 Robert Todd Carroll
Does Race Exist? By Michael J. Bamshad and Steve E. Olson (Scientific American, December 2003) |
 |
IQ and race
"IQ" stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a measure of that person's intelligence: the higher the IQ number, the greater the intelligence. This is inaccurate, however, since it assumes that there is only one kind of intelligence. Most people recognize that there are some people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies, some good at seeing analogies, some good at synthesizing, some at unifying, etc. Some people excel at more than one of these behaviors. It would be more accurate to speak of human intelligences than of intelligence. An IQ test, therefore, should be considered a measure of some kinds of intelligence, but not all. The most accurate claim one can make about an IQ test is that it measures IQ. The research on IQ and race by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Herrnstein and Murray (The Bell Curve) and others have not found any significant correlations between race and intelligence. They have found correlations between race and IQ, which has been used to support the notion that some races are intellectually inferior to others. Few deny that there are several races or that there are obvious physical and cultural differences among different ethnic groups. Since the publication of Richard Lewontin's 1972 article "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" in Evolutionary Biology the view that race is a social construct has been accepted by most scientists. That view has been challenged by Armand Marie Leroi, who argues that Lewontin's error was that
Basically, Leroi's view is a return to the view that dominated before Lewontin's view took over. It had become a widespread belief that race is genetically determined in much the same way as, say, eye color. Having a certain gene or set of genes means you have blue eyes. Likewise, having a set of genes makes one Caucasian. It has always been accepted that a person's genetic makeup is a significant factor in individual intelligence in particular areas and in physical features associated with different races, such as skin color, breadth of nose, shape of eyes, etc. It should be obvious, however, by the tremendous variation in intelligences among individuals of any race, that environment is a much more significant determinant of intelligence than it is of race—at least in the short haul. Over the long haul, however, say in terms of thousands of years, environment will certainly determine which physical features evolve in the group. This seems to imply that whatever genetic differences exist among the races are most likely due to natural selection and sexual selection. It also seems to imply that the notion of a "pure" race is an absurdity. Even if the fundamentalists are right and there was an original Adam and Eve, no race can claim to be "pure." Each race evolved according to natural processes such as natural selection. some race data "There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals," according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6 percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than another white" (Blum). Joseph Graves, an African-American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists.
C. Loring Brace, an anthropologist at the University of Michigan, claims that "race is a four-letter word with no basis in biological reality" (Blum). Of course, physical features such as skin color, shape of eyelid, color of eyes, texture of hair, etc., are genetically determined. It is also true that an individual's capacity for any particular kind of intelligence is largely dependent on genetic factors. As far as I know, nobody has yet found a correlation between the genes that determine, say, musical talent or the power to visualize or to think abstractly, and the genes that determine a set of physical characteristics that most would readily recognize as European or African. If you want to find out why Asians are over-represented in California's universities while blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will probably search in vain for a genetic answer. Those who are interested in such things would do better to look at family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions. spurious correlations To correlate race and intelligence in the name of science and have the world pay attention to you is no small feat. Could it be the numbers, the statistics, which impress people? Not likely. Even the most sophisticated numerical analysis which showed a correlation between phlogiston and ether wouldn't get a hearing today. So, why does the race/intelligence bit get a hearing? How can any rational person take seriously notions such as the Aryans or racial purity? Some probably assert these things as a matter of establishing power. Being a member of a pure race is a quick and simple way to establish one's superiority. Membership is easy. You're born into it. Being the right race gives one a right to superiority and justifies inequality, regardless of one's individual deficiencies. It also justifies racism, since if inferior people are succeeding they must be cheating the truly superior people out of their just inheritance. It also justifies believing things about oneself that have no objective validity. A truly inferior being can justify thinking of himself as superior because of his race membership. He can rationalize any failures or inadequacies and attribute them to the unfair advantage given to those he considers inferior. He can even fool himself into thinking his non-white skin is white and that he somehow deserves to share in the accomplishments of anyone in his "white" race. (I have been expected to check "white" on a number of forms concerned about my "race", although when compared to a white sheet of paper, my skin color is clearly not white, but light brown. I have met very few "white" people who are white. At least they are not white in the skin areas generally exposed in public. Truly white people—albinos—come in all races.) However, even if there were such a thing as a pure race, that fact would not justify considering that race superior to any other. One might even make a case for the inferiority of such a race. Nature clearly favors variation. Chances of survival under varied and changing conditions increase as the species is more varied. Too much similarity could mean racial disaster, extinction; while variation could mean the survival of some members of the species if disaster should strike. Likewise, a species with several varieties of intelligences, as well as individuals with varying degrees of those intelligences, could well be a sign of superiority, at least in terms of the survival potential of the race. Are the studies of no value that show African-Americans or Asians doing differently than so-called "white" Americans on standardized IQ tests? That is, is the work of people like Herrnstein and Murray worthless? No. It is valuable data, but it is also explosive data because of our racist political history. Such data will inevitably be exploited by white supremacists, twisted for their own political goals and used not to improve racial relations in America but to encourage further racial strife. Such data consists mainly of correlations. And while correlations should convince orthodox empirical scientists of nothing, to the racist researcher, correlations are the heart and soul of their work. The furor that The Bell Curve caused died down quickly because there occurred an ongoing saga which usurped its political and entertainment value: the O.J. Simpson trial. In fact, Herrnstein and Murray, in chapter after chapter, call for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. They may be disingenuous calls, but they are nevertheless inconsistent with the notion that the social condition of blacks in America is due to genetic factors. If genes led to the black underclass of young thugs who murder each other on a daily basis in almost every city in America, then there would be no point in calling for educational or vocational programs, no point in urging a change of focus for black men and women in their families, as even the black supremacist Louis Farrakhan has recommended with his million man march. One can't deny that the majority of young men killing each other in gang wars are minorities. But one can deny that the reason they are so violent and immoral is because of their race. That is false and an insult to the majority of blacks and other minorities who are decent, law-abiding persons. One can't deny that minorities are undereducated as a group and underrepresented in our colleges and universities, and in the professions and skilled trades. But one can deny that the reason minorities are underrepresented is because their race makes them genetically inferior and incapable of competing with "white" America. Even so, it is true that many minorities are not in college or working as doctors or lawyers or teachers or auto mechanics, etc., because of their race. It is possible that some day we may be able to look at people of different races and see them as human beings without losing sight of what is special and unique about racial or ethnic membership. We do not need to be colorblind, nor should we strive to ignore racial differences. But they should be seen in a proper perspective: significant in forming us, but irrelevant to our status as human beings capable of both the highest moral and intellectual behavior and of bestial depravity and moronic incompetence. In the meantime, we should heed Peter Singer's words:
And, having a higher IQ does not justify racism (Singer, 1993), or any other kind of -ism, for that matter. further reading
Allport, Gordon. The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, 1954). Augstein, Hannah. ed., Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760-1850 (Bristol, UK: Thoemmen Press, 1996). Blum, Deborah ."Race: many biologists argue for discarding the whole concept," The Sacramento Bee, October 18, 1995, p. A12. Evans, Bergen. The Natural History of Nonsense (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), ch. 14, "The Skin Game." Flynn, James R. (1980) Race, IQ and Jensen. Routledge Kegan & Paul. Gould, Stephen J. The Mismeasure of Man (New York, Norton: 1981). Higgins, A.C. Review of William Tucker's The Science and Politics of Racial Research Kamin, Leon J. Science and Politics of IQ (Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1974). Kincheloe, Joe L. et al. editor, Measured Lies : The Bell Curve Examined (St. Martin's Press, 1997). Marks, Jonathan. "Black, White, Other" in Natural History, 12/94. Montagu, Ashley. Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, 6th ed. (Altamira Press, 1997). Montagu, Ashley. Race and IQ: Expanded Edition (Oxford University Press, 1999). Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
|
|
|
©copyright 2005 Robert Todd Carroll |
Last
updated 12/03/07
|
||
invocation