age people take in search of a more stable living as their civilization developes. Hence the boundary between what is “artificial” and “natural” selection is not distinct. And who’s to say nature’s course isn’t in some way directed hence not anarchic as you seem to equate with “in the wild”.
In any case, it doesn’t matter whether directed by nature or man. Any selection pressure leads to divergent evolution be it in dogs, bears or humans. It results in, surprise surpise, diversity between breeds, sub-species or races. Diversity, by the way, worthy of preservation according the thinking of liberal environmental conservationists.
Now with regard to your final comment, in contrast to your blog, Ian is mature enough that he is not adverse to publishing Underhanded, Undercover insults targeting him personally.
UBM, have a nice day.
By on 3/6/08 at 11:00 pm
Miss Scarlett,
Boy, have I got an answer for you! I wrote a whole essay about how I came to “see the light.” It was the first think I published in American Renaissance. It’s in the May 2003 issue, part of the “My Racial Education” cover story, and I’ve pasted the beginning below.
‘What a Bunch of Weirdo Nazis!’
I am the child of two professors, who are, like most of their profession, dogmatically multiculturalist. From 1993 to 2002, I was a graduate student in comparative literature, and when I started out, I agreed with the Marxist, deconstructionist, multiculturalist intellectual orientation of the field. Although I soon began to be irritated by the mindless celebration of diversity, the lack of intellectual rigor, and the obscurantism of my field, it was not until much later that I started seriously to doubt the orthodox view of race that is at the basis of all contemporary work in literary studies.
Race is a major preoccupation of today’s literary critics. Look at any one of the countless introductions to literary theory, and you will find at least one chapter devoted to work on the representation of race in literature. Such literary criticism, whose premises are unchallenged within the field, is devoted to exposing the ways in which whites have misrepresented people of other races in the interests of dominating them. For literary critics, racial differences are entirely the result of our cultural history, and they see it as their duty to change our culture in ways that will make these differences disappear.
My shift away from racial orthodoxy began when I became familiar with evolutionary psychology, the field that argues that all aspects of human behavior have an innate cause and that culture merely influences the unfolding of our innate nature. I began to go to conferences and read Internet discussion groups that dealt with evolutionary psychology. J. P. Rushton, Glayde Whitney, and Charles Murray regularly posted on Ian Pitchford’s evolutionary psychology listserv, where other research on human racial differences, such as that of Richard Lynn, was discussed. I read some of the books of these thinkers. Although I felt a bemused revulsion for them at first, I soon came to realize how plausible they were. I read other books about the links between genetics and behavior, and learned that all human personality traits show substantial heritability; even how we hold our hands, how often we laugh, and the strength of our religious beliefs appear to be heritable.
So, when you see that there is an average difference of 15 points between the IQs of American whites and American blacks, and of 25 points between American whites and African blacks, the conclusion that at least some of this variance must be due to biology naturally follows. The same conclusion follows from the large and well-documented variances between whites and blacks in criminal behavior. I started to realize that my culture is founded on a massive denial of the truth that is sustained by what must be the most pervasive and successful propaganda campaign in history.
I began to notice confirmations of the ideas of the “racist scientists” in the world around me. For example, as J. P. Rushton shows, blacks are higher in self-esteem than whites and willing to deny the most obvious facts about the world in order to maintain their high opinions of themselves. I witnessed a striking instance of this trait. I taught an English composition class, and I had many black students. A few were decent, and a very few even outstanding students, but most were not. About half were abysmally dull and unteachable, but they had no problems finding ways to blame me for their troubles.
Slowly, I came to realize the true meaning of black culture. Although I live in a neighborhood of downtown Buffalo that is still majority-white, the ghettoes are very close, and one feels their influence everywhere. Blacks had heckled me many times, had bullied me once, and even mugged me once. But I had not reflected on these experiences before I started reading about race. I now became fully conscious of the insecurity and disgust that my neighborhood inspired in me. Blacks were the primary reasons for these feelings, but I found the Hispanics and Arabs who also congregated in my neighborhood scarcely better.
By on 3/6/08 at 11:21 pm
Ian writes: “……my culture is founded on a massive denial of the truth that is sustained by what must be the most pervasive and successful propaganda campaign in history.”
This is exactly right.
Joseph Goebbels would have envied the success of the propaganda campaign in behalf of diversity, for it surpasses in calculation and subtlety his own crude theory: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Emphasis added.
By on 3/7/08 at 12:44 pm
Dr. Jobling,
Obviously, you still had subconscious doubts or your readings would never have taken root in your decision-making. Or, maybe every white has subconscious doubts about multiculturalism but many choose to ignore or hide them? The turning point never comes for them although it is always just below the surface. Everything about us is hereditary and our environment dictates what we use and what we discard. We don’t become our parents, we are our parents. If characteristics are not duplicates, they are merely a blending of many before us. Since you probably try to persuade often, what is your success rate and have you seen less dismissal with the dog breed analogy?
By on 3/7/08 at 3:08 pm
Ian Jobling notes:
“We realists must do this kind of psychological violence to people in order to transform their perspectives, just as a psychologist must sometimes make painful revelations to a patient in order to cure him. A shocking analogy will stick in the brain and gradually change the way that people view the world.”
This is indeed a germane observation about psychology in a clinical setting, but it holds certain limits within the larger world. This is particularly true, when considering that even when dealing with specific diagnostic types in a clinically therapeutic setting (which is a controlled dynamic) that the professional who has been trained to evaluate and manage, still makes mistakes and miscalculations. Any mental health professional that is worth his salt will admit this, or else they are all too likely an arrogant incompetent, who got into their respective division of the field for all the wrong reasons.
This unfortunately is a more common state of affairs, then would be expected given the delicate nature of what is being practiced; if you don’t believe me, simply read up on the positions of the various professional disciplines’ journals, with regard to the topics of “diversity” and multiculturalism. These cease to be publications dedicated to bettering individuals’ mental health, and suddenly adopt a double-standard in which whites as a group are subjected to degrading psychological violence, while nonwhites are excused for at best and celebrated at worst, for indulging in bizarrely abnormal intra and inter group social pathologies.
Indeed, in sociological and social work journals black criminality can be seen as exercising acceptable or self-affirming qualities, within an “oppressive” social structure; while whites who simply wish to live and work in racially homogenous enclaves, are unquestionably seen as perpetuating a hateful and violence inducing social construct. Is that not, the essence of the “white privilege” nullification argument, that makes “multiculturalism” and all of its inherent fallacies a “reasoned” and “objective” reality?
While psychological journals publish “studies,” that measure white “racial guilt” in children subjected to cruel and biased techniques.
See this for an example of the latter:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/uota-wcm111207.php
From here I will make my main point, regarding the use of psychological shock tactics against both the multiculturally “enlightened” and Twilighters alike. Personally, I think it is a waste of time to deal with the former group, since they have already accepted their odd self-loathing philosophy and only some hard doses of reality are going to wake them up. If one must engage them in debate on the topic of racial differences and their obvious sociopolitical implications, it is best simply to humiliate them and make them look foolish as they decompensate into hateful tirades of “tolerance.”
However, with the Twilighters, it is probably best to start with a lowball approach such as pointing out the demographic decline of whites in the USA and their long term implications if unchecked, and later get into such analogies as the differences between dog breeds. While that might seem like putting the cart before the horse, it is not; it is first pointing out something tangible that can be contemplated, and then might allow for later openness toward more abstract considerations.
Just something to think about!
By on 3/7/08 at 7:29 pm
Miss Scarlett,
Your post raises the crucial question of race realist debating tactics. I’ll blog about this soon and give you my answer there.
UBM,
The question is whether genetic differences among humans are large enough to create the kind of behavioral differences that we see in dog breeds. The answer is yes. The reason for these differences—whether selective or natural breeding—is not relevant.
By on 3/8/08 at 1:54 pm
I’ve been using this analogy for years and years. But remember, dog breeds aren’t categorized by pigemntation. They are categorized by skeletal strcture. The best way to categorize humans is the same.
By on 3/9/08 at 9:31 am
Dr. Jobling responded to Undercover Black Man thus:
“The reason for these differences—whether selective or natural breeding—is not relevant.”
—bingo. This occurred to me after my response, and in fact renders it superfluous.
The analogy is valid; in arguing it, both UBM and I failed to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential.
I stand corrected, and my thanks to Dr. Jobling.
By on 3/9/08 at 10:00 pm
The real problem with the ‘dog analogy’ is from religious, especially Christian people, who accept the suggestion that ‘Man was made in God’s image’. There is a very strong tendency amongst them and others to elevate humankind to some ‘elevated position’ ‘above’ any other biological organism to the extent of exceptionalism , claiming that any cold, dispassionate ‘scientific’ view of mankind (the only viewpoint that has an real meaning or objectivity) is somehow ‘undignified’ and ‘offensive’.
By on 3/10/08 at 8:58 am
Undercoverblackman, You miss the point of Darwinian natural selection.Darwin was inspired to his theories by observing the differing breeds of pigeon bred by fanciers in 19th century London (pigeon fancying was a very popular hobby). Darwin having the germ of the idea of the exaggerration of selected traits, then formulated that a similar process would occur naturally where the ‘struggle for existence’ was the ‘invisible hand’.
By on 3/10/08 at 9:02 am
‘Man was made in God’s image’. There is a very strong tendency amongst them and others to elevate humankind to some ‘elevated position’
Let’s not forget about the “Fall” of man…….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think an additional dimension to the dog breed analogy is required. That being: domesticated vs wild.
By on 3/10/08 at 9:22 am
If anyone says that dogs were bred for their behavior so differences betwwen dog breeds are irrelevent, a quick counter would be to point out the many behavioral differences between wolves, coyotes, jackels, hyenas, dingos and other canines that were not bred by humans. I believe that most of these animals can interbreed and produce fertile young. (The hyenas might be different though. Female hyenas produce more testosterone than the males.)
By on 3/10/08 at 11:02 am
Big cats can often interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The offspring can be unhappy and confused; tigers are solitary swimmers, while lions are social and avoid water.
By on 3/10/08 at 8:47 pm
Well, those of us dog people have been using the same argument in the opposite regard. We are saying that dogs are not as breed-specifically behaviourally different in the same way that people by race are not. Sure, there are physical differences, there are probably more black runners, just like there are more border collie herders - but as far as behaviour goes - well, it has much more to do with breedING than breed, or breeding, than race, as it were.
I have a saint bernard known to be great with other animals who wants to kill all other dogs. I have a retriever that will not retrieve, nor will she go in the water despite how her breed was bred to do so for possibly a century or more.
I would argue that environment plays a bigger part on both race and breed behaviours. I believe that even if there is a natural tendency for a behaviour, it may need to be taught to manifest at all, and I believe from the bottom of my heart that pitbull terriers are not killers and should not be banned any more than I think blacks should be segregated from whites and oppressed.
I use humans, bonobos, and chimps - all very close genetically as examples to reinforce this. The environment which the species evolved dictated how their society, and therefore social behaviour evolved as well. Chimps are war-like, aggressive, and male dominated while bonobos are peaceful, loving, and female dominated. The difference is environment, the difference to evolution was also environment.
My son has a theory that the poorer the person, the poorer the culture the better the fighter. Why we have blacks and Hispanics being your best boxers. Again, is this inherent in the race, or in the environment which the race evolved? The coolest thing about people and dogs are their adaptability to their environments. If pitbulls were all of a sudden brought up on farms with sheep, then eventually they would herd.
By on 3/13/08 at 11:10 pm
Valkyri,
I’m sure breeding does cause much variability in dog behavior, but surely you are not saying that there are no distinctive behavioral traits that regularly occur in certain dog breeds but not in others. That would certainly contradict the common wisdom—see the links on Rottweilers and Russell terriers in the article.
By on 3/13/08 at 11:21 pm
The passage below is from the site of Diane Jessup, who has been breeding, training (NOT for dogfighting) and writing about Pit Bulls for 25 years. She is probably the leading expert in the US on the APBT.
http://www.workingpitbull.com/aboutpits.htm
(…) From his history as a hunter’s gripping dog, butcher’s bull-baiter and gambler’s dog fighter, the pit bull has inherited a strong desire to test his mettle against other animals. Many pit bulls are friendly with other dogs, and many live with cats and livestock, but it is not unusual for some pit bulls to be intolerant of other dogs and animals. Despite the good intentioned advice of dog trainers who have little experience with bulldogs, or who fail to understand the dynamic nature of the breed, training and early socialization has only a minor effect on how dog aggressive a specific pit bull will become once it matures. Genetics play a much larger role. I recently had the opportunity to raise an entire litter of eight pit bull pups from birth to their present age of eight years. These dogs were raised in the same environment, exposed to the same experiences and heavily socialized. The scale of dog aggression within this litter runs from a completely passive dog which will not show aggression to any animal even when attacked, to a dog which will grab any strange animal on sight - and everything in between. This is genetic expression at work - not the effects of socialization. It is important, therefore, that a person wishing to purchase a pit bull have a good understanding of the genetic background of the dogs from which their puppy will be bred. Understand also, that with a “scatterbred” dog, that is a dog which blends different bloodlines in its pedigree, you will be unable to guess which genetic expression will come to the forefront.
Bottom line - if you chose to own a fighting dog breed, don’t foolishly be surprised if the animal expresses aggression toward other dogs (…)
By on 3/14/08 at 7:59 pm
What about the fact that mixed dogs make great pets? Wouldn’t that mean that mixed people are among the most sociable and get-along-to-go-along, and that dark black people and pale whites are less agreeable and cooperative?
By on 3/24/08 at 1:07 pm
Matthew Dickinson,
There ought to be an award for your comment, something like Most Desperate Defense of Liberalism Ever.
By on 3/24/08 at 10:05 pm
As it happens there’s a very good VDare piece today on this very topic, by Frank Miehle.
By on 3/25/08 at 11:53 pm
“Here’s the link” Cassiodorus referred to. What a terrific piece, and so relevant to our topic here.
Is VDare becoming ever bolder lately, or is it just me?
By on 3/30/08 at 9:15 pm
dude, you are totally confusing race with culture. behavioral differences in humans appear because of culture, not because of race. i can be black but had i been raised in japan my whole life, my behavior would be on point with that of most japanese. your argument is so incredibly simplistic. check this out from dictionary.com
“The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be non-black in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact”
By on 4/23/08 at 3:26 pm
chanchurro: It is questionable whether the argument you quoted (ethnic taxa have changed over time, therefore they are not valid or merely depend on social context) applies more strongly to ‘race’ than to other taxa, such as species or genera (or races within other animals, e.g. the crested newt, on which there has been much disagreement). Universal agreement on questions of taxonomy is a rare thing. Classifications of genera, species, and subspecies have often been readjusted. This is more or less the usual state of affairs in taxonomic matters. It is not exclusive to the racial classification of mankind.
And whether race realists turn out to be right or wrong about race, you must at least admit that yours is still a minority position:
1.) A survey of eastern European anthropologists found that 75 percent of them agree with the statement: “there are biological races within the species Homo sapiens.” (Kaszycka, 2003).
2.) A survey of American anthropologists found that 69 percent of them accepted the concept of biological race (Leiberman and Reynolds, 1996).
3.) The majority of behaviour geneticists, physical anthropologists, and psychometricians accept the concept of biological race.
4.) Most cultural anthropologists disagree with the concept of race.
5.) The majority of psychometricians, behavioural geneticists, and educational psychologists believe that the black-white IQ gap is at least partly genetic in origin.
By on 4/23/08 at 4:01 pm
Cultural anthropologists have no standing to contest findings in genetics or biology. A person’s race can be determined by genetic testing. Race is therefore a genetic reality, QED.
By on 4/23/08 at 6:09 pm
A major problem is the simple fact that, unlike the different dog breeds, humans have something called politics. To, probably, the average race denier, it would seem that acknowledging considerable differences between the races (breeds) of man beyond phenotypes (physical expressions of genes) is both racist and opens up window for more “hate”. While such strange logic might be laughable to most of us in this discussion, it is the rhetoric to the majority.
By on 5/2/08 at 9:21 pm
Wow! Someone else is thinking like I do!—and an intelligent someone to boot. I feel all warm and fuzzy!
Seriously, it’s a great analogy that actually had occurred to yours truly.
Also, Dr. Jobling notes that racial “flat-earthers” might cite the difference in genetic diversity between species to continue denying reality. It’s interesting that this objection is, per his reference, not true, but that’s a trivial issue—it wouldn’t matter, true or not.
When your argument against an illustrative analogy about the mere existence of (intuitively logical) differences between “breeds” of homo sapiens is the difference between the two numbers .4 and .7, you’re toast.
By Oops, the brainwashing wore off... on 3/6/08 at 8:03 pm