Greetings, and hiya g6!

I’d like your take on whether the scientific study of race differences on IQ test scores is something that should be researched or marginalized / ignored.

In other words, is even asking the question racist, and should scientists reject this work outright?

Thanks

B

Here’s my question: Are the only two choices to carry out race-based research on IQ vs. “ignore” this phenomenon? Or is there a third option, such as to recognize the overwhelming evidence that races are not really very good biological categories to begin with, and perhaps even to question the motivations of people who insist on using race as a category in carrying out scientific studies. Because it is so 19th century, after all.

Kahn: Someone has put two and two together on your behalf. Unfortunately they came up with three!

Yolande, is that a serious question? In order to talk about why something is nonsense, you have to be able to talk about the nonsense concept. So, in this case, the biological concept of “races” within the human species is bunk, so of course you have to use the word “race.”

I just listened to the alcohol episode, and in it Desiree asks twice about race – now there is this episode. What is Skeptically Speaking’s preoccupation with race?

***So-called scientists using the word “race” are perpetuating the myth that it exists.***

That’s because it does exist. Forensic Anthropologists can identify a persons race from their skeleton or skull.

If you read some population genetics you’ll see that self identified ethnicity almost perfectly corresponds with genetic clusters.

“Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002).

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.”

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 February; 76(2): 268–275.

@Greg
Nice example of confirmation bias. Trained professionals are susceptible to the same logical fallacies as everyone else. When compared to the general population, simply being a skeptic could be enough to define a person as being a minority. In that sense, I see a correlation between being a minority and a skeptic. Personally, I don’t see what is being considered as “race”, what I do see are the effects of racism. So, in that sense, I feel like I am obligated to understand these issues surrounding racism and prejudice through skepticism so that other minority groups in society who face these misconceptions and prejudices, such as critical thinkers and women in science, may find the path to thinking freely.

How do we make our message appeal to a broader, more diverse audience? By getting that message across in a variety of ways and taking advantage of different forms of media, such as in podcasts, message boards, and blogs. I am anecdotal evidence of that approach working. Less than a year ago, I was unaware of the skeptic community and the notion of like-minded people. I struggled through discerning truth from the pseudo-reality that most people live in. Being born on a reservation has shown me, and promoted the differences between people, but skepticism has shown me how we all are all more alike.