jet_lagg wrote:
I think everyone is being far too gentle with Carl Kruze.
Carl Kruze wrote:Anyone who believes blacks are genetically inferior to whites because of genetics is a racist. The end
That is an incredibly stupid, incredibly damaging definition for racism, and any time someone whips it out they need to be told so in no uncertain terms.
Just look at the bind accepting the definition would put us in. Suppose our understanding of genetics and cognitive performance advances to the point we can say with complete certainty specific ethnic groups are genetically inferior (I’ll stress for those prone to offense that I’m saying very rigorously defined cognitive functions are measurably, empirically inferior in, again, rigorously defined populations). It’s a plausible scenario, and one where we’d be forced to choose between being honest and being unethical (which is a bit of a paradox, yes?). Or we could bite the bullet, accept the findings, and say the racists were correct when they said racism is not always unethical. OR we could say yes, one group is genetically inferior (in this one technical way), but believing that isn’t what racism means (and racism is still always unethical).
It's obvious to me the third option is the one we want.
The key issue here is how you rigorously define cognitive functions in terms of inferiority/superiority. It's certainly possible that some kind of systematic differences in rigorously defined cognitive functions and/or psychological traits between ethnic groups on genetic basis might exist, just like systematic differences in height or physiology between ethnic groups exist. It's the inferiority/superiority bit that leaves me unconvinced, when applied to cognitive functions considered as a whole.
If those differences exist they're due to the survival of traits which were more beneficial in different environments. For example delayed gratification might be particularly beneficial in areas where food and water are scarce, not so much in other environments. Aggressiveness might be evolutionary beneficial in an environment where it's possible for raiders to get food and women easily through pillaging, while agreeableness might be beneficial in a confined environment where raiding isn't a viable option (like in the case of the
Moriori).
If psychological traits can be differently evolutionary beneficial in different environments so can cognitive functions. From what we know now "intelligence" seems too vaguely defined to be useful. IQ tests originally tested linguistic, logic and mathematical skills, which might be beneficial in certain environments but not in others. Today IQ tests measure mostly pattern recognition: again, this might be beneficial in some environments but in all of them.
In general it seems to me that it's hard to construct a hierarchy of cognitive functions/psychological which is valid in every environment. The hierarchy of superiority is relative to the specific function (better at pattern recognition vs. better at memory tasks) not between different cognitive functions. I find it unlikely that cognitive functions are selected for as a whole, that, for example, pattern recognition and memory might be equally beneficial in all environments.
If we will have solid evidence of differences in cognitive functions between ethnic groups due to genetics the results that we will have will likely be more along the lines of "Jews are good at maths" or "Berbers have good memory", or conversely "Icelanders have terrible spatial intelligence skills" or "Bantus have issues with recognizing recursion" rather than "Europeans are better in every cognitive function when compared to SubSaharan Africans".
