next »

[acrimone]

Tell you what, go back, replace "white" with "blue" and "non-white" with "pink" (or vice versa) and just forget that I was actually trying to make a point.

[crazybatlady]

I keep wanting to post "Blue, rhinoceros, triangle," but I know that's not helpful.

[supernumerary]

supernumerary, you are wrong.  "Whites" do not on average score higher on standardized tests than "non-whites."   

***
supernumerary, your argument as well that there are small numbers of African-Americans taking math Ph.D.s because they are somehow less smart than European-Americans is a flawed one.  This does not prove smartness or lack of same.   

anthroid -- sorry, I'm not expressing myself carefully enough (words, poor words!) I have said earlier that by 'tests' I did not just mean IQ tests and such standardized tests, but I meant the factors people generally rely upon to determine 'success' (notice quotes - I'm not arguing that whites are inherently more successful, but that they appear to do more of the stuff associated by most people with 'success'). Perhaps instead of using the word 'test' I should have said 'success indicators'. Like I said, examples might be non-involvement in crime, stable and long-term employment, stable nuclear families, etc. Of course all these 'indicators' are flawed and meaningless if taken out of social, political, historical, etc, context, but it's a fact that people generally (not always!) determine 'success' by reference to these kinds of factors and on that basis will consider 'whiteness' to correlate with coming out on top. I put 'smartness' in quotes because like you say, and like I said before, there's more to doing a PhD in math than simple 'smartness' (whatever that means). And as to what 'success' means that's a whole other debate.

Also, I'm saying the exact same thing as you about relying on numbers of black math PhDs as a test! I was trying to say that such a 'test' is meaningless and unreliable and that it doesn't tell us anything other than the plain fact that in that year there were only 4 math PhDs. We can't draw meaningful conclusions from that fact. But we can guess the sort of conclusions people out there will draw.

I think our difference of approach is about all these 'people' out there who are 'wrong' about this and who will (wrongly) correlate PhD math with 'smartness'. Like you've said, anthroid, people are wrong. So are you going to just say they're wrong and we're academics and we know better? That's all very well for us, but it doesn't help solve the problem. The problem remains unsolved until we can work out where these wrong people are coming from. Why do they read that there were only 4 black PhDs and assume that this tells something about inherent smartness of black people (or the Larry Summers example you mentioned, about women in science)? That's the assumption I was trying to address, but ended up sounding like I endorse the wrong people's wrongness! Not so. I just think some (not all, and maybe not even many, but some) of these 'wrong' people are quite well-meaning (motivated by ignorance or stupidity rather than evil or malice) and they are wrong because they've made logical errors about what determines 'success' in life, not because they're just mean and bad and racist. Oh, see now I hope nobody will read this to mean that I'm saying racists are well-meaning people or that we need to look in the heart of the racist to see his motives before we judge him... I'm not saying that, I'm saying a well-meaning person could look at the stats and draw (wrong) conclusions about smartness. People generally trust the evidence of their own eyes (e.g. look at the crime statistics, watch crime reports on the news) and there's no getting around that. We can't sit in our ivory tower and wonder why people trust themselves to draw conclusions based on what they see going on around them. A good argument is needed to explain why the observed facts should not be assumed to support conclusions about smartness.

Knowing the random and chaotic nature of evolution is one way to explain why these wrong people should not assume that what comes out top is necessarily superior. For me this was a new take on this, because I've heard all the social/political/historical/cultural explanations but hadn't heard this explained from an evolutionary perspective.

And yes, I agree with CBL that blue, rhinoceros and triangle :)

[al_wallace]

Just a point of clarification about me. My middle name, Russel, has only one "L" and I'm no lord. In fact, most of England thought me a bit of a lesser class citizen than the rarified social circles of Charles. I wasn't really one of his buddies either. I wrote him a letter about my ideas about evolution and used some of the same terms he did. He was really bummed out by me potentially scooping him, so he agreed that we would both present a paper to the Royal Society together about this evolution stuff. He got most of the credit since he wrote more on the subject than I did. All I got was a biological demarcation named after me, "Wallace's line", which, denoted a sharp delineation or boundary between zoogeographic regions--unlike the clinal variations that others have posted about here. This is why I believe that at least some populations are possible to identify by phenotypes--especially populations that have been isolated on islands for long periods of time without mixing.---something I studied for much of my life.

I agree with anthroid on several points, but you missed my primary one--namely that it is a COLLECTION of traits that identify a population as a race, not ONE. The reason for this is, as you stated, you can find exceptions of INDIVIDUALS that lack a particular characteristic associated with a population. I'm not speaking of characteristics of individuals however, I'm speaking of characteristics of POPULATIONS when I speak of race.

To use mountain lions as examples, The Florida "race" or "subspecies" has a shorter face, smaller head, darker stripe running down the back, etc. For any ONE trait, I can find a mountain lion that doesn't live in Florida but has it--a small head for example or a shorter muzzle. This doesn't deny the fact that I can tell you if a mountain lion has ALL of these features, I can tell you where it came from JUST by the phenotype with about a 95% level of certainty. If I knew the mountain lion's sperm count, I could tell with a 99% level of certainty.

A more anthropologically oriented example: You can find modern humans that overlap with Neanderthals in nearly every physical trait. Does this mean use of the term Neanderthals has no meaning? I don't think so. This is the point I was making. Also, race has been abandoned by biologists because of the social and political implications of the term, not that it doesn't exist. We just use the term subspecies, variant, strain, or other term for the same thing. Non-biologists then take this to mean that the term race has no biological meaning. This isn't entirely accurate. Instead we just substitute different words for it. It is just a poached word..like SPAM or Kleenex.

Theory is another one that is in the process of being commandeered by non-scientists. Everyone uses it as a synonym for hypothesis, which it isn't (at least among scientists). We haven't abandoned our use of the word yet but we might. Race has had a similar fate among biologists. It has a specialized meaning among biologists that differs from the general population. Much of the arguments against my statements are trying to shoe-horn a specialized use of the word in biology and map it to the general public usage. As stated in earlier posts, the confusion and misinterpretation of biologist use of the word lead to its abandonment of the term--but not the reality of what it stands for.

As for your comment about cultural reasons for why men marry younger women, I disagree. First, most of the evidence strongly suggests that the practice of men marrying younger women rather than women marrying younger men is consistent across MANY different cultures (at least 36 if you believe David Buss's data). If you invoke a cultural explanation for this, you would need an ad hoc explanation for each one--which would fail the parsimony test. The simplest explanation is that females are maximizing resource contributions to their offspring and men are maximizing fecundity of their mate. This is the same general explanation that Darwin used for the reproductive strategies of most animals.

Women who have already produced children already have LOWER reproductive value than women who have not and are younger (from the perspective of a male that might want to marry her). Men looking for a potential mate will, on average, produce more offspring if they marry a younger woman that has produced no children yet...in fact, better yet, marry a woman that hasn't even reached menarche yet--thus reducing the chance of being cukolded. The man doesn't care about the FEMALE's total fecundity, he cares (evolutionarily speaking) about HIS genetic investment in her fecundity. Females that have already reproduced have lower future reproductive value (lower residual fecundity). This is simply because mammals invest heavily in their offspring due to gestation and lactation. Residual reproductive value is a function of primarily three things: 1) a female's age, and 2) the number of offspring already produced, and 3) resources available to offspring. This relationship is consistent across all placental mammals from mice to humans. Women can control resources provisioned to offspring by marrying men that can provide better resources. What is interesting is that this relationship is reversed among fish that engage in paternal care. In these species, older females tend to mate with younger males. It is more parsimonious to simply extend the general argument for male and female mating patterns found in most mammals to humans than it is to try to invoke convoluted cultural arguments unique to each culture.

I argue that reproductive strategies (biological explanations) have much explanatory power for many aspects of human mating systems (e.g. why polygyny is more common than polyandry) ACROSS cultures. The details of symbolism and tradition may vary, but good ol' fashioned Darwinian fitness still influences these human behaviors. It ain't all culturally determined.

I don't have any comments about Jews as a race in a biological sense. Diaspora are not the types of populations biologists typically work with.

[helpful]

I don't have any comments about Jews as a race in a biological sense. Diaspora are not the types of populations biologists typically work with.

Ok, let me get this straight. "Race" exists as a term biologically. OK. Now, do all peoples have to belong to one "race" or the other? If so, what "race" do Jews belong to?

[al_wallace]

Helpful wrote: Ok, let me get this straight. "Race" exists as a term biologically. OK. Now, do all peoples have to belong to one "race" or the other? If so, what "race" do Jews belong to?

A race is distinct if you can identify a suite of phenotypic characteristics that give some (not usually absolute) predictive power about the group to which particular individuals belong. I might define race in a biological sense as I would other terms like subspecies or variant: a phenotypically distinct set of traits that occur at high frequencies within a particular population and that such traits tend to occur in association with one another. Since the term race in this sense, is an attribute of a population and a population is a subset of a species, then humans aren't composed of one race. We are composed of one species. Also, populations typically exist within a defined (loosely or not) geographic area. Thus they are restricted in their distribution. This is why diaspora aren't easily reconciled into a race concept since the population, by definition, isn't geographically restricted. Now, if one is interested in migration pattern of human populations and reconstructing an historical population, then one might examine patterns between diaspora. Once a population disperses and genes mix, the phenotypic set of characteristics that define that population cease to exist as does the geographic range that defines it. In other words all the features that define race may no longer apply. However, the exception might be if the genetic mixing of a dispersed population is prevented.

Race, like the populations they define, have fuzzy edges with a core that is able to be defined (at least in terms of statistical probabilities of the representation of particular traits).

So, you tell me if Jews are a biological race?

[helpful]

Al, you never answered my question -- are all peoples in the world genetically linked to one race or the other? yes, or no. Simple question!

[anthroid]

OK, russ, thanks for the clarification.  I still think of you in lordly ways.

I agree with anthroid on several points, but you missed my primary one--namely that it is a COLLECTION of traits that identify a population as a race, not ONE. The reason for this is, as you stated, you can find exceptions of INDIVIDUALS that lack a particular characteristic associated with a population. I'm not speaking of characteristics of individuals however, I'm speaking of characteristics of POPULATIONS when I speak of race.

Sure, fine.  But what collection of traits will you use?  Skin color won't work.  Hair type won't work.  Nose shape won't.  Skin color+hair type+nose shape together won't work as a "race" though certainly could constitute an ethnic group.  Unless we really are talking about the same thing, and we both mean clinal populations--and in fact we might be meaning the same thing--race for humans is a grouping that is far too broad with too many exceptions.

I actually do not trust David Buss's work.  He operates from a number of apparently unexamined assumptions about male/female behavior, as do most evolutionary psychologists I have read.  Again, it is true that many men prefer younger women but my logic is as sound as yours, al!  Again, Meredith Small, the Cornell anthropologist, challenges evolutionary psychology quite effectively in What's Love Got to Do With It?  The Evolution of Human Mating.  And, the reality is that, while men may prefer to marry younger women, most men are not able to make that choice.  If there is a dearth of women, it is the men who have resources--older men--who get the choice.  In addition, this practice is true in agricultural societies but not in foraging societies.  As we evolved in an egalitarian foraging context, it is highly unlikely that the practice is an artefact of nature but rather one of culture--power, wealth, and patriarchy come from the relatively recent development of agriculture, not our evolutionary past.

However, we do absolutely agree (phew! Yea!) about the misuse of "theory."  I can barely keep myself from jumping up and down in annoyance at the attempts by Georgia's Board of Education to slap a sticker on biology textbooks saying that "evolution is just a theory."  YES!!!!  RIGHT, GEORGIA BOARD OF EDUCATION!!!!  THAT'S THE POINT, YOU SILLY PEOPLE!!!!  Evolution absolutely is a theory, which (I take Popper's view) is a collection of indepedently established facts by competing researchers who grudgingly agree that the facts are verified (I also take some of Kuhns' positions); the theory proposes relationships between established facts that make sense and meet the need for simplicity and parsimony.  al_wallace, you're right.  When people say "just a theory" what they mean is "just a hypothesis."  However, they are incorrect with regard to evolution--indeed, would you agree with many of my biologist friends that evolution is actually approaching scientific law?

Now, humans and Neanderthals:  sure, we would share some (I'd disagree about almost all) traits with h.s.n.  But the phenotypic expression (despite what some cute science writers would have us believe--saying, for instance, that if you shaved a h.s.n. and put him in a suit, you'd have a hard time distinguishing him from the general public; or, cf. those Geico commercials.  Not so, though) would make it clear that h.s.s. are rather different than h.s.n.  For instance, we do not have the same pelvic structure.  We do not have the same cranial capacities and a different brain structure.  Dentition is different, as is the brow ridge and saggital crest.  There is a different hyoid, different limb structure, different chin, different facial structure (h.s.n. had much more pronounced facial prognathism), and a slightly different foramen magnum.  Most telling, sexual dimorphism for h.s.n. was far greater than it is for h.s.s.  I guess I'd say that these are different populations, especially since it remains remarkably unclear whether interbreeding was possible (unlike between populations within a species).  Can I tell which is h.s.s. and which is h.s.n. from a skull?  Yep.  Does that make one group a race and the other group a separate race, at least as you're defining them within biology?  Maybe.  But these differences are so incredibly vast that I don't think they are commensurate with human "races" as discussed in the 21st century which have at best minor variations in populations.

And, helpful, to be fair, al_wallace is referring to populations that existed in at least somewhat splendid isolation pre-western-contact, so that the issue of assigning people to one or the other group was (I think he thinks) less problematic.  I don't agree--just take north Africa and the Middle East as an example.  But he isn't really referring to "mixed-race" folks who live today.  I think.

The problem, al, is that all of human existence has consisted of diasporas.  Biologists really need to deal with that fact if they are going to lay claim to some knowledge of human variation.  I would argue that Jews are not a race; neither are the Irish; neither are the Sri Lankans; etc.

[al_wallace]

Helpful,

Phrased that way, yeah, based on the best guess, we've all descended from an ancestral population of African humans and have since left for other continents. Most of the distinguishable traits of these different dispersed African humans have resulted in the different "races". The distinguishing features of these different human groups has, in turn, arisen through adaptation to these new local environments along with some genetic drift.

[al_wallace]

Anthroid,

Neanderthals and H.S.S. sounds a lot like my definition for race (assuming that they could interbreed). I see little distinction between subspecies and race except perhaps degree-and this is a thin distinction. The classification comes down to whether you are a lumper or a splitter. Most physical anthropologists (ironic in light of our discussion) tend to be splitters rather than lumpers. Biologists are usually slow to put a new eipithet to a population unless they have a really good reason for it. The better predictor of species/subspecies/race distinctions is the number of workers in the discipline that study it. Physical anthropology is a crowded field so nuances of skull morphology tend to take on more meaning. There are many ornithologists so every new bird group that has a different colored wing gets a new subspecies identification (or even species). Coleopterists on the other hand are few and far between relative to species number so they lump huge amounts of variation under the same species ID.

We'll have to choose to disagree about the other points.
You stated that men aren't able to marry younger women? This refutes most of the data from most cultures--including the U.S. The other side of the equation is that most women prefer older men (check out the personal ads if you don't believe me). This isn't simply a matter of older men having or not having access to younger women. The preference goes the other direction too.

The "unexamined assumptions" of evolutionary psychology I call testable hypotheses. The "assumption" that men will prefer to marry younger women and women will prefer to marry older men is testable. What assumptions are you referring to?

Speaking of assumptions, how do you know we evolved in an "egalitarian" foraging society? Are you speaking of the dawn of our species or proto-human ancestors too? What do you mean by "egalitarian"? I've seen little evidence of this in any other species, why would humans be an exception? 

We have created a nice microcosm of why anthropologists are anthropologists and biologists are biologists. I look at the center of populations and you look at the gradations along the edges. We are both right.

[anthroid]

Thanks, al_wallace.  I think actually we are agreeing far more than we are disagreeing.  Your analysis is right:  anthropologists are always looking for the exceptions; we often are splitters rather than lumpers--that's correct too.

The assumptions that Buss and other evolutionary psychologists make have to do with motivations behind male and female reproductive strategies.  For every argument they can give me regarding male "spreading the seed around" and female "choosiness," I can rebut with logic and actual female/male behavior.  For instance, it does not make sound evolutionary sense for men to try to impregnate lots of women.  This does not ensure reproductive success.  Hanging around the women you do impregnate, however, does.  And, as many folks have pointed out in the literature, women do not look for men with resources (and hence are reproductively choosy rather than, I guess, slutty).  Women look for resources.  However, since in most agricultural and now industrial societies, men own the resources, women are forced to rely on men.  It doesn't have to be that way to ensure reproductive success for either sex.  It is that way.  It just doesn't have to be.  It isn't inevitable.  Finally, it's clear that at least a good portion of women marry men who are not the fathers of their children but manage to fool those men into thinking that they are (paternity tests in England reveal that close to 10% of claimed fathers could not possibly be the fathers).  What this demonstrates, really, is that reproductive strategies are complex and women are active participants, not just choosy, in ensuring genetic success.

How do I know about egalitarian foragers?  Well, my way-back machine is broken, but when looking at foraging today (which is far more difficult than it was 100,000 years ago), we see largely egalitarian groups in which women provide more of the calories consumed in any given day than men do.  A 70% contribution on the part of the gathering women leads to a roughly 50/50 gender equity.  Though I can't state this with clear certainty, it seems logical to assume that, in a more abundant environment, egalitarianism was the most likely solution to h. sapiens sapiens' problems of living.  There is no reason it wouldn't be, especially given the relatively minor sexual dimorphism in our species.  While sexual dimorphism is quite telling in chimp, gorilla, and orangutan behavior, it is not as big a factor in bonobo or, most likely, our own behavior.  It probably was quite important in h. sapiens neanderthalis and predecessors, though, since dimorphism was quite extreme.  It just isn't that big a deal in humans.

I'd say more but I am late for an appointment!

[al_wallace]

Anthroid wrote: "The assumptions that Buss and other evolutionary psychologists make have to do with motivations behind male and female reproductive strategies.  For every argument they can give me regarding male "spreading the seed around" and female "choosiness," I can rebut with logic and actual female/male behavior."

The data isn't based on logic but empirical results. The measure is reproductive success. If males on average have more surviving offspring by "spreading their seeds" rather than investing time and energy in one particular set of offspring, then that is the mating system that will evolve. Logic is insufficient to rebut empirical evidence--there are lots of observations that shouldn't be the way that they are but ARE. It is a fact that across a wide range of cultures that men marry women younger than themselves. This begs for an explanation. I can conceive of many logical reasons why men might NOT do this and I can even point out exceptions to the rule, but this does not explain the pattern that exists. 


Anthroid wrote: "For instance, it does not make sound evolutionary sense for men to try to impregnate lots of women.  This does not ensure reproductive success.  Hanging around the women you do impregnate, however, does."

It depends on the resource system, if men control resources OR if females look for resources and not men per se then it makes reproductive sense for men to invest considerable energy acquiring resources to make themselves more attractive. There is extensive evidence that men do this across a wide range of cultures. Also, it often does NOT make sense for men (or other internal fertilizing species) to hang around without hedging their bets on other copulations for one simple reason: paternity assurance. Males have far lower assurance of parentage than females. This is why monogamy is exceedingly rare across a wide range of animals and polygyny is the rule, not the exception. 


Anthroid wrote: "And, as many folks have pointed out in the literature, women do not look for men with resources (and hence are reproductively choosy rather than, I guess, slutty).  Women look for resources.  However, since in most agricultural and now industrial societies, men own the resources, women are forced to rely on men."

Part of the reason why men control resources is because, as you indicate, males gain a significant reproductive advantage if they have something females are interested in--resources. Females gain an incrementally lower reproductive gain from overtly controling such resources relative to men--therefore you see this mating system. This is exactly why you see males of most species being territorial and so few females being territorial. Us biologists call it resource-based polygyny. Territorial behavior is decidedly less common for females than males. Why? because females seek resources as you suggest. 

Anthroid wrote: "It doesn't have to be that way to ensure reproductive success for either sex.  It is that way.  It just doesn't have to be.  It isn't inevitable."

I'm not suggesting it is inevitable, but their is a parismonious biological explanation for why males tend to control resources more frequently than females in many cultures and in many different animal mating systems--namely the differential reproductive advantage of doing so for one sex relative to the other. In that regard, the explanation for territorial behavior in many social mammals, birds, or fish works just as well in humans without any need of invoking particular ad hoc cultural explanations.

Anthroid wrote:"Finally, it's clear that at least a good portion of women marry men who are not the fathers of their children but manage to fool those men into thinking that they are (paternity tests in England reveal that close to 10% of claimed fathers could not possibly be the fathers).  What this demonstrates, really, is that reproductive strategies are complex and women are active participants, not just choosy, in ensuring genetic success."

You prove my point of exactly why men SHOULD go out and "spread their seeds"--namely to hedge against cuckoldry. This is not a problem for women because their parentage is known. Thus the explanation isn't a cultural one but simply a product of internal fertilization. Thus generally we should see such strategies in any animal where eggs are retained and fertilization is internal--and we do.

Anthroid wrote :"How do I know about egalitarian foragers?  Well, my way-back machine is broken, but when looking at foraging today (which is far more difficult than it was 100,000 years ago), we see largely egalitarian groups in which women provide more of the calories consumed in any given day than men do.  A 70% contribution on the part of the gathering women leads to a roughly 50/50 gender equity.  Though I can't state this with clear certainty, it seems logical to assume that, in a more abundant environment, egalitarianism was the most likely solution to h. sapiens sapiens' problems of living.  There is no reason it wouldn't be, especially given the relatively minor sexual dimorphism in our species.  While sexual dimorphism is quite telling in chimp, gorilla, and orangutan behavior, it is not as big a factor in bonobo or, most likely, our own behavior." 

You're assuming we are more like bonobos. Our testicle size would suggest intermediate levels of sperm competition and thus leaning toward a mating system of male-male competition and thus opportunities for female mate choice. Dimorphism is a relative measure. Physiological measures such as lung capacity, relative strength (not simply weight) suggest strong differences in daily energy use (more competition). Also with respect to foraging egalitarianisms. Foraging may be calorically even, but remember that critical nutrients may also be a way to split the load (e.g. protein).

I'd say more but I gotta get ready for work!

[anthroid]

al_wallace, as always you raise excellent points.  We have completely hijacked this thread, and this discussion has moved far away from the original question, which had to do with "person of color."  I think we've come close to resolving that issue (haven't we?).  Though I'd love to continue on with this, I think we're both spending too much time here!  I will refer interested people, though, to:

Meredith Small, What's Love Got to Do With It:  The Evolution of Human Mating
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Mother Nature: A History Of Mothers Infants, And Natural Selection
anything by Helen Fisher
Shirley Strum, Almost Human:  A Journey into the World of Baboons
Franz de Waal, Our Inner Ape

and lots of other books that, unfortunately, are in my bookcase at home and not here in the office.  Feel free to PM me for other suggestions.  There is a large literature in feminist and, now, mainstream anthropology that challenges the conventional views generally put forth by biologists and some anthropologists today.