A definition of Racism.

[EGarrett]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

[athon]

Part of the problem with racism is the assumption of a link between cultural conflict and physiology and/or birthplace. The first part of the problem is the conflict - associating a behaviour with something that conflicts with my values; to use your example, a person not waving is interpreted to be rude. Not working might be seen as lazy and therefore socially irresponsible, when viewed with my values. Not saying 'thank you' might be ingratious.

The second part is the association with a physiology or birthplace with that culture. If you have epicanthic folds you're not only physiologically described as Asian, but the cultural and value conflicts are assumed as well.

A thin line exists between racism and generalisation, which also relies on making hasty assumptions. The former demonstrates little room to allow for variation in correlation between physiology and culture, or the subjectiveness of values.

Athon

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think racism exists primarily in the last sentence of your definition, the part dealing with the way people act. One does not need to believe differences to be genetic to be racist. Further, one can believe differences are genetic and not be racist. (For instance, I believe blacks are more prone to certain conditions, such as sickle-cell anemia. I believe this is genetic. It does not make me feel superior or treat them as if I did.)

Racism is all about treating individuals in a certain way because of assumptions (correct or incorrect) about racial traits (genetically or otherwise determined) of the group they happen to belong to.

[Clippy]

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

[bpesta22]

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

If a white male claims that asians as a group are smarter than whites as a group, would that be racism?

I often wonder how many here think I am david duke given my posts on race (and IQ).

I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism?

Unless we can claim with 100% certainty that race is purely a social / cultural distinction, just holding a belief that races differ doesn't seem to me to be racist. How one acts on that belief is where racism may come into play.

just my opinion.

(I don't wanna get into a "define race" debate; I do think the OPs question on what constitutes racism is interesting and can be discussed without the "what is race" sidetrack)

[themusicteacher]

Racism seems to also include the superiority assumption; that one race is superior to the other based on achievement in realms that the racist person believes to be important. So, it's a double-batch of racism: I'm superior because I'm of this race while you are also inferior because you're of that race. I win twice, you lose twice.

The arguments about blacks and sickle-cell anemia being some sort of race-based judgment is silly. That's entirely different than saying something like "Whites are inherently more trustworthy, smarter, kinder, less violent and more attractive than every other race." Those types of statements are laden with all sorts of biases, stereotypes and gross overgeneralizations designed to make the speaker look "better," especially compared to the other groups listed as inferior. Any statements about medical issues, OTOH, are based on copious amounts of hard evidence and have nothing to say about race outside of medical likelihoods. Any sane and reasonable person recognizes the difference between both issues.

[Careyp74]

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

Since you didn't quote anyone I am going to assume you are comment on the OP.

The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

I can't think of a damaging or incorrect action based on your statement, so I will answer for the OP.

No.

Here is an example of racism as explained by the OP:
I checked my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there after passing a group of black people.

The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.

[bpesta22]

The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.

I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist?

[Eyeron]

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?

It probably would be, unless there was actualy empirical evidence to back it up.

[Redtail]

I agree that's probably racist but what if the person defends it by claiming that because of racism and relatively poor environments, blacks commit more crimes than whites? Still racist?

I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin.

ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction.

[Clippy]

I agree with MC, that it's not so much a belief that races differ, but acting on that belief. But, wouldn't we also have to consider the type of action? Using the belief to promote hate / deny someone an opportunity = racism. Using the belief to motivate one to scientifically study the issue, or to support affirmative action= racism?

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.

[Redtail]

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.
Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime.

[Careyp74]

I would say yes based on that is still going by the color of the people's they passed skin.

ETA: I should point out that doesn't make the person racist. They just had a racist reaction.

What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction?

Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad?

[bpesta22]

You're in a strange part of town; not the best area. A group of white men walk by. Would it be sexist to check your wallet (assuming that were it a group of women, you would not)?

[Clippy]

The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.


And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.

[Careyp74]

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical. "Yes, the presence of black clouds in the sky signifies an increased likelihood of rain, but you can't bring your umbrella with you". If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.

This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading.

[Clippy]

Depends on if that Black neighborhood has a history of crime.

So I would have to wait for crime statistics? Based on how many years? Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods?

[Redtail]

What is the difference between being racist and having a racist reaction?

Is it like when you tell kids they are acting bad instead of saying they are bad?

Pretty much.

[Careyp74]

And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component. Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.

nobody DECIDES if it is incorrect, the assumption itself is incorrect if it isn't actually caused by race or genetics in general, but attributed to that.

I will play along.... What exactly have you found, backed by twin studies, that is attributed to race, and considered incorrect when attributed to race?

[jakesteele]

Wiki - Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, while Reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group.

First thing to remember is that if a statement about race is true, then it can't be racist. Why, you ask...because it's the truth, duh!

Example; statistically, young black males commit a disproportionate of violent crimes like robberies, murders, etc. Sound inflammatory and racists? Then try this one on; the overwhelming majority of serial killers are 30ish white males.

Certain things are more prevalent with one group as opposed to another. Blacks overall make for faster short distance runners. There are more white swimmers than blacks (please don't try to go all gushy on me and say, "Dude, the blacks are socially disenfranchised and whitey not be givin' e'm access to the country club swimming pools.")

Why is it that Hollywood can make a movie entitled "White Men can't jump" (playing to a stereotype) but no one would dare make a movie entitled "Black Men can't swim", Again, playing to a stereotype?

[Redtail]

So I would have to wait for crime statistics?
Not really since the realtor should have them.
Based on how many years?
I'd say 20 would be a good indication.
Why can't I base my decision on the crime rates in other black neighbourhoods?
So you base your decision on the crime rates in other White neighborhoods?

[Clippy]

This paragraph also doesn't fit the OP's definition of racism. You admit it yourself, highlighted for your ease of reading.

Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Is believing that it's only a cause enough to make it not racist? Who arbitrates what's 'incorrect' or 'damaging'?

[Cainkane1]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.
Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA?

I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day.

[GreNME]

Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist?

Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy.

[Cainkane1]

Rabbi Kahane once said that everybody is a biggot to a degree. This to him was true even when a strong effort not to be biggotted was made. To him this was a fact even if you married a person outside your race. Somewhere deep down there was a small measure of etnic or racial prejudice somewhere.

[GreNME]

Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA?

Because you're engaging in a correlation-causation fallacy. The answer for why one group performs poorly has nothing to do with their color.

I think the entire citizenry of the USA could do better than they're doing and we need to stop making excuses. I'm a good example. I graduated from a not that well thought of college with a 2.8 average. My major was liberal arts. I should have and could have done better. Hey it was the hippy era. A lot of people blew it in my day.

Okay, then let's stop making excuses. What do you think was your problem, as you describe it?

[Clippy]

Yes, that is a racist argument, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. It has no empirical support and is the bailiwick of judging an entire group based on the flawed correlation-causation fallacy.

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual.

[Cainkane1]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.
Also whose racist and whose not will often surprise you. I have a Jamaican friend who doesn't get along well with black people born and raised in the states. In college I knew a south african who had problems with American blacks because his hair was "nappier" and his skin was darker. He had things to say about black folks born in the USA I'd just as soon not repeat. I was friends with him and I tried to argue with him but his mind was made up. I still see him once in a blue moon and I avoid racial discussions with him at all costs.

There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples.

The Japanese didn't like Chinese and so on.

[GreNME]

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.

Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy.

[Clippy]

Rabbi Kahane once said that everybody is a biggot to a degree. This to him was true even when a strong effort not to be biggotted was made. To him this was a fact even if you married a person outside your race. Somewhere deep down there was a small measure of etnic or racial prejudice somewhere.

It's hard-wired.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/08_CDPS_V17No2.pdf

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

[GreNME]

Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual.

So racism is the failure to live the Libertarian "every man is an island" utopian dream? :rolleyes:

[Clippy]

Which refers back to the original post and the correlation-causation fallacy you've built. As long as you continue to put forth that ethnicity is the determining factor, you're committing the fallacy.

No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect?

[Redtail]

There have been cases of lighter skinned african ancestried people being prejudices against darker skinned african ancestried peoples.



Just for the record that goes both ways believe me.;)

[GreNME]

It's hard-wired.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/08_CDPS_V17No2.pdf

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you.

For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well?

[GreNME]

No, I'm saying that it is likely to be a factor. I have data. Who decides that I'm incorrect?

Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data.

[Clippy]

Using white power resources-- which build backwards from a conclusion and fudge the math to fit-- is not sufficient data.

The data comes from DOJ databases. Show that the math is fudged.

[Clippy]

You really don't understand what the result of Project Implicit implies, do you? Now that's some classic irony for you.

For the record: every time I've taken the PI test I seem to come out favoring no group or gender. Is that hard-wired as well?

What do you think it implies?

[GreNME]

The data comes from DOJ databases. Show that the math is fudged.

The raw data does not suggest likelihood. You do.

[Clippy]

The raw data does not suggest likelihood. You do.

What does this have to do with fudging numbers? Yes, the choice of data summaries was guided by an interest in racial crime profiles. So what?

[GreNME]

What does this have to do with fudging numbers? Yes, the choice of data summaries was guided by an interest in racial crime profiles. So what?

Listing crime rates by ethnicity (like the DoJ numbers do) and concluding that ethnicity is a factor in crime rates (like you do) are not the same thing. Just because you assert they are the same does not make it so.

[Clippy]

According to the definition in the OP, physically assaulting someone because of their skin color is not racist.

[Clippy]

For anyone interested, this is the study to which GreNME refers:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

[Clippy]

Listing crime rates by ethnicity (like the DoJ numbers do) and concluding that ethnicity is a factor in crime rates (like you do) are not the same thing. Just because you assert they are the same does not make it so.

I see it as evidence that there is some genetic basis for racial differences in criminal behaviour. Why am I wrong?

[GreNME]

For anyone interested, this is the study to which GreNME refers:

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

And the website (http://www.colorofcrime.com/) the "study" is located, which is a subsidiary site for the NCF (http://www.nc-f.org/index.html), a white supremacist organization who also publishes the monthly White Supremacist magazine American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/).

According to the definition in the OP, physically assaulting someone because of their skin color is not racist.

Since the numbers-fudging tactic doesn't pan out, now we're to the next step: trying to poke holes by making strawman assertions. Neither original nor interesting.

[GreNME]

I see it as evidence that there is some genetic basis for racial differences in criminal behaviour.

Good for you.

Why am I wrong?

Because correlation does not equal causation.

[Clippy]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

What is the relevance of the bolded part? And if I refer to the research on IQ and come to the same conclusion, is that racist?

[Clippy]

And the website (http://www.colorofcrime.com/) the "study" is located, which is a subsidiary site for the NCF (http://www.nc-f.org/index.html), a white supremacist organization who also publishes the monthly White Supremacist magazine American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/).

What do you mean by 'white supremacist'?

Since the numbers-fudging tactic doesn't pan out, now we're to the next step: trying to poke holes by making strawman assertions. Neither original nor interesting.

You're the one who claimed that the numbers are fudged. Let's see your evidence.

Strawman?? Compare the definition in the OP to my statement.

[Hokulele]

What do you mean by 'white supremacist'?


Racist.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So racism is the failure to live the Libertarian "every man is an island" utopian dream? :rolleyes:

No. Don't be silly. :rolleyes:2

[GreNME]

What do you mean by 'white supremacist'?

What's in a name? A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet, n'est ce pas?

I have no interest in playing the semantic shifting goalposts game. I acknowledge if you want to call the ideal you've presented in this and other threads something different. Again, good for you.

You're the one who claimed that the numbers are fudged. Let's see your evidence.

You seem to not understand what constitutes 'evidence'. The DoJ numbers do not make valuation statements about anyone based on ethnicity or otherwise. You have. I've accused you of a correlation-causation fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) as a result of your presentation. All you've done is first claim the DoJ numbers agree with you (which they don't, as they make no such conclusion), and then you link to a white supremacist "study" as an invitation to bicker over that instead of you making a substantive argument on your own. I don't have to read every creationist publication in order to surmise that it's bunk and understand the flawed arguments that are common to the position, nor do I have to read every white supremacist document published in order to understand the flawed arguments common to the position, so unless you have something new to bring to the table you're just going through the same confirmation bias exercises as anyone doggedly sticking to a flawed set of arguments. That, in a nutshell, is both uncreative and uninteresting, and is arguably a derail from the topic (again).

[GreNME]

No. Don't be silly. :rolleyes:2

Oh yeah? :rolleyes:infinity

Honestly, I do admit to hyperbole in that response. I do take a skeptical view of the "every individual as an individual" statement, but not due specifically to any point you might have been making. People clump into groups of varying sizes, and do so to varying degrees and for various reasons. This can aid in providing context to a person's character, but I'd agree that each individual deserves to be measured in the end on their own merits.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh yeah? :rolleyes:infinity

Honestly, I do admit to hyperbole in that response. I do take a skeptical view of the "every individual as an individual" statement, but not due specifically to any point you might have been making. People clump into groups of varying sizes, and do so to varying degrees and for various reasons. This can aid in providing context to a person's character, but I'd agree that each individual deserves to be measured in the end on their own merits.

I thought you thought that and could not understand why you were picking on me. Is it because I am Canadian? :duck:

[bpesta22]

I dont think we know the answer, but to dismiss all evidence as "correlation/causation" fallacy seems deficient.

The only way to get at cause here in a strong scientific sense is to randomly assign people to be black or white. Since that's impossible, dismissing any relationships by appeal to this fallacy will always be technically correct but missing something (i.e., alone a rather empty statement).

We have the same problem with many variables in social science (gender, age, marital status, political party, religion, etc.). Should we not study any of these variables because all the relationships we find can be dismissed by appeal to the c/c fallacy?

Sooner or later though the burden shifts and the correlation demands explanation. The focus should be identifying third variables or eliminating other variables as possible thirds.

So, what are the third variables? In this area, the problem is there is no clear single third variable that when controlled for explains it. Are there multiple third variables that do so? I dunno, it depends on which literature you cite.

But, the data are dense enough that dismissing it just by appeal to the fallacy won't do. Labeling anyone with a scientific interest in it racist doesn't help either.

[arthwollipot]

This thread reminds me of those people who say things like "it's not homophobic or bigoted of me to point out that the Bible says that homosexuals are an abomination."

[GreNME]

I thought you thought that and could not understand why you were picking on me. Is it because I am Canadian? :duck:

I promise it's not. (it's cause you smelt funny)

[Juniversal]

If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different? Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.My problem is with the designation of "black neighborhood". Is it alright to have the desire to live in a nice neighborhood? Of course. That goes without saying. But believe it or not there are neighborhoods that are majority black that aren't violent crime ridden ghettos. And belive it or not well to do blacks don't want to live in violent neighborhoods anymore then you do. It should be a matter of avoiding violent neighborhoods rather then simply "black neighborhoods".

[Kritikos]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

[i]Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

I don't think that racism can be defined in this way. It seems to me that Clippy's objection makes the point effectively:

According to the definition in the OP, physically assaulting someone because of their skin color is not racist.

I take it to be clear that assaulting someone because of his or her skin color is an act that shows racism. But such an act does not fall under the proposed definition unless we make assumptions about how the person arrived at his or her attitude toward people of that skin color. Even then, the definition identifies racism with the process by which the person arrived at that attitude rather than with the attitude itself.

I doubt that proposed definition will stand up even as an empirical generalization. The definition assumes that people start out by making certain observations of people according to race or descent and draw unlicensed conclusions. But surely most -- or in any case many -- people with racist attitudes just absorb them unthinkingly from those among whom they grow up. Of course, the attitude must have originated somehow, and presumably it would have originated through the kind of inference that the proposed definition describes, on the part of some people. But the attitude can be transmitted to others without their deriving it from observation and inference at all. Rather, they start with the assumption and then notice instances that reinforce it. (That pattern of thinking, after all, is what is meant by the word "prejudice.")

I think that the proposed definition works as an explanation of how racial stereotypes arise but not as a definition of what racism is.

[GreNME]

I dont think we know the answer, but to dismiss all evidence as "correlation/causation" fallacy seems deficient.

The only way to get at cause here in a strong scientific sense is to randomly assign people to be black or white. Since that's impossible, dismissing any relationships by appeal to this fallacy will always be technically correct but missing something (i.e., alone a rather empty statement).

The reason it's a correlation-causation fallacy is not because it uses correlation-- that can actually be a useful tool-- it's because the correlation is known to be faulty. In other words, the same correlation can (and has) been made in other parts of the world (namely China) for other minority "undesirables" (namely non-Han Chinese). Having to constantly explain this over and over to people bringing it up is not only tiresome, but should generally not be necessary to anyone who has had even a 100-level statistics class and an 'Intro to Sociology' course. In other words, it's such an elementary concept that it brings the rest of the proposed questions into suspect due to the obvious diversion from what is known about the assumption.

We have the same problem with many variables in social science (gender, age, marital status, political party, religion, etc.). Should we not study any of these variables because all the relationships we find can be dismissed by appeal to the c/c fallacy?

This isn't the same thing. These sort of examples (blacks and crime) have already been studied. As far as studies on crime statistics, what social sciences currently seem to agree on is (as I mentioned in the other thread) that diminished risk-aversion plays more heavily into criminal behavior than anything else, and considering that 1) this quality is evident in all ethnic and socio-economic groups and 2) this quality itself does not necessarily indicate that they'll become a criminal (they may become an athelete or an entrepreneur) it's not really useful at identifying criminals before they become criminals (though it can be useful in profiling current criminals).

Sooner or later though the burden shifts and the correlation demands explanation. The focus should be identifying third variables or eliminating other variables as possible thirds.

So, what are the third variables? In this area, the problem is there is no clear single third variable that when controlled for explains it. Are there multiple third variables that do so? I dunno, it depends on which literature you cite.

But, the data are dense enough that dismissing it just by appeal to the fallacy won't do. Labeling anyone with a scientific interest in it racist doesn't help either.

There's a difference in scientific interest in asking what variables are useful and working backwards from a conclusion and inserting desired variables (instead of useful ones). When different ethnicities from like population samples are compared, as far as I know this supposed correlation disappears. Similarly, when comparing population samples moving up socio-economic strata, as far as I know the supposed correlation disappears. Further, the reason the ethnic variable has been dropped as a likely contributor is that crime has dropped significantly over the years while the percentage of the American population who is black has increased (which would imply an opposite correlation).

Without a proper meta-analysis, and all indications are that every time this question comes up such meta-analyses are missing, the use of the disparate data that are out there pretty much turns out meaning whatever the person collecting the data together wants it to mean. Typically, this involves leaving out trends in over- or under-sentencing, harshness of enforcement between different groups or perceived groups, political considerations (for example, black make up 12% of the population but only 2-4% of the Senate is black), economic considerations (for example, blacks and women still on average make less than white males for the same work), cultural considerations (both black militant ideals and white supremacist ideals still exist in measurable quantities in the US), education, employment data, social history (we're barely 50 years past Brown v. BoE, for example), general nutrition availability, and so on (and so forth). Trying to gather all of this data to see if one ethnic group over another has some inherent quality that indicates a higher probability of criminality has seemed to always leave some of this out or ignore it outright as unimportant. While it's true that not all data are equal, when it comes to looking at such a broad question as this an equally broad amount of data is necessary to withstand scrutiny. I have yet to be introduced to a presentation of this question that examines it remotely close to broad enough to pass scrutiny.

So believe me when I say it's not just simple dismissal. It's more accurately an educated response to one of those annoying things that continues to crop up no matter how many times the attempts eventually show themselves as having an agenda to promote.

[GreNME]

I don't think that racism can be defined in this way. It seems to me that Clippy's objection makes the point effectively:



I take it to be clear that assaulting someone because of his or her skin color is an act that shows racism. But such an act does not fall under the proposed definition unless we make assumptions about how the person arrived at his or her attitude toward people of that skin color. Even then, the definition identifies racism with the process by which the person arrived at that attitude rather than with the attitude itself.

I doubt that proposed definition will stand up even as an empirical generalization. The definition assumes that people start out by making certain observations of people according to race or descent and draw unlicensed conclusions. But surely most -- or in any case many -- people with racist attitudes just absorb them unthinkingly from those among whom they grow up. Of course, the attitude must have originated somehow, and presumably it would have originated through the kind of inference that the proposed definition describes, on the part of some people. But the attitude can be transmitted to others without their deriving it from observation and inference at all. Rather, they start with the assumption and then notice instances that reinforce it. (That pattern of thinking, after all, is what is meant by the word "prejudice.")

I think that the proposed definition works as an explanation of how racial stereotypes arise but not as a definition of what racism is.

Assaulting someone because they're black is assault for racist reasons, so the objection is still invalid-- after all, what type of reasoning would cause a person to assume that the color of someone's skin is deserving of assault?

[Juniversal]

I dont think we know the answer, but to dismiss all evidence as "correlation/causation" fallacy seems deficient.

The only way to get at cause here in a strong scientific sense is to randomly assign people to be black or white. Since that's impossible, dismissing any relationships by appeal to this fallacy will always be technically correct but missing something (i.e., alone a rather empty statement).

We have the same problem with many variables in social science (gender, age, marital status, political party, religion, etc.). Should we not study any of these variables because all the relationships we find can be dismissed by appeal to the c/c fallacy?

Sooner or later though the burden shifts and the correlation demands explanation. The focus should be identifying third variables or eliminating other variables as possible thirds.

So, what are the third variables? In this area, the problem is there is no clear single third variable that when controlled for explains it. Are there multiple third variables that do so? I dunno, it depends on which literature you cite.

But, the data are dense enough that dismissing it just by appeal to the fallacy won't do. Labeling anyone with a scientific interest in it racist doesn't help either.I'd be compelled if individuals reared under similar cultural and socio-economic pressures still exhibited substantial behavioral differences. But until then (since for the most part this isn't the case) i'd say you can't make any conclusions on the basis of any supposed psychological differences (which I believe there are none).

[bpesta22]

Gren

Thanks for replying!

I see now you were using c/c as a shorthand for the longer version you just gave me. I think that's reasonable. I think I agree with most all of what you said-- I am not sure, though, that controlling for any one or two variables removes the effects (but I would not be interested in a citation war, either!).

My world view right now is leaning toward the idea (not mine) of a nexus of strongly inter-correlated variables that co-vary and co-cause important life outcomes. I see education, IQ, income/poverty, health, religiosity and crime as fitting in the nexus. I also see race there too (as an inescapable co-variate). It seems like there are no independent effects: if something influences crime rates, it's also correlated with IQ, income, race, health and most everything else. Untangling that mess to say x causes y is likely impossible.

But, I still wonder if group membership matters more than we're willing to admit. To me, it seems like the consensus is squarely that race = 0% as a cause of anything. That position seems extreme; surely there are some data-- albeit correlational-- that suggest that races might differ (group level) on some important variables, even when many other likely/important third variables are controlled.

Why is this important to me? I see race issues (e.g., massive income disparity across races in america) in any top 3 or top 5 list of key problems facing humanity (I also happen to be really interested in things like IQ and individual differences on psychological dimensions). Rather that attack the problem with science, we attack the scientist who studies the problem. That some people might use darwin's ideas to promote eugenics is not reason to throw out the scientific study of the theory of evolution.

Given the stakes, we should invest more resources into identifying possible causes of group differences. But any attempt at doing so is met with immediate dismissal on grounds that race has no definition, or that correlation does not imply cause (though I am not claiming you're doing this, given your explanation above) or a host of other buzz word dismissals that seem more like judging book covers than critically evaluating the data.

Just my opinion coming in part from my experience in the area.

Hope the writing isn't too awkward; me ativan has kicked in!

[bpesta22]

I'd be compelled if individuals reared under similar cultural and socio-economic pressures still exhibited substantial behavioral differences. But until then (since for the most part this isn't the case) i'd say you can't make any conclusions on the basis of any supposed psychological differences (which I believe there are none).

I can only cite you my area-- IQ-- but the IQ correlations between adopted kid and adopting family = 0, while the correlation between adopted kid and bio mom (who may have never interacted beyond the birth thing) are very strong.

The same patterns hold when looking at siblings and fraternal twins.

My understanding is that this pattern is the norm for other variables too (like religiosity, personality, and even job satisfaction).

[ImaginalDisc]

If a white male claims that asians as a group are smarter than whites as a group, would that be racism?

I often wonder how many here think I am david duke given my posts on race (and IQ).

This topic is now somehow about you? We're discussing racism, not egotism.

[bpesta22]

This topic is now somehow about you? We're discussing racism, not egotism.

Do you really want me to explain why I posted that, or would it only reinforce your claim?

[GreNME]

Hope the writing isn't too awkward; me ativan has kicked in!

Not awkward, but I won't go point-counterpoint on it because I think it all needs to be read together to be meaningful.

I think what you describe in your worldview isn't bad, but I'd caution that not all of the variables are going to be causative factors in terms of leading to crime, but may be factors in what stunts the development of healthy risk-aversion-- for example, health and nutrition may seem counter-intuitive toward a conclusion about behavior, but the effect that nutrition has on cognitive development is well-known and it's the development between the ages of 4 and 12 (give or take a few years, depending on your source) where many of our deeper behavioral characteristics are established, and deficiencies can lead to a large matrix of possible outcomes (both positive and negative). Add to that the laundry list of other factors when examining criminals and the difficulty of finding a correlation as broad (and vague) as ethnicity places it at astronomically high likelihoods against. To use a more clear and less confusing example: consider efforts to predict whether someone will be a sociopath. Social and psychiatric science has been able to identify and diagnose such a condition, but there's really no good criteria for predicting it even though we have some good ideas as to what types of factors go into creating such a person (we could duplicate a model of it, but not predict it).

As for any perceived race issues, I'd counter that the major issue is that people seem to feel the need to discriminate into groups roughly equivalent (in varying degrees) of "like me" and "not like me" in general. This is an outcropping of human beings' natural tendency to desire order and to act in accordance to that perceived order. Considering how this has historically played out-- the Tutsis and Hutu, the discrimination against the Irish or the Polish or Roma, and even the various Native American groups who considered each other (pretty much the same genetic stock) completely different peoples-- I'd argue that there's just as much (if not more) likelihood that the desire to find discriminating differences between ethnic or cultural groups of people has less to do with actual differences and more to to with a need to satisfy that inherent desire within us.

[Juniversal]

I can only cite you my area-- IQ-- but the IQ correlations between adopted kid and adopting family = 0, while the correlation between adopted kid and bio mom (who may have never interacted beyond the birth thing) are very strong.

The same patterns hold when looking at siblings and fraternal twins.

My understanding is that this pattern is the norm for other variables too (like religiosity, personality, and even job satisfaction).I'm not interested in a IQ correlation associated with upbringing as much as a crime correlation with said race (afterall many of these race debates revolve around the implications as it would pertain to crime). If those brought up in a financially stable household and with positive cultural influences are still prone to criminality then i'd be more compelled then black=Low IQ=crime. On the same token I can also find a positive correlation with crime, socio-economic status and cultural influence that's independent of race. On that note you can't conclude that said behavior (crime as it be for this example) is conclusively a result of any inate psychological differences but likely a cultural manifestation.

[Juniversal]

As for any perceived race issues, I'd counter that the major issue is that people seem to feel the need to discriminate into groups roughly equivalent (in varying degrees) of "like me" and "not like me" in general. This is an outcropping of human beings' natural tendency to desire order and to act in accordance to that perceived order. Considering how this has historically played out-- the Tutsis and Hutu, the discrimination against the Irish or the Polish or Roma, and even the various Native American groups who considered each other (pretty much the same genetic stock) completely different peoples-- I'd argue that there's just as much (if not more) likelihood that the desire to find discriminating differences between ethnic or cultural groups of people has less to do with actual differences and more to to with a need to satisfy that inherent desire within us.Totally agree. I mentioned in another thread not too long ago that I believe human beings are innately xenophobic and racism is just manifestation of that xenophobia. Heres (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150944&highlight=white) the thread as a matter of fact.

My quote (which pretty much reflects your sentiments) with a few additions:

I do feel humans beings are innately xenophobic/territorial. In my eyes it's simply a mechanism for protecting limited resources against competitors. After all, we are animals. Intelligent as we may be. Those "outsiders"/neighboring tribe can imperil your survival if they take "your" resources. And in the small communal environment we did much of our evolving in where resources weren't in abundance (no convienence stores ;)) being wary of outsiders would aid in survival.

That xenophobia can be manifested in phenomenon like racism. After reading books like the Third Chimpanzee and hearing tales of how certain New Guinean Tribes would war and have many terrible myths about the neighboring tribe (even though outwardledy they would be considered the same "race" by the archaic classification system), how Japanese can hate Koreans or vice versa, and the Nazi genocide it became clear to me it's not a matter of outward difference AS MUCH as it's Tribe vs. Tribe (in the battle for resources) on a larger scale. Racism being a xenophobic tendency to protect against the neighboring tribe's vie for "your" resources.

In the context of history this is the most human populations have ever been in contact with other populations (just in the last few hundred years the advancement in transportation has paid dividends in terms of allowing intermingling) and right now we're experiencing the xenophobic shock and the back draft of the contact imo. I feel that once we REALLY intermingle, xenophobic tendencies like racism will be greatly minimized. It might take many generations but it's unavoidable (there's only so much space on this earth).

[stevea]

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.

But it's still correlation - no ? The capitalists believe the mythology so they hire fewer blacks. The police believe the myth so more blacks are arrested and convicted. If this hypothetical is true, then the higher crime rate may only be correlated with, not caused by race.

The "Racism is the failure to treat every individual as an individual" is nonsense. We are all individuals, but we can also be grouped in ways that clearly have meaning and utility. A physician might use entirely different diagnostic reasoning based solely on the fact that one patient is Jewish and another Asian. Clearly the physician is making a generalization based on race/ethnicity rather than by individual observation. It's not racism in the OP sense since there is a causal relationship between ethnicity and say certain genetic diseases.

Xenophobic is not a sufficiently strong term for the human propensity to split into opposing groups. Even when the individuals are phenotypically similar they choose different flags and different religions and choose to hate and fight over that lunacy.

[Clippy]

Assaulting someone because they're black is assault for racist reasons, so the objection is still invalid-- after all, what type of reasoning would cause a person to assume that the color of someone's skin is deserving of assault?

This was the definition of racism presented:

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Sub-Saharan Africans normally have dark skin, Europeans typically have light skin. Is this also a correlation/causation fallacy?

[Clippy]

But it's still correlation - no ? The capitalists believe the mythology so they hire fewer blacks. The police believe the myth so more blacks are arrested and convicted. If this hypothetical is true, then the higher crime rate may only be correlated with, not caused by race.

If they don't hire them, then their socio-economic status will be lower. The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that blacks commit about the same percentage of crimes for which they are arrested.

Races differ genetically. If we observe differences between the races that persist after correcting for obvious environmental factors (e.g. socio-economic status), then it's reasonable to assume a genetic basis for these differences, even if we don't know the specific genes involved. Correlation/causation fallacy is the last refuge for the egalitarian scoundrel.

[six7s]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?I reckon its overly wordy

I prefer this:

Racism:racial prejudice combined with the power to inflict it

[Kritikos]

Assaulting someone because they're black is assault for racist reasons,
Yes; that was why the example was presented as a counter-example to the definition.
so the objection is still invalid--
That's a surprising conclusion. How does that follow?
after all, what type of reasoning would cause a person to assume that the color of someone's skin is deserving of assault?
It's funny that you quote my entire post but you seem not to take into account anything that I said. My point was that racism consists in the attitude -- in this case, hatred of people of racial group X as such -- not in how someone arrived at it. As I said, people can, and commonly do, come by racist attitudes without any prior reasoning, through the influence of others around them who share those attitudes. So one cannot define racism in terms of the reasoning by which someone arrived at an attitude.

[GreNME]

Yes; that was why the example was presented as a counter-example to the definition.

That's a surprising conclusion. How does that follow?

It's funny that you quote my entire post but you seem not to take into account anything that I said. My point was that racism consists in the attitude -- in this case, hatred of people of racial group X as such -- not in how someone arrived at it. As I said, people can, and commonly do, come by racist attitudes without any prior reasoning, through the influence of others around them who share those attitudes. So one cannot define racism in terms of the reasoning by which someone arrived at an attitude.

Please don't chop up my sentences and argue from incredulity. It's not intellectually honest since I explained it and you simply broke the pieces of explanation away.

Let's look at the proposed scenario: assaulting someone because they are black. The assaulting part makes it a crime, the "because they are black" seems to imply racist reasoning for it. Now, one could claim to be playing a word trick and changing the goalpost to being a black-on-black crime, or adding even more information like the assaulter was a white or hispanic who attacked what they thought was a rival gang member, but all this really does is 1) emphasize that context matters and 2) avoids the implied prescriptive. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing that, I'm simply pointing out that if we're just working from the original scenario of assaulting someone because they are black then the reasoning implied falls within the area where the fallacy played a role in the decision to assault.

To provide an example, I'll point out cases from reality. After 9/11/2001, there were numerous reports of people who were Arabic, Mid-Eastern (non-Arabic), or even Mid-Eastern-looking being assaulted by people for little or no stated reason, and what little was stated implied that these folks were in collusion with the terrorists. This is a classic example of the correlation-causation fallacy at play, as people were outright correlating these people to terrorists by their appearance and reacting accordingly. It's an extreme example, yes, but it displays how the reasoning involved in initiating the action is where the "racist" determiner lies, not with the assault itself. Were it simply the assault, then one could argue that all assaults must be racist in nature, and I'm really not interested in getting into the "'hate' crimes are bunk" derail (though I have a sneaking suspicion that Clippy would love to).

Now, in most classic cases of assaulting someone "because their skin color was X" (insert any color there, whether black or brown or yellow or white or polka-dot or stripes), the reasoning would fall into the correlation-causation fallacy because it's associating that victim's skin color with whatever negative connotations that instigate a violent reaction, and barring any other determiners (though, in reality, other determiners are almost always present) it presents the attacker correlating the victim with whatever broad definition of people with the skin color in question as a justification for the assault. The attacker is not attacking a person, they're attacking an object represented by that person (one could say the cause of their aggression, but that's a bit heavy-handed IMO), of which the person correlating to those qualities happens to identify. If we can say that the attacker would not have attacked were the victim's skin color a different hue (or likely the same as the attacker's), then the correlation-causation fallacy that it's the ethnicity or skin color that's the determining factor of whether the attacker actually attacks pretty much makes the assumption of racist motivation elementary.

Do you seriously not agree with this? Did I really have to go into such a lengthy description of why it displays the fallacy from the OP? Since the skin color would be the determining factor, how could this fall anywhere but the correlation-causation fallacy?

[GreNME]

Races differ genetically.

No they don't.

ETA: but that's a diversion from the topic. Feel free to start your own thread if you want to "prove" otherwise.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I promise it's not. (it's cause you smelt funny)

That's a rather fishy explanation if you ask me. :p

[Clippy]

No they don't.

ETA: but that's a diversion from the topic. Feel free to start your own thread if you want to "prove" otherwise.

So how do they differ?

It's hardly a diversion from the topic. The definition in the OP talks of 'genetic aspects of the ethnicity'.

[Kritikos]

Please don't chop up my sentences and argue from incredulity. It's not intellectually honest since I explained it and you simply broke the pieces of explanation away.
I was doing nothing of the sort. I was just interjecting my reactions to the parts of your post. When I asked "How does that follow?", it was not a rhetorical question: I immediately followed it with your answer. You might have gathered that from the fact that I left intact the dash at the end of the phrase that I quoted, indicating that the quotation ended in the middle of a sentence.

Now, in most classic cases of assaulting someone "because their skin color was X" (insert any color there, whether black or brown or yellow or white or polka-dot or stripes), the reasoning would fall into the correlation-causation fallacy because it's associating that victim's skin color with whatever negative connotations that instigate a violent reaction, and barring any other determiners (though, in reality, other determiners are almost always present) it presents the attacker correlating the victim with whatever broad definition of people with the skin color in question as a justification for the assault. The attacker is not attacking a person, they're attacking an object represented by that person (one could say the cause of their aggression, but that's a bit heavy-handed IMO), of which the person correlating to those qualities happens to identify. If we can say that the attacker would not have attacked were the victim's skin color a different hue (or likely the same as the attacker's), then the correlation-causation fallacy that it's the ethnicity or skin color that's the determining factor of whether the attacker actually attacks pretty much makes the assumption of racist motivation elementary.

Do you seriously not agree with this? Did I really have to go into such a lengthy description of why it displays the fallacy from the OP? Since the skin color would be the determining factor, how could this fall anywhere but the correlation-causation fallacy?

I grant that you have an effective point against the counter-example. But I don't find that you answer the objection that I developed out of the example. You find racism in the inference, "This person is [e.g.] black; therefore he needs to have his ass kicked," or whatever goes through the dark minds of the people who commit such acts. But I do not see how this is supposed to account for the racism in attitudes that are acquired from the influence of others within one's community, which is what I have been insisting on as something that the proposed definition does not allow. If someone grows up among people who believe, say, that black people are morally and intellectually inferior to white people, he is likely to share that attitude; and if so, he is a racist toward black people. I grant you that the attitude cannot have come into being among members of his community without someone having engaged in the kind of faulty inference described in the proposed definition. But the attitude need not have arisen by that means in each member of the community.

Maybe what you have in mind is this: An attitude (or belief or way of acting or reacting) is racist if it originates in a form of the causation-correlation fallacy in which, etc. -- where "originates" means that the attitude first came into being that way, or that to the extent that it is rationalized by its bearer, it is rationalized in that fashion. That seems to me defensible. I just find that the original definition does not allow for cases in which people acquire racist attitudes from the influence of others who share those attitudes rather than from their own observation -- which, as I said, seems to me to be prevalent.

[GreNME]

I was doing nothing of the sort. I was just interjecting my reactions to the parts of your post. When I asked "How does that follow?", it was not a rhetorical question: I immediately followed it with your answer. You might have gathered that from the fact that I left intact the dash at the end of the phrase that I quoted, indicating that the quotation ended in the middle of a sentence.

You know, just saying "sorry about that" would have come across a lot less pedantic.

I grant that you have an effective point against the counter-example. But I don't find that you answer the objection that I developed out of the example. You find racism in the inference, "This person is [e.g.] black; therefore he needs to have his ass kicked," or whatever goes through the dark minds of the people who commit such acts. But I do not see how this is supposed to account for the racism in attitudes that are acquired from the influence of others within one's community, which is what I have been insisting on as something that the proposed definition does not allow. If someone grows up among people who believe, say, that black people are morally and intellectually inferior to white people, he is likely to share that attitude; and if so, he is a racist toward black people. I grant you that the attitude cannot have come into being among members of his community without someone having engaged in the kind of faulty inference described in the proposed definition. But the attitude need not have arisen by that means in each member of the community.

Maybe what you have in mind is this: An attitude (or belief or way of acting or reacting) is racist if it originates in a form of the causation-correlation fallacy in which, etc. -- where "originates" means that the attitude first came into being that way, or that to the extent that it is rationalized by its bearer, it is rationalized in that fashion. That seems to me defensible. I just find that the original definition does not allow for cases in which people acquire racist attitudes from the influence of others who share those attitudes rather than from their own observation -- which, as I said, seems to me to be prevalent.

Look, answer me this: in the example given, is skin color the determining factor of whether the victim is assaulted?

As to your dipping into your own aside, you're completely bypassing the original example and getting into sociological factors for how racist attitudes and ideals are passed on. The point of the matter is that racism isn't necessarily a thing you do, it is an outlook and set of predetermined conclusions based on fallacious, irrational thinking. People don't have to be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating their processes in order to call their reasoning fallacious and irrational, and that there may be people out there who know no better than to have that reasoning again makes it no less fallacious and irrational. Where people acquire fallacious and irrational reasoning has no effect on the fallaciousness or the irrationality of the reasoning.

[Kritikos]

You know, just saying "sorry about that" would have come across a lot less pedantic.
I'm sorry that you thought I was doing something other than what I was doing, but I did nothing to apologize for.

Look, answer me this: in the example given, is skin color the determining factor of whether the victim is assaulted?
Yes, given the assailant's attitude.

As to your dipping into your own aside, you're completely bypassing the original example and getting into sociological factors for how racist attitudes and ideals are passed on.
"Dipping into"? "Bypassing"? I don't see what you are talking about. I granted, in my last post, that you made your point against the example. ("I grant that you have an effective point against the counter-example.") That is not "bypassing" anything; that is conceding a point. As for the sociological factors, my point was that the original definition defines racism in terms of how it arises rather than in terms of what it is. It defines it in terms of rational factors (in the sense of factors in reasoning); I argued, against this, that people can be racists in the absence of those factors, and adduced sociological factors that can have the same result.
The point of the matter is that racism isn't necessarily a thing you do, it is an outlook and set of predetermined conclusions--
That is pretty much what I have been saying: that is why I keep saying that an attitude can be racist, regardless of how someone acquired it.
--based on fallacious, irrational thinking. People don't have to be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating their processes in order to call their reasoning fallacious and irrational, and that there may be people out there who know no better than to have that reasoning again makes it no less fallacious and irrational. Where people acquire fallacious and irrational reasoning has no effect on the fallaciousness or the irrationality of the reasoning.
First you say that racism consists in an outlook and a set of predetermined conclusions, then you identify it (again) as a certain kind of reasoning. I can see the point that a belief cannot be called a "conclusion" unless it is the outcome of some reasoning (however faulty); but in that case I don't see how the term applies to someone's belief, acquired by upbringing, that black people are intellectually and morally inferior to white people. I am not talking about "acquiring reasoning," as you say, but about acquiring beliefs and attitudes. I don't deny that reasoning can be racist and can reflect the kind of fallacy that the proposed definition describes. My point (which I am surprised that you keep seeming to misunderstand, since I said this in so many words) is that a belief or attitude can be racist regardless of how it was acquired.

Perhaps your point is that nobody just acquires a belief from his or her upbringing in the way that people acquire an accent, say, but rather people must engage in some sort of reasoning, however faulty, to arrive at a belief. That seems to me a defensible position. But it is a substantive position and cannot be simply presumed as a matter of definition.

[Clippy]

Let's look at the proposed scenario: assaulting someone because they are black. The assaulting part makes it a crime, the "because they are black" seems to imply racist reasoning for it. Now, one could claim to be playing a word trick and changing the goalpost to being a black-on-black crime, or adding even more information like the assaulter was a white or hispanic who attacked what they thought was a rival gang member, but all this really does is 1) emphasize that context matters and 2) avoids the implied prescriptive. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing that, I'm simply pointing out that if we're just working from the original scenario of assaulting someone because they are black then the reasoning implied falls within the area where the fallacy played a role in the decision to assault.

To provide an example, I'll point out cases from reality. After 9/11/2001, there were numerous reports of people who were Arabic, Mid-Eastern (non-Arabic), or even Mid-Eastern-looking being assaulted by people for little or no stated reason, and what little was stated implied that these folks were in collusion with the terrorists. This is a classic example of the correlation-causation fallacy at play, as people were outright correlating these people to terrorists by their appearance and reacting accordingly. It's an extreme example, yes, but it displays how the reasoning involved in initiating the action is where the "racist" determiner lies, not with the assault itself. Were it simply the assault, then one could argue that all assaults must be racist in nature, and I'm really not interested in getting into the "'hate' crimes are bunk" derail (though I have a sneaking suspicion that Clippy would love to).

Now, in most classic cases of assaulting someone "because their skin color was X" (insert any color there, whether black or brown or yellow or white or polka-dot or stripes), the reasoning would fall into the correlation-causation fallacy because it's associating that victim's skin color with whatever negative connotations that instigate a violent reaction, and barring any other determiners (though, in reality, other determiners are almost always present) it presents the attacker correlating the victim with whatever broad definition of people with the skin color in question as a justification for the assault. The attacker is not attacking a person, they're attacking an object represented by that person (one could say the cause of their aggression, but that's a bit heavy-handed IMO), of which the person correlating to those qualities happens to identify. If we can say that the attacker would not have attacked were the victim's skin color a different hue (or likely the same as the attacker's), then the correlation-causation fallacy that it's the ethnicity or skin color that's the determining factor of whether the attacker actually attacks pretty much makes the assumption of racist motivation elementary.

Do you seriously not agree with this? Did I really have to go into such a lengthy description of why it displays the fallacy from the OP? Since the skin color would be the determining factor, how could this fall anywhere but the correlation-causation fallacy?

You're confused about the definition. Go back and reread the OP.

Here's the scenario: I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. I judge them not to be of my race and assault them. In what sense is this a correlation/causation fallacy of the sort described in the OP?

[Clippy]

And to make it just a bit clearer, let's add that the person, in addition to being black, has an afro and is 7 feet tall.

[Clippy]

So believe me when I say it's not just simple dismissal. It's more accurately an educated response to one of those annoying things that continues to crop up no matter how many times the attempts eventually show themselves as having an agenda to promote.

And you don't have an agenda? Give me a break.

[LostAngeles]

You're confused about the definition. Go back and reread the OP.

Here's the scenario: I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. I judge them not to be of my race and assault them. In what sense is this a correlation/causation fallacy of the sort described in the OP?

Why are you assaulting them? What about them makes you think that they should be assaulted? Why?

[GreNME]

Look, answer me this: in the example given, is skin color the determining factor of whether the victim is assaulted?
Yes, given the assailant's attitude.

Then looking at EGarrett's quote-- "A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."-- the definition qualifies.

"Dipping into"? "Bypassing"? I don't see what you are talking about. I granted, in my last post, that you made your point against the example. ("I grant that you have an effective point against the counter-example.") That is not "bypassing" anything; that is conceding a point. As for the sociological factors, my point was that the original definition defines racism in terms of how it arises rather than in terms of what it is. It defines it in terms of rational factors (in the sense of factors in reasoning); I argued, against this, that people can be racists in the absence of those factors, and adduced sociological factors that can have the same result.

The original definition does no such thing ("defines how it arises"), and your quibbles with my wording are unnecessary. In both examples given in the original post, the "sleeping Asian" and the "blue people," the example given describes two different types of ways a person might act or speak based on that fallacy. The fallacy described has not changed.

The point of the matter is that racism isn't necessarily a thing you do, it is an outlook and set of predetermined conclusions--
That is pretty much what I have been saying: that is why I keep saying that an attitude can be racist, regardless of how someone acquired it.

Then "pretty much what [you've] been saying is as incomplete as the chopped sentence you quoted. Your pedantry is poorly parsing what I said. The proper parsing is: "The point of the matter is that racism isn't necessarily a thing you do, it is an outlook and set of predetermined conclusions based on fallacious, irrational thinking." It's not simply an outlook or a set of conclusions, it's those things as a resultant use of the fallacy described in the original post. Separating the two is not an accurate representation of what I said. Your misquotation of my words borders on a strawman.

--based on fallacious, irrational thinking. People don't have to be constantly evaluating and re-evaluating their processes in order to call their reasoning fallacious and irrational, and that there may be people out there who know no better than to have that reasoning again makes it no less fallacious and irrational. Where people acquire fallacious and irrational reasoning has no effect on the fallaciousness or the irrationality of the reasoning.
First you say that racism consists in an outlook and a set of predetermined conclusions, then you identify it (again) as a certain kind of reasoning. I can see the point that a belief cannot be called a "conclusion" unless it is the outcome of some reasoning (however faulty); but in that case I don't see how the term applies to someone's belief, acquired by upbringing, that black people are intellectually and morally inferior to white people. I am not talking about "acquiring reasoning," as you say, but about acquiring beliefs and attitudes. I don't deny that reasoning can be racist and can reflect the kind of fallacy that the proposed definition describes. My point (which I am surprised that you keep seeming to misunderstand, since I said this in so many words) is that a belief or attitude can be racist regardless of how it was acquired.

And again, this is why I criticized your pedantry earlier. You purposely chopped up what I was saying to respond in a criticism that only displays how you failed to parse my words (despite them being together in the same sentence). I didn't first say one thing and then say another, I pointed out that the identifiable thing as described in the original post's definition requires the fallacy (the "fallacious, irrational thinking") to hold the ("outlook and set of predetermined") conclusion. All you seem to be doing is attempting to separate the conclusion from the fallacy, and you have yet to provide a workable possible scenario. The objection example Clippy noted obviously doesn't work.

Perhaps your point is that nobody just acquires a belief from his or her upbringing in the way that people acquire an accent, say, but rather people must engage in some sort of reasoning, however faulty, to arrive at a belief. That seems to me a defensible position. But it is a substantive position and cannot be simply presumed as a matter of definition.

Arguing against strawmen is not helpful toward you providing a workable example of what you're proposing. The conclusion is tied to the fallacy and passed on by teaching the fallacy as supporting the conclusion. In case you're wondering what I'm saying, I'm saying that racist views that happen to be passed down from parents (or family) to children are built on a tautology, not unlike how the conclusions supporting Creationism are built on a tautology. They use the fallacy and the conclusion successively to reinforce the belief, using more and more complex models of the tautology as they get older and capable of more complex thinking.

Here's a suggestion, Kritikos: if you're unsure of what I'm saying, ask me for a clarification. It makes having a conversation far less adversarial and far more productive.

[GreNME]

You're confused about the definition. Go back and reread the OP.

Here's the scenario: I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. I judge them not to be of my race and assault them. In what sense is this a correlation/causation fallacy of the sort described in the OP?

From the OP: "A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."

For your edification, I went ahead and underlined where in the OP your "scenario" is addressed, since you seem persistent in ignoring everything I already pointed out.

And to make it just a bit clearer, let's add that the person, in addition to being black, has an afro and is 7 feet tall.

Unless you're implying that the person's height and hairstyle are also reasons for attacking, this is irrelevant.

[Clippy]

From the OP: "A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."

For your edification, I went ahead and underlined where in the OP your "scenario" is addressed, since you seem persistent in ignoring everything I already pointed out.



Unless you're implying that the person's height and hairstyle are also reasons for attacking, this is irrelevant.

Ok, last try.

Here is the definition, with the relevant part bolded.

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

The difference in skin color is the result of genetics. It's not a causation/correlation fallacy. Hence, according to this definition, it is not racist if I assault them on this basis.

Or let's make it real simple for you. The guy tells me he's African and I assault him. How is this covered by the definition?

[GreNME]

Ok, last try.

Here is the definition, with the relevant part bolded.

Wrong. The whole of the quote is "the relevant part."

The difference in skin color is the result of genetics. It's not a causation/correlation fallacy. Hence, according to this definition, it is not racist if I assault them on this basis.

This may be shocking, but you have the same gene for having dark skin that a black person does. Saying the difference in skin color "is the result of genetics" is weasel-worded and vague. You may as well describe the difference in color as a light switch, because it would make about as much sense.

Or let's make it real simple for you. The guy tells me he's African and I assault him. How is this covered by the definition?

You're still not saying what the reason for the assault is. You're just tossing in disparate details and demanding that the definition not apply. If the reasoning being used is the same-- the different ethnicity or skin color being the cause for the assault-- then it's following the correlation-causation fallacy and acting upon the resultant fallacious conclusion.

At this point you're simply playing the rhetoric game like an eight-year-old does when trying to test boundaries. When you can come up with something original or interesting I'll reply. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

[Clippy]

This may be shocking, but you have the same gene for having dark skin that a black person does. Saying the difference in skin color "is the result of genetics" is weasel-worded and vague. You may as well describe the difference in color as a light switch, because it would make about as much sense.

Would you prefer that I use the word allele? The difference in skin color is due to differences in DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

It's the result of genetics. Deal with it.

You're still not saying what the reason for the assault is. You're just tossing in disparate details and demanding that the definition not apply. If the reasoning being used is the same-- the different ethnicity or skin color being the cause for the assault-- then it's following the correlation-causation fallacy and acting upon the resultant fallacious conclusion.

At this point you're simply playing the rhetoric game like an eight-year-old does when trying to test boundaries. When you can come up with something original or interesting I'll reply. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

For the last time, read the OP again. The cause in question is the cause of the observed differences, not the cause of the action. The definition requires a specific form of correlation/causation fallacy in order for something to qualify as racism. Keep reading the OP until you understand this. Otherwise, don't bother replying.

[Kritikos]

Then looking at EGarrett's quote-- "A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."-- the definition qualifies.
No, it does not. "The person then usually acts," etc., makes no sense as part of the definition. You can append to the definition a generalization about the behavior of people whose thinking conforms to the fallacy, but it doesn't make any sense to claim to "define" racism as a certain kind of fallacious thinking, then claim that the generalization is part of the definition. All you have done is appended something to the definition to capture cases that the definition fails to capture.

I don't see how your next comment bears on the part of my post on which you are commenting, but I don't think much depends on the matter, so I'll skip it.

Then "pretty much what [you've] been saying is as incomplete as the chopped sentence you quoted. Your pedantry is poorly parsing what I said. The proper parsing is: "The point of the matter is that racism isn't necessarily a thing you do, it is an outlook and set of predetermined conclusions based on fallacious, irrational thinking." It's not simply an outlook or a set of conclusions, it's those things as a resultant use of the fallacy described in the original post. Separating the two is not an accurate representation of what I said. Your misquotation of my words borders on a strawman.
I isolated a part of your sentence to indicate the part that I agree with. I went on to discuss the part that follows and that qualifies that part, and recognized that it did so. I did not misrepresent your meaning: anyone reading my comment could see quite clearly what you said and what you meant. I just separated the part of your statement that I agree with from the part that I do not agree with.



And again, this is why I criticized your pedantry earlier. You purposely chopped up what I was saying to respond in a criticism that only displays how you failed to parse my words (despite them being together in the same sentence). I didn't first say one thing and then say another, I pointed out that the identifiable thing as described in the original post's definition requires the fallacy (the "fallacious, irrational thinking") to hold the ("outlook and set of predetermined") conclusion. All you seem to be doing is attempting to separate the conclusion from the fallacy, and you have yet to provide a workable possible scenario. The objection example Clippy noted obviously doesn't work.

The bolded part is correct. I don't see how I have failed to provide a "workable possible scenario." I talked about someone who acquires racist attitudes through his upbringing rather than by inference. I don't see how that fails to be a workable possible scenario.

Arguing against strawmen is not helpful toward you providing a workable example of what you're proposing.
I never did that. See the comment before the last one.

The conclusion is tied to the fallacy and passed on by teaching the fallacy as supporting the conclusion. In case you're wondering what I'm saying, I'm saying that racist views that happen to be passed down from parents (or family) to children are built on a tautology, not unlike how the conclusions supporting Creationism are built on a tautology. They use the fallacy and the conclusion successively to reinforce the belief, using more and more complex models of the tautology as they get older and capable of more complex thinking.

Here's a suggestion, Kritikos: if you're unsure of what I'm saying, ask me for a clarification. It makes having a conversation far less adversarial and far more productive.
All right, here is a question: what do you mean by a tautology? In logic, the word signifies a logically true proposition, like "If p, then p" or "Either p or not-p." In rhetoric, it signifies a phrase in which the same idea is expressed more than once, like "little pipsqueak." I don't see how a "tautology" in either sense of the word can play a role in the transmission of racist attitudes.

So far as I understand what you are saying, you seem to be just taking the option that I discussed and criticized in the final paragraph of my previous post: you are advancing a substantive position about the origin of racism (namely, that people only come to have racist beliefs through racist thought-processes), but you are trying to present it as a matter of definition, which it isn't.

[ProbeX]

And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component.

It's altogether possible that many of the (largely Caucasian) creators of IQ tests have racial and cultural biases that may give an unfair advantage to White test-takers and an unfair disadvantage to Black test-takers.

Furthermore, there are studies showing that malnutrition is a widespread problem in many (poor) Black communities - a socio-economic problem with possible race-based implications. Malnutrition is linked to lowered IQ and poor concentration/scholastic test results. Which would suggest a strong correlation between poverty and lowered IQ, rather than genetics and lowered IQ ... assuming the IQ tests are bias-free to start with - a big assumption.

Not the only cause, but at least part of the answer. The 100% environmentalist position is faith-based, which is why I'm surprised to see it defended by so many posters on a skeptics forum.Your position that the discrepancy is genetically, not environmentally-based, is equally faith-based, on a skeptics' forum.

[bpesta22]

This simply aint so by any reasonable read of the vast scientific literature on the topic.

It's altogether possible that many of the (largely Caucasian) creators of IQ tests have racial and cultural biases that may give an unfair advantage to White test-takers and an unfair disadvantage to Black test-takers.

***


Furthermore, there are studies showing that malnutrition is a widespread problem in many (poor) Black communities - a socio-economic problem with possible race-based implications. Malnutrition is linked to lowered IQ and poor concentration/scholastic test results. Which would suggest a strong correlation between poverty and lowered IQ, rather than genetics and lowered IQ ... assuming the IQ tests are bias-free to start with - a big assumption.


Agreed, but it's also possible to separate the effects of poverty on the relationship between race and iq. There is no factor x, that when controlled for, eliminates the difference.


Your position that the discrepancy is genetically, not environmentally-based, is equally faith-based, on a skeptics' forum.

I don't think we're close to knowing what the answer is, but I think claiming 0% either way takes lots of faith, or at least complete disregard for volumes of published data.

[Clippy]

Your position that the discrepancy is genetically, not environmentally-based, is equally faith-based, on a skeptics' forum.

I have arrived at the conclusion that it has some genetic component based on my study of the scientific literature (have you read any of it?). You might just as well say that someone's rejection of creationism is faith-based. This is a question of science, not determining the consensus opinion from NYT editorials.

[Clippy]

bpesta22,

It does not matter how much closer we get to an answer. Even if all the relevant SNPs and CNVs are identified, some environmental dogmatist (who has the ear of the NYT editor and POTUS' speech writer) is going to claim that it's a correlation/causation fallacy and that the real reason is some as yet undiscovered environmental or epigenetic factor. You are dealing with religionists. You will continue to feel the need to preface your comments by saying you are no David Duke (BTW, have you ever listened to him or read anything he wrote?). Overturning the consensus on the heritability of racial differences in things that matter, like IQ, will require a regime change, because the current regime is based on racial egalitarianism. This is the agenda that is being pushed by people like GreNME. That's the sad, unscientific truth of the matter.

[GreNME]

No, it does not. "The person then usually acts," etc., makes no sense as part of the definition. You can append to the definition a generalization about the behavior of people whose thinking conforms to the fallacy, but it doesn't make any sense to claim to "define" racism as a certain kind of fallacious thinking, then claim that the generalization is part of the definition. All you have done is appended something to the definition to capture cases that the definition fails to capture.

I don't see how your next comment bears on the part of my post on which you are commenting, but I don't think much depends on the matter, so I'll skip it.

I isolated a part of your sentence to indicate the part that I agree with. I went on to discuss the part that follows and that qualifies that part, and recognized that it did so. I did not misrepresent your meaning: anyone reading my comment could see quite clearly what you said and what you meant. I just separated the part of your statement that I agree with from the part that I do not agree with.



The bolded part is correct. I don't see how I have failed to provide a "workable possible scenario." I talked about someone who acquires racist attitudes through his upbringing rather than by inference. I don't see how that fails to be a workable possible scenario.

I never did that. See the comment before the last one.

All right, here is a question: what do you mean by a tautology? In logic, the word signifies a logically true proposition, like "If p, then p" or "Either p or not-p." In rhetoric, it signifies a phrase in which the same idea is expressed more than once, like "little pipsqueak." I don't see how a "tautology" in either sense of the word can play a role in the transmission of racist attitudes.

So far as I understand what you are saying, you seem to be just taking the option that I discussed and criticized in the final paragraph of my previous post: you are advancing a substantive position about the origin of racism (namely, that people only come to have racist beliefs through racist thought-processes), but you are trying to present it as a matter of definition, which it isn't.

You keep playing pedantic games and then assuming I'm arguing for something other than what I stated, typically by breaking apart my words (often breaking up sentences). Honestly, Kritikos, I don't think you're actually trying to discuss the topic as much as you're determined to find holes where there are none. The position I've held and attempted to explain more than once is that the fallacy as described in the original post holds consistent for the conclusions that are the foundation of racism. Regardless of "how" they are passed on, how one acts in accordance to them, or what ways it may affect one's worldview, the fallacy and conclusion are always present and always factoring into the root of the thoughts, behavior, and general social condition of racism. The tautology is that those who hold the racist conclusions will promote it based on the fallacious logic to introduce others to the conclusion (not unlike the god-bible-creationism tautology). Clippy's multiple attempts to turn the conversation to IQ and race is an example of the fallacious logic being used to further the conclusion that ethnicity is the determining factor, to imply blacks are inferior to whatever she or he fancies herself/himself (despite the fact they she/he has the same genes that make a black person black in the first place).

If you want to continue to disagree on semantics without offering any solid criticism, I'm not seeing much point in playing the point-counterpoint game with you because I'm not getting the impression of good faith from your posts, and haven't from when you began chopping my sentences up in the first place.

[GreNME]

Overturning the consensus on the heritability of racial differences in things that matter, like IQ, will require a regime change, because the current regime is based on racial egalitarianism. This is the agenda that is being pushed by people like GreNME. That's the sad, unscientific truth of the matter.

Yup, it's all a conspiracy to keep down the truth that black people are inherently dumber.

Why can't you just say so outright?

[Kritikos]

For heaven's sake, Grenme, you have never produced a single instance in which I used the quotation of one part of one of your sentences separately from another part as a means to misrepresent your position or to criticize you for holding a view that you did not hold. Not one single instance! You just keep complaining about it as if it were some sort of dirty trick -- when, as I have said, all I was doing was remarking that I agreed with one part and not with the other part.

But I do agree with you that the discussion between us has become unproductive.

[ProbeX]

I have arrived at the conclusion that it has some genetic component based on my study of the scientific literature (have you read any of it?). You might just as well say that someone's rejection of creationism is faith-based. This is a question of science, not determining the consensus opinion from NYT editorials.

If you think genetics is but one "component" then maybe you can respond directly to the specific environmental factors I just brought up; one of which is backed by scientific facts (malnutrition -- lowered IQ r-ship). Thanks.

In the meantime, would you mind providing a link or two to the "twin studies" you're talking about that allegedly back up the genetic theory of the professed Black-White IQ gap? I'd need to read your "scientific literature" in order to determine if its validity. Thanks.

[Clippy]

If you think genetics is but one "component" then maybe you can respond directly to the specific environmental factors I just brought up; one of which is backed by scientific facts (malnutrition -- lowered IQ r-ship). Thanks.

Yes, nutrition is an important factor. It likely explains part of the extremely low IQ in sub-Saharan African countries (~70).

In the meantime, would you mind providing a link or two to the "twin studies" you're talking about that allegedly back up the genetic theory of the professed Black-White IQ gap? I'd need to read your "scientific literature" in order to determine if its validity. Thanks.

This is a good review of the literature on racial differences in intelligence:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

[ProbeX]

Yes, nutrition is an important factor. It likely explains part of the extremely low IQ in sub-Saharan African countries (~70).

Poor nutrition is suffered by many groups, but often by those who are at a social disadvantage. People in poor areas of India would likely score lower on IQ tests than their richer counterparts as well ... just like in Africa or England or any other area where there is a problem of malnutrition.

I don't see the malnutrition/poverty component factored into the study below. That's problematic.


This is a good review of the literature on racial differences in intelligence:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdfStarting with the 'Bell Curve' study, the classification of ethnicities used in the study is flawed. "Jews" are not a race. Judaism is a cultural/religious identification. Even the Kohen/Levite studies have failed to establish Judaism as a race, without controversy. And it's noted that most 17- yr. olds [of all ethnicities] taking the (American) AFQ test who scored high went on to enjoy occupational success. That points away from genetics as a causality of low IQ.

... And before addressing the rest of the study, you'll note that the 1.1 standard deviation mentioned is admittedly attained via Westernized standardized tests. This goes back to my point - which I'd still like your response to - that these tests may be biased toward Whites and against Blacks because they are generally created by Whites within the larger context of a White culture.

[EGarrett]

A lot of replies so I'll try to do a few at a time.

West Africans, on average, are faster sprinters than are Japanese. Is this an example of racism?Careyp74's post is a great reply so I don't have much to add except to perhaps phrase it my own way.

What you have, with the above, is a very generalized observation. It could be much more accurate: (what about being from West Africa MAKES them better sprinters? When you identify that, you should refer to that instead of "West Africans.") But it's still just a generalized and slightly inaccurate observation.

The above could be referred to as slightly racist because it is a mild form of the fallacy, but it really becomes racism when you act or govern in a damaging way BECAUSE of that observation. So, if you saw what you saw about "West Africans" being better sprinters, and you THEN decided that you weren't going to allow any Japanese people to join the track team, because they'll be bad sprinters...then you've entered into racism. You're also now doing damaging actions because a great sprinter who happens to be Japanese (they're out there) is now denied an opportunity...and a crappy sprinter who happens to be from West Africa may be allowed on the team and would make your team worse.

Since you didn't quote anyone I am going to assume you are comment on the OP.

The definition given is:A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

I can't think of a damaging or incorrect action based on your statement, so I will answer for the OP.

No.

Here is an example of racism as explained by the OP:
I checked my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there after passing a group of black people.

The assumption is that since there are more blacks in prison than whites, it must be genetic, therefore, my actions based on that assumption is that I will treat any black person with untrust.Great post, btw.

I agree; it's the type of action that's important. Why shouldn't people be allowed to act based on their beliefs, especially when they're based on data and don't harm anyone? Sounds tyrannical.You're allowed to act any way you want as long as your actions aren't harming others. But some actions are based on bad logic. Racism is bad logic and given the history of this country, people feel very strongly about it...which is understandable.

If I choose not to live in a black neighbourhood because I fear being the victim of crime, how is that any different?You can choose to try to live anywhere you want. But your reason for doing so might be illogical and even dangerous.

Yes, it might hurt the feelings of many blacks to know I feel this way, but calling me a racist or bigot for having that opinion is an attempt to hurt my feelings.A lot of things hurt people's feelings...but sometimes it's logically justified (example: quarantines). If your actions fit an accurate and well-supported definition of racism, then it would make sense to label it as such.

[EGarrett]

You're in a strange part of town; not the best area. A group of white men walk by. Would it be sexist to check your wallet (assuming that were it a group of women, you would not)?Sexism is a different thing, because there ARE observed differences between the sexes that ARE caused genetically. (men generally are bigger and stronger than women), so what qualifies as sexist behavior is different than what qualifies as racist behavior...and since there are more valid concerns that can be raised due to genetic differences between the sexes (it would be logically valid for a woman to carry a taser because she'll be alone among a bunch of men, they'll almost certainly all be bigger and stronger than she is)...sexism is a more narrow category than racism.

And who decides whether it's incorrect? To take IQ as an example, if something (black-white IQ gap) is observed since these tests were admistered, is found in different environments, displays regression to the mean, is supported by twin studies, why shouldn't I assume that there is some genetic component.Even if that were the case, you'd have to find the genetic component and isolate it in order to test. Having a bunch of people who have different backgrounds, cultural values and so on and testing them is not a scientifically valid way to determine how ONE specific difference effects their performance.

Wiki - Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, while Reverse discrimination favours members of a historically disadvantaged group at the expense of those of a historically advantaged group.Wikipedia's definition is good, but I feel mine is better. (and of course if people think it isn't a good definition...that's why this thread is here)

Example; statistically, young black males commit a disproportionate of violent crimes like robberies, murders, etc. Sound inflammatory and racists? Then try this one on; the overwhelming majority of serial killers are 30ish white males.It's racist if you assume the reason for this is because they are black or white. If you IMPLY that it is because they are black or white, which the example statement seems to do, then yes it will seem to be racist.

Certain things are more prevalent with one group as opposed to another. Blacks overall make for faster short distance runners. There are more white swimmers than blacksThe first statement is somewhat fallacious (referring to "blacks" implies that "blacks" are the group that make for faster short distance runners, when it's actually a group that happens to largely correlate with black people in America (descendants of forced physical laborers). The second one is pretty much a plain observation (if you accept that race exists), and racism could come depending on what conclusion you draw from it and what actions you make based on it.

(please don't try to go all gushy on me and say, "Dude, the blacks are socially disenfranchised and whitey not be givin' e'm access to the country club swimming pools.")Let's not build strawmen or mock each other's arguments. It's just going to make people angry.

Why is it that Hollywood can make a movie entitled "White Men can't jump" (playing to a stereotype) but no one would dare make a movie entitled "Black Men can't swim", Again, playing to a stereotype?"White Men Can't Jump" is a racist statement according to my definition. It implies, very strongly, that being white stops you from being able to jump. But that's logically wrong. There are actually quite a few "white men" in the NBA past and present who could jump (Joe Alexander, Brent Barry, Billy Cunningham, Chris Andersen etc etc)

[EGarrett]

Depends I guess on how we define harm. If I say that I believe that blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and criminality, and choose not to live in neighbourhoods where they live in any number, is that racist?Yes.

Is believing that it's only a cause enough to make it not racist? Who arbitrates what's 'incorrect' or 'damaging'?Believing incorrectly or illogically that it is a cause is racist...per my definition.

BTW, in the other thread you requested links to other debates I've had on race and against racists. If you search this forum you'll find several by me and posts of mine where I've linked to debates on other forums.

Why is it that blue people born, raised and educated in poorer countries where they were enslaved do better than the blue people born raised and educated in the USA?This is of course a question of the quality of American inner-city education and social pressure and not of racism or the definition of it...so it would be off-topic. We can start a new topic for that though...

The black crime rate is higher than the White crime rate, even when controlling for socio-economic status. There's your empirical support.That's very unscientific. On top of being a vague assertion, did you control for cultural values and socialization? What's the crime rate among black adoptees? What about genetic trends resulting from slave-descendancy? (NOT from race, but from being descendants of a genetic line that was selected repeatedly for physical laboring ability and not intellectual strength. These characteristics are OFTEN confused for being a result of race and not slavery.) A much more specific study is needed to isolate RACE as a cause, if that's what you want to claim.

Also whose racist and whose not will often surprise you. I have a Jamaican friend who doesn't get along well with black people born and raised in the states. In college I knew a south african who had problems with American blacks because his hair was "nappier" and his skin was darker. He had things to say about black folks born in the USA I'd just as soon not repeat. I was friends with him and I tried to argue with him but his mind was made up. I still see him once in a blue moon and I avoid racial discussions with him at all costs.That doesn't surprise me. There are racists of all backgrounds who make mistaken assumptions about other people of all backgrounds, including their own.

[EGarrett]

According to the definition in the OP, physically assaulting someone because of their skin color is not racist.Assaulting someone is an action. Actions are not logical or not logical...reasoning and motivations are.

WHAT exactly do you mean by 'because of their skin color?' If you feel that the skin color makes the person bad and you beat them to scare them out of your town, then yes, it's racist.

What is the relevance of the bolded part?It's the actual likely cause of the difference. The same way I said "a sleeping Asian person." in the example before that. Saying "sleeping" gives info about the real reason the person didn't wave back. So it makes it clear that the "racist person" in the example was ignoring that the person was sleeping and assumed that the person didn't wave back because they were Asian. Likewise for the effects of slavery being mentioned in the second example as a much more likely and logical cause that is being ignored.

And if I refer to the research on IQ and come to the same conclusion, is that racist?Yes, if the research is invalid. See my previous post for the many many holes in what you cited.

[EGarrett]

I reckon its overly wordy

I prefer this:

Racism:racial prejudice combined with the power to inflict itI love to clarify and simplify, but I feel that's an oversimplification...in other words, one that leaves out too much information and makes it more confusing instead of less confusing.

For one, what do you mean when you refer to "inflicting" prejudice? Must you inflict it? And what if you can't inflict it? You aren't racist? So an old man in a wheelchair who hates Asian people and thinks they are ruining the planet is not a racist? That doesn't fit with how we seem to use the term. Also, racism is a major fallacy, and the above definition doesn't mention why it's a mistake. That's key to being able to distinguish any fallacy.

You're confused about the definition. Go back and reread the OP.

Here's the scenario: I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. I judge them not to be of my race and assault them. In what sense is this a correlation/causation fallacy of the sort described in the OP?Your example is incomplete. If you assault them because of their race, there is some value judgment going on about race. That's where the racism is...

[bpesta22]

Thanks clippy.

I personally think the difference is biological, but not sure how much is genetic. I would hate to have to defend the 0% genes position. It's untenable. More study is needed.

[GreNME]

Thanks clippy.

I personally think the difference is biological, but not sure how much is genetic. I would hate to have to defend the 0% genes position. It's untenable. More study is needed.

Honestly, I think you or Clippy should take this discussion to another thread. You'd get a lot more engagement than by derailing this thread.

[bpesta22]

I think the thread derail defense is over used. I responded to someone who directly mentioned me about something that is at least nominally related to the OP.

Was it that hard to skip my two sentences? Did it really throw you into a loop of confusion about the thread's purpose and order / harmony in the universe?

[GreNME]

Actually, I was suggesting it more for you to get some actual engagement on the topic instead of just trading info with a white supremacist (here (http://gnosticliberationfront.com/images/yockey.jpg) is the full image of his avatar, which is a picture of this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey), so you understand I'm not making the accusation lightly). Since you seemed actually curious to explore the subject, I made a suggestion that would get you a wider range of input. If you want to get all defensive about it, that's your issue, not mine.

[EGarrett]

Thanks clippy.

I personally think the difference is biological, but not sure how much is genetic. I would hate to have to defend the 0% genes position. It's untenable. More study is needed.It doesn't matter, actually. The ultimate cause is always going to be environment, not race. After all, environment dictates the selection pressures, and selection pressures dictate how life forms develop. Thus, referring to race as a cause or using language that implies race is the cause is pretty much always going to be inaccurate and fallacious.

[bpesta22]

Sorry if I was overly dramatic. It is always a sensitive topic so I sometimes over-react to replies. It is hard every now and then to gauge intent from a message board.

My apologies-- no hard feelings, I hope!

B

[GreNME]

No harm, no foul. :)

[bpesta22]

Hug?! Or are you one of them hugists!

:)

[bpesta22]

Be careful with the implicit association test. I'd bet in the long run it's dismissed as utter bunk. Priming effects are very hard to get and demand lots of control, from font size to location to timing, etc. I wasted 1.5 years on my dissertation trying to get it down for a very basic priming effect. It would be rather remarkable if the IAT actually measures subconscious racist biases.

There was a parody article published recently on how foolish the whole test is. I wish I could remember the cite. Anyone aware of it?

[Clippy]

Your example is incomplete. If you assault them because of their race, there is some value judgment going on about race. That's where the racism is...

No, your definition does not cover my example. Keep reading until you understand.

It doesn't matter, actually. The ultimate cause is always going to be environment, not race. After all, environment dictates the selection pressures, and selection pressures dictate how life forms develop. Thus, referring to race as a cause or using language that implies race is the cause is pretty much always going to be inaccurate and fallacious.

Personal attacks removed. Do not insult other posters.

[Clippy]

Starting with the 'Bell Curve' study, the classification of ethnicities used in the study is flawed. "Jews" are not a race. Judaism is a cultural/religious identification. Even the Kohen/Levite studies have failed to establish Judaism as a race, without controversy. And it's noted that most 17- yr. olds [of all ethnicities] taking the (American) AFQ test who scored high went on to enjoy occupational success. That points away from genetics as a causality of low IQ.

Jews are an ethnic group, though admittedly a diverse one (main divisions being Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Oriental).

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/01/jews-genetically-distinct.html

... And before addressing the rest of the study, you'll note that the 1.1 standard deviation mentioned is admittedly attained via Westernized standardized tests. This goes back to my point - which I'd still like your response to - that these tests may be biased toward Whites and against Blacks because they are generally created by Whites within the larger context of a White culture.

Test bias has been studied to death. To date, no one has succeeded in developing a non-trivial test of cognitive abilities in which the gap disappears, or blacks come out on top. That is why they have to relax the cutoffs for entry tests, e.g. the NY fire department entry test, in order to fend off charges of disparate impact.

I'm not interested in discussing IQ, though. It's been discussed to death. Those who maintain that the gap is 100% environmental have either not studied the evidence, have an agenda to push, or can't let go of a religious belief.

The definition of racism in the OP is inadequate, as anyone with a decent degree of reading comprehension can figure out.

[EGarrett]

No, your definition does not cover my example. Keep reading until you understand.

Personal attacks removed. Do not insult other posters.So you asserted, with no support, reasoning, or explanation at all, that the definition doesn't cover your example, then you added an insult. You consider this to be fair-minded discussion?

I'll try explaining this, politely, once more. WHY would you assault someone "because of their skin color?" There is some belief about skin color that underlies that.

If you have only insults and bald-assertions, I'll assume you have nothing else to add.

[Clippy]

So you asserted, with no support, reasoning, or explanation at all, that the definition doesn't cover your example, then you added an insult. You consider this to be fair-minded discussion?

I'll try explaining this, politely, once more. WHY would you assault someone "because of their skin color?" There is some belief about skin color that underlies that.

If you have only insults and bald-assertions, I'll assume you have nothing else to add.

Are you honestly this thick? Go back and read posts 81, 87, and 89, followed by your definition in the OP. Do that 100 times. If you still don't understand how your OP definition is inadequate, then PM Carep74 and ask for help. He understands what you and GreNME do not. I'm not wasting any more time explaining your own definition to you.

[Clippy]

BTW, in the other thread you requested links to other debates I've had on race and against racists. If you search this forum you'll find several by me and posts of mine where I've linked to debates on other forums.

Why don't you just point out a few that you consider exceptional. I don't believe the claim you made on the other thread. It's only possible if the people you were dealing with were absolute cretins. Let's see your evidence.

[EGarrett]

Are you honestly this thick? Go back and read posts 81, 87, and 89, followed by your definition in the OP. Do that 100 times. If you still don't understand how your OP definition is inadequate, then PM Carep74 and ask for help. He understands what you and GreNME do not. I'm not wasting any more time explaining your own definition to you.I've read the entire thread. You have NOT offered a decent challenge and your example is wrong for the EXACT reason I'm explaining to you and others have explained. Don't worry though, this is the way it usually goes. After a number of polite explanations the other person starts falling into personal attacks, unsupported assertions, and generally starts trying to avoid the discussion. You can keep it up if you like and I'm sure the Mods will be happy to show you the Exit from the forum.

The underlying reasoning behind attacking someone "because of their color" is where the act fits exactly into my definition. If you dared to try to discuss this instead of running away, you'd find that out.

[EGarrett]

Why don't you just point out a few that you consider exceptional. I don't believe the claim you made on the other thread. It's only possible if the people you were dealing with were absolute cretins. Let's see your evidence.I can't link you to the most clear and thorough threads because they're on the American Mensa member forums. I can give you excerpts though.

[ProbeX]

Jews are an ethnic group, though admittedly a diverse one (main divisions being Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Oriental).

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/01/jews-genetically-distinct.html

No, there's not. For example, all that has been established is that many Eastern Europeans who call themselves Jews (identifying themselves as Ashkenazi) tend to have a similar gene. But there are also Eastern Europeans with this gene (like myself, most likely) who don't self-identify as a "Jew", and don't practice the culture or religion.

And obviously, the "diversity" of which you speak is further evidence that "Judaism" is not a race ... you can sample virtually any ethnic population, including the Cohen tribe in Africa, and find a "Jewish gene". Which means Jews encompass many ethnicities, not just one.

So now, as far as the IQ testing issue is concerned in that first study you posted, there is a problem with creating two IQ testing categories that overlap: the so-called "Jewish" test subjects and the Black test subjects, who can be one in the same since at times, there are Black people that have the so-called "Jewish gene" (ex: Cohens, Ethiopians).

[ProbeX]

Test bias has been studied to death.

And rightly so.

To date, no one has succeeded in developing a non-trivial test of cognitive abilities in which the gap disappears, or blacks come out on top.What do you mean by "non-trivial"? And what do you mean "on top"?

That is why they have to relax the cutoffs for entry tests, e.g. the NY fire department entry test, in order to fend off charges of disparate impact.Prove that is a universal motivation. The argument/theory I've heard most frequently is that Black people have been placed at a significant socio-economic disadvantage based on racial politics.

I'm not interested in discussing IQ, though. It's been discussed to death.You made a broad controversial statement about the subject of race and IQ at the start of this thread, in the context of a thread title called "A Definition of Racism".

Those who maintain that the gap is 100% environmental have either not studied the evidence, have an agenda to push, or can't let go of a religious belief.Those who claim genetic causality, when there are still questions about test bias, also appear to have an agenda to push.

The definition of racism in the OP is inadequate, as anyone with a decent degree of reading comprehension can figure out.I think you need to ease up on the ad hominem attacks. People on this thread apparently aren't in universal agreement on any definition of racism.

[GreNME]

Are you honestly this thick? Go back and read posts 81, 87, and 89, followed by your definition in the OP. Do that 100 times. If you still don't understand how your OP definition is inadequate, then PM Carep74 and ask for help. He understands what you and GreNME do not. I'm not wasting any more time explaining your own definition to you.

This is about as ludicrous a response as your earlier declaration that I was pushing some agenda. You're the one who seems focused almost solely on topics involving racism. You're the one who has a Hitler/Nazi sympathizer image in your avatar, and you've stated in another thread that you agree with the sympathizer's most notable published work (which, funny enough, is considered a racist book). You're the one who has only cited white supremacist sources in support of your conclusion-- and before you say it, the DoJ makes no conclusion nor supports no opinion on the matter, they simply have part of the data you're claiming to draw from (creationists use scientific terminologies and some scientific data as well, and their conclusions claim objective "truth" as well).

I ain't saying you've got some agenda, Clippy (I'm not a mind reader), but you sure do seem to be associating your opinions quite a bit with those who do. While it's clear that you resent it, that does indeed damage the credibility of your assertions.

[Clippy]

I've read the entire thread. You have NOT offered a decent challenge and your example is wrong for the EXACT reason I'm explaining to you and others have explained. Don't worry though, this is the way it usually goes. After a number of polite explanations the other person starts falling into personal attacks, unsupported assertions, and generally starts trying to avoid the discussion. You can keep it up if you like and I'm sure the Mods will be happy to show you the Exit from the forum.

The underlying reasoning behind attacking someone "because of their color" is where the act fits exactly into my definition. If you dared to try to discuss this instead of running away, you'd find that out.

Ok, EGarrett, I'll make one last try to get this into your head. If you knew how embarassing this is for you, you'd be a lot less smug.

So let's start from the very beginning. I'll take it really slow and ask questions. When you reply, please answer the questions.

Here is your definition of racism:

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

You are talking about a correlation/causation fallacy that incorrectly attributes the cause of an observed difference to genetic background. Yes?

If someone is not commiting this fallacy, it does not qualify as racism, according to your defintion (" The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."). Correct?

Now let's suppose that I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. And, as I mentioned before, let's also say that this person has an afro, as well as everted lips, just to make it really clear. I judge this person not to be of my race and decide to attack them. I am assuming that the genetics of this person are responsible for the observed difference. These are traits that breed true, the genetics underlying skin color are very well understood, including the specific differences in DNA sequence that are responsible (contrary to what GreNME believes). It is not a correlation/causation fallacy. I am not saying that he has black skin because his grandparents lived in Africa. I'm not saying that he has black skin because he speaks a Bantu dialect. Do you understand that this is not a correlation/causation fallacy?

If you understand that it is not a correlation/causation fallacy, then do you also understand that your definition does not apply?

And BTW, the 'personal attack' that was censored was not, IMO, anything more than an objective assessment of your mental abilities and psychological state. I'm sorry that Cuddles felt the need to censor it, but I won't argue about it- it's not my house.

[Clippy]

I can't link you to the most clear and thorough threads because they're on the American Mensa member forums. I can give you excerpts though.

I think you're lying. I want to see examples of you debating White supremacists. Prove me wrong.

[Clippy]

Lying about having put the intellectual beat-down on them, that is. Surely you must have tried your luck somewhere in the public domain. Let's see some examples.

[Clippy]

Now before any of the Mods get an itchy mouse finger about my accusation, let me provide my evidence. One of the first things EGarrett told me on this forum is that he has debated many White supremacists and it 'did not work out well for them'. I ask for an example and he tells me to search his ~2,000 posts for some links. Then he tells me that his best links are not in the public domain and that he will post selected excerpts of these debates. Delete my prior posts, if you feel you must, but I think that EGarrett's actions indicate that his claim is not true.

[Kahalachan]

I define racism based on the notion of superiority one has about their own race or the inferiority one feels about other races.

If you have a knee-jerk reaction in making an assumption that all Asians are bad drivers or all Asians are good at math, that's stereotyping and a false heuristic the brain is using. It's not immoral or wrong.

But if you start treating Asians bad cause you think they are bad drivers or give them special privileges cause they're good at math, then you've made a conscious decision to treat a race as superior or inferior and then it becomes immoral and racist.

[Clippy]

I define racism based on the notion of superiority one has about their own race or the inferiority one feels about other races.

This is a much better definition than the one in the OP.

[ProbeX]

Clippy, I'm glad to hear you value statements being backed up by evidence. How about reviewing and responding to posts #122 and #123?

[LostAngeles]

Now let's suppose that I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. And, as I mentioned before, let's also say that this person has an afro, as well as everted lips, just to make it really clear. I judge this person not to be of my race and decide to attack them.


And I asked you before, how is this not a racist action?

You've opted to engage in this action because of some perceived negativity on the other person because they are not of their race, have you not? Going with the definition given later on that you seem to agree with, how is this not then racist?

[GreNME]

Now let's suppose that I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. And, as I mentioned before, let's also say that this person has an afro, as well as everted lips, just to make it really clear. I judge this person not to be of my race and decide to attack them. I am assuming that the genetics of this person are responsible for the observed difference. These are traits that breed true, the genetics underlying skin color are very well understood, including the specific differences in DNA sequence that are responsible (contrary to what GreNME believes). It is not a correlation/causation fallacy. I am not saying that he has black skin because his grandparents lived in Africa. I'm not saying that he has black skin because he speaks a Bantu dialect. Do you understand that this is not a correlation/causation fallacy?

If you understand that it is not a correlation/causation fallacy, then do you also understand that your definition does not apply?

You're not only pretending to be a mind reader as to what I believe, but you're absolutely getting wrong what I said. I said you have the same genes for being black as an average black man would have. You also have the same gene for epicanthic folds as your proverbial Japanese person. The only genetic difference as we know it today is based on appearance due to which of the genes present in everyone is active.

You're also being intellectually dishonest because all you described as different had to do with appearance, and if you're suggesting that in your hypothetical the person attacks the black person because their appearance is different, then you've just supported EGarrett's (and my) point with all your descriptive statements on racial appearance. Bravo.

[GreNME]

If you have a knee-jerk reaction in making an assumption that all Asians are bad drivers or all Asians are good at math, that's stereotyping and a false heuristic the brain is using. It's not immoral or wrong.

Actually, it is wrong, but whether or not it's immoral would be dependent on individual value systems.

[Clippy]

And I asked you before, how is this not a racist action?

You've opted to engage in this action because of some perceived negativity on the other person because they are not of their race, have you not? Going with the definition given later on that you seem to agree with, how is this not then racist?

It is racist, IMO. It's just not racist according to the definition in the OP.

[GreNME]

It is racist, IMO. It's just not racist according to the definition in the OP.

I predict this is segueing into an explanation that somehow the aggression due to perceived ethnic difference is somehow not reliant on any other necessary conclusion in order to attack. In other words, the hypothetical is going to enter the realm of irrational in order to fit Clippy's mental gymnastics.

[LostAngeles]

It is racist, IMO. It's just not racist according to the definition in the OP.

How so? Your hypothetical Japanese person has looked at his victim and for some reason decided to attack him. What possible reason could the attacker have that would not fit the OPs definition?

[Clippy]

You're not only pretending to be a mind reader as to what I believe, but you're absolutely getting wrong what I said. I said you have the same genes for being black as an average black man would have. You also have the same gene for epicanthic folds as your proverbial Japanese person. The only genetic difference as we know it today is based on appearance due to which of the genes present in everyone is active.


Do you understand what is meant by genetic difference? It is a difference in DNA sequence (technically speaking, we could consider epigenetic modifications as genetic differences as well). Contrary to what you said in post #75, and despite whatever your incomprehensible last sentence is trying to convey, the races differ genetically. That is why they are different races. It's just like dog breeds. The differences between a chihuahua and a Great Dane are due to differences in DNA sequence. Differences in DNA sequence are responsible for differences in skin color. Just because they are the same genes does not mean they have the same DNA sequence. Google 'Single Nucleotide Polymorphism'.

[Clippy]

How so? Your hypothetical Japanese person has looked at his victim and for some reason decided to attack him. What possible reason could the attacker have that would not fit the OPs definition?

I'm not interested, at the moment, in giving a definition of racism. I'm only trying (dear Lord, am I trying), to show that the definition in the OP is inadequate. Once there is some consensus on that, we can move on. Please read post #125.

[Clippy]

No, there's not. For example, all that has been established is that many Eastern Europeans who call themselves Jews (identifying themselves as Ashkenazi) tend to have a similar gene. But there are also Eastern Europeans with this gene (like myself, most likely) who don't self-identify as a "Jew", and don't practice the culture or religion.

And obviously, the "diversity" of which you speak is further evidence that "Judaism" is not a race ... you can sample virtually any ethnic population, including the Cohen tribe in Africa, and find a "Jewish gene". Which means Jews encompass many ethnicities, not just one.

So now, as far as the IQ testing issue is concerned in that first study you posted, there is a problem with creating two IQ testing categories that overlap: the so-called "Jewish" test subjects and the Black test subjects, who can be one in the same since at times, there are Black people that have the so-called "Jewish gene" (ex: Cohens, Ethiopians).

It's not due to 'one gene'. While there are typical Jewish diseases, there is no 'Jew Gene'. What you're looking at in that figure is based on over half a million polymorphic markers (i.e. single DNA base pairs that are show variability between people). I have not called Jews a race. They are a diverse ethnic group. Jews and blacks will form very distinct clusters when you cluster based on genotypic data.

[Clippy]

What do you mean by "non-trivial"? And what do you mean "on top"?

i.e. not a test like 'are you male or female?'

on top- higher mean score.


Prove that is a universal motivation. The argument/theory I've heard most frequently is that Black people have been placed at a significant socio-economic disadvantage based on racial politics.

You made a broad controversial statement about the subject of race and IQ at the start of this thread, in the context of a thread title called "A Definition of Racism".

Those who claim genetic causality, when there are still questions about test bias, also appear to have an agenda to push.

I think you need to ease up on the ad hominem attacks. People on this thread apparently aren't in universal agreement on any definition of racism.

I am not going to rehash the evidence for the heritability of IQ. It's boring. I'm sick of doing it. Read the paper I referenced if you want to know more. I don't care if you all believe that the cause of the IQ gap is 100% environmental or due to some racism on the part of the Easter Bunny.

[LostAngeles]

I'm not interested, at the moment, in giving a definition of racism. I'm only trying (dear Lord, am I trying), to show that the definition in the OP is inadequate. Once there is some consensus on that, we can move on. Please read post #125.

I didn't ask you to give a definition. I'm taking issue with your attempt to show that the definition is inadequate. What reasons would your hypothetical attacker have that would not fit the definition?

Supplying that information would help bolster your argument.

[Juniversal]

I am not going to rehash the evidence for the heritability of IQ. It's boring. I'm sick of doing it. Read the paper I referenced if you want to know more. I don't care if you all believe that the cause of the IQ gap is 100% environmental or due to some racism on the part of the Easter Bunny.Hmm..I would think the fact many of us american blacks have a high percentage of white admixture that we would have inherited those "superior intelligence genes" by now. Or does the "dumb black gene" beat the hell out of the supperior intelligence genes? And how do you explain the fact that in South America, a mixture of "super intelligent Asian (i.e. Native American) genes" and "world conquering white (Porteguese, Spanish ect.) genes" suffers from high degree of poverty and crime?

[GreNME]

Do you understand what is meant by genetic difference? It is a difference in DNA sequence (technically speaking, we could consider epigenetic modifications as genetic differences as well). Contrary to what you said in post #75, and despite whatever your incomprehensible last sentence is trying to convey, the races differ genetically. That is why they are different races. It's just like dog breeds. The differences between a chihuahua and a Great Dane are due to differences in DNA sequence. Differences in DNA sequence are responsible for differences in skin color. Just because they are the same genes does not mean they have the same DNA sequence. Google 'Single Nucleotide Polymorphism'.

Thanks, I was hoping you'd go as far astray as to use dog breeds as a comparison. What you're doing is propagating a false correlation, since the genetic drift in dogs is far greater than that of humans of different ethnicities or perceived races. You're so eager to try and display a palpable, measurable difference that you've taken your metaphors to extremes that don't apply to humans.

I'm aware of the aspects of genetics that lead to different colors of skin or other bodily features. There is no science to support any inferences further than that. This is the same genetic science that displays differences of body styles or hair and eye color. What you seem to be doing is trying to bait the conversation into your assertion that behavior is heritable, which 1) is a topic I've already encouraged you to try starting your own topic on and 2) is the only reason you keep bringing your biased understanding of genetics up in the first place. Since I'm not playing along with your baiting and instead pointing out the significant factor in genetics that I know tends to get a rise out of white supremacists (but is otherwise an elementary biological science fact about human genetics).

If you want an actual discussion instead of looking for a reason to post white supremacist literature for your Yockey (http://gnosticliberationfront.com/images/yockey.jpg)-inspired assertions, then make a thread with your actual argument, the data you feel supports the argument, and your conclusion based on the argument. Stop pussy-footing around and playing the victim.

The example you gave in criticism of the OP's definition was faulty, it's been pointed out as such by more than one poster in this thread, and all you've got in defense of it is the "it's genetics" baiting as a response. If it all comes back to the genetics for you, then I strongly urge you to go ahead and start a thread to make your case on it. You keep accusing others of being too stupid to understand what you're saying, when in reality plenty of us comprehend just fine and aren't buying into your baiting the conversation, and we're not simply going to take assertions on their own. Every attempt you've made to argue that your example wasn't making a correlation fallacy involves you basically describing the differences between two people, which are what lead to the correlation fallacy in the first place. Either say what you're trying (and failing) to say, or go the genetics route and start a thread on the implications of ethnic differences (in what? behavior? aggression? storytelling ability? mathematical computation?) based on genetics. At this point, your constant posting about how it's "genetics" makes about as much sense as creationists claiming that it's "macro-evolution" that science doesn't support.

[GreNME]

Hmm..I would think the fact many of us american blacks have a high percentage of white admixture that we would have inherited those "superior intelligence genes" by now. Or does the "dumb black gene" beat the hell out of the supperior intelligence genes? And how do you explain the fact that in South America, a mixture of "super intelligent Asian (i.e. Native American) genes" and "world conquering white (Porteguese, Spanish ect.) genes" suffers from high degree of poverty and crime?

Don't bother falling for his claptrap. I'm white, blonde-haired and have hazel-blue eyes, and I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do with Dennis Leary.

[ProbeX]

It's not due to 'one gene'. While there are typical Jewish diseases, there is no 'Jew Gene'. What you're looking at in that figure is based on over half a million polymorphic markers (i.e. single DNA base pairs that are show variability between people). I have not called Jews a race. They are a diverse ethnic group. Jews and blacks will form very distinct clusters when you cluster based on genotypic data.

You originally offered up a study (Rushton-Jenson) to highlight an assertion about "racial differences in intelligence". But their "ethnically assigned" groups overlap.

That study "found" that "the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans." Of course that's a problematic conclusion, considering that the so-called "ethnic" Jew (derived at by means of genetic testing, as you mentioned) can be found among African American citizens too, some of whom have the Cohen genetic marker, making those Africans Jews as well ... Because as you correctly noted, Jews are a diverse group, ethnically speaking (as are Blacks) :)

[ProbeX]

I am not going to rehash the evidence for the heritability of IQ. It's boring. I'm sick of doing it. Read the paper I referenced if you want to know more. I don't care if you all believe that the cause of the IQ gap is 100% environmental or due to some racism on the part of the Easter Bunny.

Those who claim genetic causality, when there are still questions about test bias (see my statement above) are equally myopic ... as are those who fail to acknowledge complex socio-political or socio-economic factors within the context of the I.Q. issue.

[Juniversal]

Don't bother falling for his claptrap. I'm white, blonde-haired and have hazel-blue eyes, and I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do with Dennis Leary.Yea that's true. There's no arguing with some folks.

[Kahalachan]

Actually, it is wrong, but whether or not it's immoral would be dependent on individual value systems.

I meant wrong as in immoral. Of course it's wrong as in inaccurate.

[EGarrett]

Ok, EGarrett, I'll make one last try to get this into your head. If you knew how embarassing this is for you, you'd be a lot less smug.Take your best shot. Your example and it's weakness was obvious to me the moment I saw it.

So let's start from the very beginning. I'll take it really slow and ask questions. When you reply, please answer the questions.

Here is your definition of racism:

You are talking about a correlation/causation fallacy that incorrectly attributes the cause of an observed difference to genetic background. Yes?That's part of the definition, yes.

If someone is not commiting this fallacy, it does not qualify as racism, according to your defintion (" The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption."). Correct?Okay.

Now let's suppose that I am Japanese and I see someone who has black skin. And, as I mentioned before, let's also say that this person has an afro, as well as everted lips, just to make it really clear.Not needed.

I judge this person not to be of my race and decide to attack them.What about their race, or their appearance, or just the fact that they are different than you, leads you to think you should attack them?

Answer this question, it is very, very important.

I am assuming that the genetics of this person are responsible for the observed difference.But you are attacking them because of a belief about that difference. If you have no beliefs about the difference and you attack anyway, then what you are proposing is a non-sequitur. Equivalent to proclaiming that you destroyed a painting because yesterday was Wednesday. It is effectively a random attack because there is NO logic that supports it, and one motivation makes no difference compared to any other.

These are traits that breed true, the genetics underlying skin color are very well understood, including the specific differences in DNA sequence that are responsible (contrary to what GreNME believes). It is not a correlation/causation fallacy. I am not saying that he has black skin because his grandparents lived in Africa. I'm not saying that he has black skin because he speaks a Bantu dialect. Do you understand that this is not a correlation/causation fallacy?This is you going off on a tangent because you're trying to prove that genetics can cause differences in appearance, and not realizing that your own example fails because there is actually no logic behind the attack at all if there is no underlying belief about the difference in appearance.

And BTW, the 'personal attack' that was censored was not, IMO, anything more than an objective assessment of your mental abilities and psychological state. I'm sorry that Cuddles felt the need to censor it, but I won't argue about it- it's not my house.I'll make sure the Mods see this also.

Now, the important question, again:

What about their race, or their appearance, or just the fact that they are different than you, leads you to think you should attack them?

Don't say "just because they are different." Everyone on the planet is different than you in some way. Cars and computers are different than you and you don't go around breaking them. What about their race, or their appearance, or just the fact that they are different than you, leads you to think you should attack them? Why should someone like that be attacked?

[EGarrett]

I predict this is segueing into an explanation that somehow the aggression due to perceived ethnic difference is somehow not reliant on any other necessary conclusion in order to attack. In other words, the hypothetical is going to enter the realm of irrational in order to fit Clippy's mental gymnastics.How so? Your hypothetical Japanese person has looked at his victim and for some reason decided to attack him. What possible reason could the attacker have that would not fit the OPs definition?Both GreNME and LostAngeles understand the exact thing I'm trying to show you.

I think you're lying. I want to see examples of you debating White supremacists. Prove me wrong.I googled EGarrett racism and it was very easy.

Here's one thread that contains links to previous threads...

http://208.90.154.147/showpost.php?p=5392693&postcount=24

And some Mensa threads...if you're a member you can open them right up. Are you, Clippy?

http://www.community.us.mensa.org/forums/p/2326/46589.aspx#46589
http://www.community.us.mensa.org/forums/t/3140.aspx?PageIndex=5
http://www.community.us.mensa.org/forums/p/1384/108412.aspx#108412

I don't feel like going through my whole post history there to find them all.

[Clippy]

Hmm..I would think the fact many of us american blacks have a high percentage of white admixture that we would have inherited those "superior intelligence genes" by now. Or does the "dumb black gene" beat the hell out of the supperior intelligence genes? And how do you explain the fact that in South America, a mixture of "super intelligent Asian (i.e. Native American) genes" and "world conquering white (Porteguese, Spanish ect.) genes" suffers from high degree of poverty and crime?

American blacks have ~20% White admixture. This admixture is likely part of the reason for the large difference in average IQ between sub-Saharan Africans and African Americans (~70 vs. ~85). A lot of the remaining disparity is almost certainly due to poorer nutrition in Africa.

As to whether White alleles contributing to higher IQ will spread through the American black population, this depends largely on selection pressure.

Look up the mean IQ for native Americans and East Asians and you'll be able to figure out for yourself why your theory is wrong.

Please don't ask me any more questions about IQ. I am not interested in discussing it any more. Thank you.

[Clippy]

Those who claim genetic causality, when there are still questions about test bias (see my statement above) are equally myopic ... as are those who fail to acknowledge complex socio-political or socio-economic factors within the context of the I.Q. issue.

You have questions about test bias. The subject has been studied to death. It cannot explain the gap. You are also creating a straw man. No one who's serious denies the existence of complex SP/SE factors. Those are my last words on this topic.

[Clippy]

You originally offered up a study (Rushton-Jenson) to highlight an assertion about "racial differences in intelligence". But their "ethnically assigned" groups overlap.

That study "found" that "the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans." Of course that's a problematic conclusion, considering that the so-called "ethnic" Jew (derived at by means of genetic testing, as you mentioned) can be found among African American citizens too, some of whom have the Cohen genetic marker, making those Africans Jews as well ... Because as you correctly noted, Jews are a diverse group, ethnically speaking (as are Blacks) :)

Races and ethnic groups are fuzzy sets. There are genetic estuaries, or clines, where you will find some overlap in genotypes. If you want to say that this makes the concepts of race and ethnicity meaningless, go ahead. This is the standard argument for race denial.

[Clippy]

Don't bother falling for his claptrap. I'm white, blonde-haired and have hazel-blue eyes, and I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do with Dennis Leary.

You might as well be a 6 year-old talking about quantum physics. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even understand what is meant by genetic differences.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

[Clippy]

Thanks, I was hoping you'd go as far astray as to use dog breeds as a comparison. What you're doing is propagating a false correlation, since the genetic drift in dogs is far greater than that of humans of different ethnicities or perceived races. You're so eager to try and display a palpable, measurable difference that you've taken your metaphors to extremes that don't apply to humans.

How can you understand the definition in the OP when you don't even know the difference between correlation and analogy? The point of mentioning dog breeds was to show that differences in gene sequence can lead to very different phenotypes. Something that you don't understand. According to you, there are no genetic differences between members of a species. You are truly clueless.

[Clippy]

What about their race, or their appearance, or just the fact that they are different than you, leads you to think you should attack them?

Answer this question, it is very, very important.

My motivation for attacking someone of a different race is completely irrelevant for your definition. What matters is whether I have committed a correlation/causation fallacy in attributing the cause of an observed difference to genetics.

Your definition, again:

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

Your definition is about the cause of the observed differences, not the cause for wanting to attack someone of another race. Look at your examples. Why I want to attack someone from a different race does not matter. All that matters is that I am correct in attributing the observed differences to a genetic cause.

If you still don't understand this, then let's just agree to stop here. It is a complete waste of time to continue.

[GreNME]

You might as well be a 6 year-old talking about quantum physics. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even understand what is meant by genetic differences.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

Yes, you keep saying this to everyone who points out that the "differences" you're claiming aren't really differences, but variations on the same genetic materials. That you keep using the term "genetic difference" instead of "genetic variation" shows just how much you're fiddling with the data and stopping just short of making any positive claims based on the information you present. It also clearly shows why you're insisting on derailing this thread instead of starting your own, so you avoid accusations of cherry-picking information out of their context (or citing publications like the white supremacist link earlier that does so for you).

How can you understand the definition in the OP when you don't even know the difference between correlation and analogy? The point of mentioning dog breeds was to show that differences in gene sequence can lead to very different phenotypes. Something that you don't understand. According to you, there are no genetic differences between members of a species. You are truly clueless.

Not so clueless to know the typical white supremacy tactic of using words like "genetic difference" instead of "genetic variation" when talking about phenotypes. I was pointing out that your analogy is poor because the types of genetic variation in dogs is nowhere even close to analogous to the variation in humans. Even more indicative that your example is poor is: though dogs have experienced thousands and thousands of years of forced developmental segregation of certain traits, numerous different breeds of dog actually share the same phenotypes, which is quite counter-intuitive to the point you're trying to make. For example, the Irish wolfhound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Wolfhound) and the Italian greyhound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Greyhound) share more than one phenotype despite their differences in coat, size, and even life span. To be fair, you could point out that today's Irish wolfhounds share so many phenotypes with so many different dog breeds because the breed itself was 'reconstructed' by using many various other breeds, but I doubt you'd be keen on pointing that detail out because it also refutes your claims of "difference" in the species when this specific breed's phenotypes were specifically 'rebuilt' using the other breeds in the same species. Trust me, Clippy, you'd do best to use a different analogy in this case, considering the genetic variation in dogs is 1) artificial, 2) actually has more overlap than your simple observation suggests, and 3) are all simply variations on the same basic (but very elastic) set that isn't representative of non-domestic animal species (or humans).

Oh, I guess I should mention that my better half is involved with dog breeding and has a network worldwide of people who have published works on the topic of genetic markers in more than one dog breed. Yep, totally clueless.

Go ahead and start your thread on genetic variation and actually make your statements on what this means regarding race, Clippy. Show us how little we all understand about genetics compared to your understanding. Prove to us you're not barking up the wrong tree here (pun intended). Have the intellectual honesty to put forth your positive claims for once instead of beating around the proverbial (or rhetorical) bush.

[ProbeX]

American blacks have ~20% White admixture.

What a ridiculous assertion. Prove it (with more than one or two studies). American Black people are mixed beyond belief at this time.

[ProbeX]

You have questions about test bias. The subject has been studied to death. It cannot explain the gap. You are also creating a straw man. No one who's serious denies the existence of complex SP/SE factors. Those are my last words on this topic.

No, many people have questions about test bias, as they should. And it's important that it be studied "to death", always. You can't just assume tests are always set up to measure what they proport to measure. In fact, you offered no decent logical rebuttal to the valid problems I found with the Rushton-Jenson study. None whatsoever. Just the words "straw man". No specific feedback to my valid concerns about the study.

Races and ethnic groups are fuzzy sets. There are genetic estuaries, or clines, where you will find some overlap in genotypes. If you want to say that this makes the concepts of race and ethnicity meaningless, go ahead. This is the standard argument for race denial.

Good, now we're getting somewhere. A major flaw in studies like the RJ I.Q. study is that, from the start, there is an attempt made to define ethnic groups singularly, even though, as you admit, "races and ethnic groups are fuzzy sets". That is not a small problem when attempting to quantify then contrast/compare I.Q.s from one alleged ethnic group to the next, in a formal study. As noted, there are Blacks with a so-called "Jewish" gene, but they will only be categorized as one or the other.

[GreNME]

What a ridiculous assertion. Prove it (with more than one or two studies). American Black people are mixed beyond belief at this time.

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

[ProbeX]

He can't prove it.

I think you're right Grenme, it will be hard for him/her to present necessary evidence to back that 20% assertion. But it will be interesting to see how s/he attempts to back it.

Am not here to gang up on anyone, but it just seems like sweeping claims - made by anyone - deserve scrutiny.

[Juniversal]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/julphotobucket1/11092503_BG2.jpg

Believe it or not this man is bi-racial (University of Cincinnati President)..^ And oddly enough he considers himself African-American lol.

http://www.uc.edu/slideshow/UC27President/

Author of three books and a number of articles and book reviews, Williams is best known for his award-winning and best selling memoir, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy Who Discovered He Was Black. As a result of his autobiography, he has been featured on a number of national programs including “Oprah,” “Dateline NBC with Tom Brokaw,” “Larry King Live,” ABC's “Nightline with Ted Koppel” and “Fresh Air with Terri Gross” of National Public Radio.

http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=10609

[EGarrett]

My motivation for attacking someone of a different race is completely irrelevant for your definition. What matters is whether I have committed a correlation/causation fallacy in attributing the cause of an observed difference to genetics.

Your definition, again:

Your definition is about the cause of the observed differences, not the cause for wanting to attack someone of another race. Look at your examples. Why I want to attack someone from a different race does not matter. All that matters is that I am correct in attributing the observed differences to a genetic cause.

If you still don't understand this, then let's just agree to stop here. It is a complete waste of time to continue.It's not a waste of time. This is an important question, and 3 people, all of whom understand the definition, have asked you this same question. It demonstrates exactly the problem with your claim.

It's obvious though that you are trying to avoid answering the question, since you've tried to avoid answering it about 5 times, and have fallen back into name-calling and the like. So it's very clear that your point doesn't hold much water. I've seen it before.

[bpesta22]

I'm not claiming that black/white IQ differences are genetic, but I think it's wrong to raise the bar so high for definitions of race.

Sure, mixed race people exist. Sure, the amount of DNA overlap among all "races" is massive. But, it's not 100% (small differences in DNA between humans and chimps lead to pretty big differences across the two species-- a common argument I've heard used against creationists).

And, there are measurable individual differences in how african or how white one is (clustering studies that have been cited here a few times).

In other words, I don't think the gene/iq people are claiming that people are only black or only white (instead, the claim seems to be that people can be placed along a continuum with reasonable but less than perfect accuracy).

Rushton and Jensen define black as people whose ancestors came primarily from Africa, etc. Assume for argument that race is indeed a genetically meaningful construct. R&J's definition would be inadequate because it would not map 1:1 with the biological definition of race (again, assuming for argument that races exist). But, it wouldn't be worthless.

A point I've made before is that IF race has a genetic basis, then self reports of race (or eyeball classifications) will likely correlate strongly with the genetics. So much so, that using the former as a crude measure of the latter will be valid to some degree.

I would like to be convinced that race is purely social, but I haven't seen anyone address these points.

So, is it possible that race is indeed a fuzzy genetic construct-- no black/white divisions, but a continuum along which people can be labeled based on the degree of clustering that can be traced back to ancestors of differing geographical areas?

Does something need to be defined with 100% precision to have any scientific merit?

I made an analogy to handedness in a prior thread. We're not left or right handed (handedness is not a dichotomy), but a continuum exists with extremely left handed on one end to extremely right handed on the other.

People can be rank ordered reliably on the continuum, and the rank ordering predicts certain things (never perfectly, but often accurately enough to be of scientific interest).

If we substituted black-white for left-right, what logical problems arise?

The continuum would be the degree to which your genetics matches the cluster for ancestors from africa versus from europe.

What would be the problems with this approach?

[GreNME]

bpesta, I don't think it's a matter of setting any bar for race any higher. If anything, the only person insisting on doing so is Clippy so far (trying to emphasize variations in sequence as more significant than they actually are).

[Juniversal]

American blacks have ~20% White admixture. This admixture is likely part of the reason for the large difference in average IQ between sub-Saharan Africans and African Americans (~70 vs. ~85). A lot of the remaining disparity is almost certainly due to poorer nutrition in Africa.

As to whether White alleles contributing to higher IQ will spread through the American black population, this depends largely on selection pressure.

Look up the mean IQ for native Americans and East Asians and you'll be able to figure out for yourself why your theory is wrong.

Please don't ask me any more questions about IQ. I am not interested in discussing it any more. Thank you.Your argument is essentially that blacks do recieve the genes (from the white ancestors) but whether or not they stay within the population is dependent on natural selection, where given time any undesirable or useless genes will be bred out of the population? Even if that was the case, we know that enough time hasn't passed for natural selection to adversely effect our genome (over the past several hundred years) to breed out any undesirable or useless genes.

Sure, mixed race people exist. Sure, the amount of DNA overlap among all "races" is massive. But, it's not 100% (small differences in DNA between humans and chimps lead to pretty big differences across the two species-- a common argument I've heard used against creationists).I've also seen that argument used by racist as an attempt to aggrandize the apparent unseen diffferences between populations. Essentially "If there's only a few percent seperating us from chimps then it could be an incredibly small difference that serperates the current human populations from each other". Not to say the statement has no logic or credence to it but to what extent is the question. But of course the supremacist use it to push their supperiority agenda. As it pertains to intelligence and otherwise.

I would like to be convinced that race is purely social, but I haven't seen anyone address these points.

So, is it possible that race is indeed a fuzzy genetic construct-- no black/white divisions, but a continuum along which people can be labeled based on the degree of clustering that can be traced back to ancestors of differing geographical areas?

Does something need to be defined with 100% precision to have any scientific merit?To me that's of little importance. What is more meaningful to me is that we're all members of the homo sapiens sapiens species. But depending on the definition i'd say it does exist in the context of the definition itself.

I paticularly like this definition..

Race -

an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.

Arbitrary being the important quantifier because the question then arises which group constitutes a race? Do Australian Aboriginals differ enough from Africans to be considered an entirely different "race"? Where do populations with a high degree of admixture fall? And so on and and so forth. There's clearly no 100% concrete way to define race within human populations.

[atavisms]

racism and intolerance are taught.

The entire thing is flawed because it is based on a concept that has no true basis in reality; race.
The differences between us are incidental. Fact is, no matter how different any other person on the planet may look physically from you, they can never be more than a 50th cousin of yours! (and often closer)

[GreNME]

I've also seen that argument used by racist as an attempt to aggrandize the apparent unseen diffferences between populations. Essentially "If there's only a few percent seperating us from chimps then it could be an incredibly small difference that serperates the current human populations from each other". Not to say the statement has no logic or credence to it but to what extent is the question. But of course the supremacist use it to push their supperiority agenda. As it pertains to intelligence and otherwise.

That argument (the thing about chimps) is one I recall hearing about 20-25 years ago. While I don't doubt it's still bouncing about, those passing that one off as a good argument are obviously ignorant about species taxonomy or genetics. No, it has no credence-- there aren't humans that are closer in an evolutionary sense to chimps than everyone else (unless we're talking atavisms with very strange mutations). The differences we (humans) see in each other are mostly superficial, and the variation we can measure, as bpesta points out, lies mostly along the lineage of societies as they spread around the planet. For the most part, this is one of the more notable things current understanding of the human genome has provided us outside of the medical field.

[ProbeX]

I'm not claiming that black/white IQ differences are genetic, but I think it's wrong to raise the bar so high for definitions of race.

It's sloppy, poor research and definitely not scientifically sound to set up a study (ex: Rushton and Jenson) whereby the nominal assignments for each test group overlap (White, Jewish, Black), and then attempt to compare and contrast the results from each of the test groups as if each group were homegenous in nature. The bar ought to remain higher than this ... especially considering the implications of such a study's supposed findings.

[Clippy]

American blacks have ~20% White admixture.

What a ridiculous assertion. Prove it (with more than one or two studies). American Black people are mixed beyond belief at this time.

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

I think you're right Grenme, it will be hard for him/her to present necessary evidence to back that 20% assertion. But it will be interesting to see how s/he attempts to back it.

Am not here to gang up on anyone, but it just seems like sweeping claims - made by anyone - deserve scrutiny.

You mean a sweeping claim like 'American blacks have ~20% White admixture', as opposed to 'American Black people are mixed beyond belief at this time'? LOL

For the 96 AFA [African-American] individuals, the mean EURA [European-American] contribution to the autosomal chromosomes was similar with use of least-square and MCMC algorithms: least square (SE) 0.211 (0.003), STRUCTURE 0.216 (0.015), and ADMIXMAP 0.216 (0.016). The X chromosome showed a smaller European contribution (least-means square 0.136).

Am J Hum Genet. 2006 October; 79(4): 640–649.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16960800

EAs had the lowest non-European admixture with both methods, but showed greater homogeneity with STRUCTURE than with ML. All other samples showed a high degree of variation in admixture estimates with both methods, were highly concordant, and showed evidence of admixture stratification. With both methods, AA subjects had on average, 16% European and <10% Indigenous American admixture.

Hum Mutat. 2009 Sep;30(9):1299-309.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19572378

The mean proportions (± SEs) of African, European, and Native American ancestry, estimated for the cohort [African-Americans, n=810] as a whole, were 76.4 ± 0.6%, 20.9 ± 1.2%, and 2.7 ± 1.6%, respectively.

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 March; 76(3): 463–477.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196398

ProbeX, next time, before you act all incredulous, why don't you do some basic research. There are plently of HBD blogs where you can pick up these basics (gnxp.com, isteve.blogspot.com, dienekes.blogspot.com).

Yes, GreNME, you are clueless. Don't you ever get embarassed?

[Clippy]

A point I've made before is that IF race has a genetic basis, then self reports of race (or eyeball classifications) will likely correlate strongly with the genetics. So much so, that using the former as a crude measure of the latter will be valid to some degree.

And this is indeed the case:

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). 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. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Feb;76(2):268-75

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15625622

I would like to be convinced that race is purely social

Do you mean that you're open to being convinced of that, or you would prefer that that was the case? If the latter, why?

[Clippy]

It's not a waste of time. This is an important question, and 3 people, all of whom understand the definition, have asked you this same question. It demonstrates exactly the problem with your claim.

It's obvious though that you are trying to avoid answering the question, since you've tried to avoid answering it about 5 times, and have fallen back into name-calling and the like. So it's very clear that your point doesn't hold much water. I've seen it before.

Yes, EGarrett, it is quite obviously a waste of time. And whatever the color, you have about the thinnest skin I've encountered on this forum. Go complain to the Mods again, see if I care.

As has been said to you, over, and over, and over, and over, without it sinking into that brain of yours: the only cause that matters for your definition is the cause of the observed differences. The reason I attack someone of another race could be as simple as I want to discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood, or I have a violent hatred for those not of my race. My motivation is not relevant. Your definition requires that my assumption about the cause of the observed differences (skin color, afro, everted lips) is wrong. As long as it is not incorrect, your definition does not apply. Your definition failed. Deal with it.

[Clippy]

Yes, you keep saying this to everyone who points out that the "differences" you're claiming aren't really differences, but variations on the same genetic materials.

Sequence variation results in ___________.

Spare us the sophistry.

And please don't pretend you don't understand why I used the dog breed anology. Although maybe I shouldn't assume you're pretending.

[Clippy]

How's this for sophistry?

It doesn't matter, actually. The ultimate cause is always going to be environment, not race. After all, environment dictates the selection pressures, and selection pressures dictate how life forms develop. Thus, referring to race as a cause or using language that implies race is the cause is pretty much always going to be inaccurate and fallacious.

:jaw-dropp

[GreNME]

Sequence variation results in ___________.

Spare us the sophistry.

And please don't pretend you don't understand why I used the dog breed anology. Although maybe I shouldn't assume you're pretending.

I already pointed out why dog breeds are not only a poor analogy but also prove your implied assertions of genetic distinctions incorrect (there are huge amounts of phenotypical overlap despite outward appearances).
But yes, it's sophistry when your assertions are challenged to make a positive argument-- which you've still yet to do-- but when you play games trying to promote a flawed argument you're obviously in the right. To wit:
As has been said to you, over, and over, and over, and over, without it sinking into that brain of yours: the only cause that matters for your definition is the cause of the observed differences. The reason I attack someone of another race could be as simple as I want to discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood, or I have a violent hatred for those not of my race. My motivation is not relevant. Your definition requires that my assumption about the cause of the observed differences (skin color, afro, everted lips) is wrong. As long as it is not incorrect, your definition does not apply. Your definition failed. Deal with it.

The underlined portion directly confirms EGarrett's definition in the original post, and the highlighted text gets the wording (and meaning) of the OP's definition completely backwards. Your assertions of EGarrett's definition failing have no basis in logic, no matter how many times you say the same (incorrect) thing over and over.

Oh, and to answer your word-game: "Sequence variation results in a mixture of possible outcomes ranging from wild mutation or atavism (extreme cases) to little or no discernible change (typical parent-child-sibling variation)." There's a known range, that much is well understood. All you have to do now is make a positive argument that attributes some value within that range that is useful or applicable to the topic of this thread (or simply start a new one). You have thus far failed to make any such positive argument, and have yet to convince me that you're even capable of such based on the assertions you've put forward so far. The only link you've provided making a positive argument has a known bias (as an AmRen-sponsored document), and far from making any positive arguments yourself (well, unless we count your avatar picture of Francis Yockey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey)), you seem to expect us to address your links as if they are an argument themselves. Whether or not that's what you expect, the fact remains that you continue to fail at making any positive argument with regard to these dips into genetics in your posts, which continue to be a distraction to the topic of the original post.

[Clippy]

The underlined portion directly confirms EGarrett's definition in the original post, and the highlighted text gets the wording (and meaning) of the OP's definition completely backwards. Your assertions of EGarrett's definition failing have no basis in logic, no matter how many times you say the same (incorrect) thing over and over.

What is the cause of the observed differences?

[Clippy]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in a madhouse. Could someone, besides GreNME or EGarrett (maybe bpesta?), make a comment on post #125?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5118421&postcount=125

[Clippy]

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

And let's see your evidence for this claim.

[stevea]

racism and intolerance are taught.

Ahh yes - the Rodgers & Hammerstein thesis. How is making an unsupported statement part of a debate ? How about "racism is caused by a marigolds" ?

Filling in the blanks, I think you are wrong. I suspect that the only thing necessary is individuals harbor a distrust of strangers who are different not based on any specific evidence of untrustworthiness. Very young infants often have a clear negative reaction to the faces of strangers, so it's improbable that this reaction to the unfamiliar is entirely taught.

Fact is, no matter how different any other person on the planet may look physically from you, they can never be more than a 50th cousin of yours! (and often closer)

That's not a fact - it's just ridiculous hyperbole. Do you really think that New Guinea natives and an Amerind natives must all share a common ancestor in the past ~2000 years ?

[GreNME]

The underlined portion directly confirms EGarrett's definition in the original post, and the highlighted text gets the wording (and meaning) of the OP's definition completely backwards. Your assertions of EGarrett's definition failing have no basis in logic, no matter how many times you say the same (incorrect) thing over and over.
What is the cause of the observed differences?

You're still getting it precisely backwards. You already defined the possible causes of the attack-- "The reason I attack someone of another race could be as simple as I want to discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood, or I have a violent hatred for those not of my race."-- and that is what's defined in the original post. Your attempts to try to avoid this are you trying to weasel out of your own damning logic. Your attempts at evasion by trying to imply some inherent justification for the "reason I attack someone of another race" are just you trying to dig yourself out of the rhetorical hole you've created. Feel free to keep digging.

I'm starting to feel like I'm in a madhouse. Could someone, besides GreNME or EGarrett (maybe bpesta?), make a comment on post #125?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5118421&postcount=125

already have (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5120293#post5120293). More avoidance of actually providing a positive argument on your part. Go ahead and evade some more.

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.
And let's see your evidence for this claim.

Okay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4499665/Genetic-Similarities-Within-and-Between-Human-Populations):

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analys is focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."

You'll have to read the whole article for a full explanation (it's on PubMed (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020) as well[/url]), as it provides both the longer explanation and the math. It doesn't argue that distinctions can't be made between ethnic groups, but that even disregarding admixture the similarities are more prevalent that the "ethnic genetic interests" crowd likes to admit. Including obvious admixture-- as more and more communication and fast travel becomes possible, geographic distance and isolation becomes less a factor-- and the fact that both men were born on the same continent as myself, the likelihood of genetic similarities to both Malcom X and Dennis Leary would be increased.

Now, care to actually make a positive argument yourself on your assertions of genetics? I made a positive assertion, you challenged it, and I provided evidence to back it up. Now that I've shown you how to do it, why don't you go ahead and make your own positive assertion or argument? I don't actually expect you to, and instead I expect you to either try to poke holes (or negative arguments) or assert that variations are more important (or arguments from gaps), but I don't rule out the possibility that you could do something different than you have been and actually make a positive argument.

Your choice.

[Clippy]

GreNME, answer this question:

What is the cause of the observed differences?


You're still getting it precisely backwards. You already defined the possible causes of the attack-- "The reason I attack someone of another race could be as simple as I want to discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood, or I have a violent hatred for those not of my race."-- and that is what's defined in the original post. Your attempts to try to avoid this are you trying to weasel out of your own damning logic. Your attempts at evasion by trying to imply some inherent justification for the "reason I attack someone of another race" are just you trying to dig yourself out of the rhetorical hole you've created. Feel free to keep digging.

The definition from the OP:

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Which action comes first?

Where is the correlation/causation fallacy in my example? Don't forget the question at the top.

[GreNME]

Which action comes first?

The part you seem to have ignored: "where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities..."

Where is the correlation/causation fallacy in my example? Don't forget the question at the top.

That answer would lie in your comments about wanting to "discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood" or "violent hatred for those not of my race."

Go ahead and keep on digging, Clippy.

[bpesta22]

Assuming it's not a derail to keep on the IQ theme (lemme know if it is and I will shut up). I've met both Rushton and Jensen and have read lots of their stuff. Whether they're right or wrong is certainly up for debate, but I don't at all see their work as sloppy. They wouldn't be publishing in the journals they publish in were it that bad (note: bad with regard to research methods and design; not whether their arguments are correct/incorrect).

[ProbeX]

You mean a sweeping claim like 'American blacks have ~20% White admixture', as opposed to 'American Black people are mixed beyond belief at this time'? LOL

You're correct: it is quite a generalization. Was is your evidence for your "20%" claim for "American Blacks"? Thanks.

[ProbeX]

Assuming it's not a derail to keep on the IQ theme (lemme know if it is and I will shut up). I've met both Rushton and Jensen and have read lots of their stuff. Whether they're right or wrong is certainly up for debate, but I don't at all see their work as sloppy. They wouldn't be publishing in the journals they publish in were it that bad (note: bad with regard to research methods and design; not whether their arguments are correct/incorrect).

The study presented on this thread is problematic for the reason I mentioned. I'm speaking to a very basic flaw in test design. Please debate the specifics of that flaw (see above) if you think this is "up for debate". Thanks.

[GreNME]

The study presented on this thread is problematic for the reason I mentioned. I'm speaking to a very basic flaw in test design. Please debate the specifics of that flaw (see above) if you think this is "up for debate". Thanks.

I still think a debate along those lines would be useful in their own thread, and would have a better chance of getting more input on the topic.

[ProbeX]

I'll give Clippy (or Bpesta) one more chance to defend the "20%" claim and the flaw I mentioned in the Rushton and Jenson study. If that fails, I'll either create a separate thread or call it quits. Hopefully that works for all of you guys (including Clippy/Bpesta) and the moderator.

[LostAngeles]

I'm starting to feel like I'm in a madhouse. Could someone, besides GreNME or EGarrett (maybe bpesta?), make a comment on post #125?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5118421&postcount=125

I did. I've done this several times.

...

Does Clippy have me on ignore or something?

[Juniversal]

That argument (the thing about chimps) is one I recall hearing about 20-25 years ago. While I don't doubt it's still bouncing about, those passing that one off as a good argument are obviously ignorant about species taxonomy or genetics. No, it has no credence-- there aren't humans that are closer in an evolutionary sense to chimps than everyone else (unless we're talking atavisms with very strange mutations). The differences we (humans) see in each other are mostly superficial, and the variation we can measure, as bpesta points out, lies mostly along the lineage of societies as they spread around the planet. For the most part, this is one of the more notable things current understanding of the human genome has provided us outside of the medical field.Yea I agree.

[Clippy]

The part you seem to have ignored: "where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities..."

What was being referred to by 'those differences' in the part I highlighted?

That answer would lie in your comments about wanting to "discourage them from frequenting my neighbourhood" or "violent hatred for those not of my race."

Go ahead and keep on digging, Clippy.

These are not correlation/causation fallacies.

This person has black skin because his grandparents were from Africa is a correlation/causation fallacy.

This person has black skin because he speaks a Bantu dialect is a correlation/causation fallacy.

Read the examples with the definition in the OP for more examples.

[Clippy]

GreNME, you keep avoiding my question.

What is the cause of the observed differences in my example?

[Clippy]

I did. I've done this several times.

...

Does Clippy have me on ignore or something?

No, I am not ignoring you. I think any questions you had are answered in #173.

[Clippy]

You're correct: it is quite a generalization. Was is your evidence for your "20%" claim for "American Blacks"? Thanks.

Did you even read my post?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5126441&postcount=171

[Clippy]

Okay (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4499665/Genetic-Similarities-Within-and-Between-Human-Populations):

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analys is focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race."

You'll have to read the whole article for a full explanation (it's on PubMed (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020) as well[/url]), as it provides both the longer explanation and the math. It doesn't argue that distinctions can't be made between ethnic groups, but that even disregarding admixture the similarities are more prevalent that the "ethnic genetic interests" crowd likes to admit. Including obvious admixture-- as more and more communication and fast travel becomes possible, geographic distance and isolation becomes less a factor-- and the fact that both men were born on the same continent as myself, the likelihood of genetic similarities to both Malcom X and Dennis Leary would be increased.

Now, care to actually make a positive argument yourself on your assertions of genetics? I made a positive assertion, you challenged it, and I provided evidence to back it up. Now that I've shown you how to do it, why don't you go ahead and make your own positive assertion or argument? I don't actually expect you to, and instead I expect you to either try to poke holes (or negative arguments) or assert that variations are more important (or arguments from gaps), but I don't rule out the possibility that you could do something different than you have been and actually make a positive argument.

Your choice.

Did you understand the paper that you referenced?

They speak of ω remaining 'sizable' with 100 loci. Do you have any idea what percentage of overall variation that represents?

It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

It actually refutes your wild claim. LOL

[Clippy]

the fact that both men were born on the same continent as myself, the liklihood of genetic similarities to both Malcom X and Dennis Leary would be increased.

Here you go, GreNME, an example of a correlation/causation fallacy. Good job!!

[GreNME]

What was being referred to by 'those differences' in the part I highlighted?

Why do you insist on only highlighting half a sentence when the sentence is only meaningful as a whole? Therein lies your mistake.

These are not correlation/causation fallacies.

This person has black skin because his grandparents were from Africa is a correlation/causation fallacy.

This person has black skin because he speaks a Bantu dialect is a correlation/causation fallacy.

Read the examples with the definition in the OP for more examples.

More intellectual dishonesty from you. The two "reasons" you posted that I pointed out were conclusions and not reasons, and when one examines how someone would come to those conclusions-- whether it's the conclusion of not wanting someone of a different ethnicity in their neighborhood or simply hating that ethnicity outright-- you have your fallacy. That you insist on skipping over these things and assert you're correct just shows your intellectual dishonesty. The idea to not want someone in one's own neighborhood requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is undesirable (thus, the fallacy). The hatred of an ethnicity requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is to be hated (thus the fallacy). Your intentional skipping over of the logical progression that includes the fallacy from the OP is where your example falls flat on its face. That is why you fail.

GreNME, you keep avoiding my question.

What is the cause of the observed differences in my example?

The funny thing here is that, in the process of arguing so vehemently in favor of your example, you've gone ahead and produced the very same correlation-causation fallacy you're arguing has nothing to do with your example. Whatever fantasy planet you live on that doesn't require a human being to follow a logical path to conclude that they don't want a member of a different group in their neighborhood, or just conclude that they hate that entire group, is not representative of the real world. Your insistence that it's the membership to different groups that are the cause of the proposed (hypothetical) assault and not the reasoning behind the motives that you have provided yourself is quite plainly a case of you using the very same correlation-causation fallacy you're opposing to try to make an argument.

It's funny because you're failing so spectacularly, and with such zeal.

Did you understand the paper that you referenced?

They speak of ω remaining 'sizable' with 100 loci. Do you have any idea what percentage of overall variation that represents?

I have the idea that you're conflating individual variation with group variation, which this paper explains can be shown as wrong. Nice to see that you continue to claim understanding while at the same time clearly identifying your confirmation bias.

It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
It actually refutes your wild claim. LOL

No, it points out that Richard Lewontin wasn't completely wrong, despite the argument against (popularized by Anthony WF Edwards) about how increasing the numbers draws the likelihood of similarities to zero (which also isn't incorrect). However, it also points out that this only works when using distinct groups and exclude admixed and integrating subsets of the groups, at which point the likelihood does not reach zero. If you'd have read the paper instead of trying to reinterpret things based on cherry-picking the abstract text, you would understand as much.

the fact that both men were born on the same continent as myself, the liklihood of genetic similarities to both Malcom X and Dennis Leary would be increased.
Here you go, GreNME, an example of a correlation/causation fallacy. Good job!!

Yes, good job indeed. You didn't even bother to actually read the paper itself, did you? From the paper:

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, Cc remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero."

Do I really need to explain what "admixed" and "geographically intermediate" mean? The entirety of the paper is more complex than that, but you seem to be determined to redefine what the paper is actually saying to try to fit it into your limited understanding of genetics regarding distinction and variation.

At this point all you're doing is sticking to your wacky version of genetics as a derail from your spectacularly failed example attempting to refute the OP's definition. If you want a thorough debate on what that paper actually says then feel free to start a thread on it-- I'll be happy to embarrass you over there as well. I pointed out a published paper that basically had the gist of what I said, though I know precisely why I have specific genetic similarities to the two men I mentioned-- we all three have (or had) a touch o' the Irish and have a specific genetic marker that is quite distinct: red hair. Both the other men had(or have) that distinct genetic marker on the tops of their heads, while mine is only evident in my facial hair (I'm dirty blonde up top), but considering the infrequency of that particular phenotype (1% or 2% of the entire human population, slightly higher for Western Europeans) as well as my own study of Malcom X's life (he openly stated he had Irish ancestry more than once). Getting a rise out of you in the thread by saying it seems to have been a fringe benefit.

Your example against the original post's definition has failed. Your attempts to derail have shown your tendency toward confirmation bias and limited understanding of the subjects you try to derail with, and you've now reached the point where you're just repeating assertions and trying to further the derail on genetics to hide the failure of your example. I don't actually expect someone who thinks a picture of Francis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey) Yockey (http://gnosticliberationfront.com/images/yockey.jpg) (clipped to hide the face) is a suitable forum avatar image to admit fault on an issue like this, particularly since you've proselytized your AmRen "study" more than once on the forum already (yet still can't seem to produce a positive argument of your own based on it). I did expect at least a bit more creativity than you've displayed-- at this point your arguments are about the same in structure and form to that of Creationists, trying to use scientific terminologies but never actually making a distinct positive argument of your own.

Keep on digging, Clippy.

[Clippy]

Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

Here's your claim, GreNME. Please defend.

[GreNME]

I already did. Go ahead and keep digging that hole, Clippy.

[Clippy]

Why do you insist on only highlighting half a sentence when the sentence is only meaningful as a whole? Therein lies your mistake.

Can you not follow references from within a longish sentence? Ok, pretend I highlighted the whole thing.

More intellectual dishonesty from you. The two "reasons" you posted that I pointed out were conclusions and not reasons, and when one examines how someone would come to those conclusions-- whether it's the conclusion of not wanting someone of a different ethnicity in their neighborhood or simply hating that ethnicity outright-- you have your fallacy. That you insist on skipping over these things and assert you're correct just shows your intellectual dishonesty. The idea to not want someone in one's own neighborhood requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is undesirable (thus, the fallacy). The hatred of an ethnicity requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is to be hated (thus the fallacy). Your intentional skipping over of the logical progression that includes the fallacy from the OP is where your example falls flat on its face. That is why you fail.

Please point out the correlation/causation fallacy. Thank you.

[ProbeX]

Did you even read my post?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5126441&postcount=171

Your claim is that "American Blacks have ~20% White admixture".

The cardio-related Genet study is outdated, unfortunately (2004). And again, the test sample is too small for a "20%" generalization of all Black US citizens. A major problem is that these study subjects were "Self-identified African American men and women". Which means there was a subjective element from the beginning. There are people who are knowingly partially Black who don't identify as such. And there are those who are call themselves something other than Black not knowing they are Black. That poses a problem.

The other Genet study: The study is also outdated (2006). The samples used were laughably small. One can't use this one test/project to state, sweepingly, that "American Blacks have 20% White admixture."

At least the Hum Mutat study is updated to 2009. I'd like to see more than just the quick Pubmed abstract before commenting, though admittedly, it does appear to hold merit, yes. If there are quite a few other reputable, well-run studies from 2008-9 that show similar results, I'll find your 20% declaration more convincing. But two old studies run by the same group and just one updated study is not enough for me to go along such a sweeping statement (assuming it proves to be sound, which on the surface, it appears to be). It's not a question of simple stubbornness; I'm actually willing to acknowledge if my thinking ends up being mistaken.

I'll assume at this point that you see that unacceptable flaw I pointed out in the Rushton Jenson (I.Q.) study and that you have no further need to discuss it.

[GreNME]

Can you not follow references from within a longish sentence? Ok, pretend I highlighted the whole thing.

I already explained why you were wrong. I'm sorry if using more than a simple subject-predicate short sentence makes it more difficult for you to parse, but if that's not the problem then your criticism of my sentence structure is just another diversion from the original post. Simply asserting that I didn't provide explanation does not magically make it so.

More intellectual dishonesty from you. The two "reasons" you posted that I pointed out were conclusions and not reasons, and when one examines how someone would come to those conclusions-- whether it's the conclusion of not wanting someone of a different ethnicity in their neighborhood or simply hating that ethnicity outright-- you have your fallacy. That you insist on skipping over these things and assert you're correct just shows your intellectual dishonesty. The idea to not want someone in one's own neighborhood requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is undesirable (thus, the fallacy). The hatred of an ethnicity requires a progression of logic leading to the conclusion that the ethnicity is to be hated (thus the fallacy). Your intentional skipping over of the logical progression that includes the fallacy from the OP is where your example falls flat on its face. That is why you fail.
Please point out the correlation/causation fallacy. Thank you.

The explanation is highlighted for you to parse.

Keep on digging, Clippy.

[ProbeX]

Something tells me this thread is barrelling fast toward the "Abandon All Hope" bin.

[stevea]

Something tells me this thread is barrelling fast toward the "Abandon All Hope" bin.

Isn't that the conventional fate for all threads on this forum ?

[Clippy]

He can't prove it. Like I mentioned earlier, I have as much in common genetically with Malcom X as I do Dennis Leary. His assertions that I'm simply clueless about genetics or phenotypes is based on my not finding the conclusions he seems too timid to state outright-- he has yet to make a positive argument about what the genetic argument means-- to be supported by the actual data available.

That's your claim.

Let's stick with the bits of your paper that you think you understand.

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, Cc remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero."

Your assertion has still not been proved.

If you want to discuss this further, please start a new thread.

[Clippy]

The explanation is highlighted for you to parse.

Keep on digging, Clippy.

You haven't shown a correlation/causation fallacy. Sorry, you fail.

[bpesta22]

I'd be happy to defend the validity of IQ tests in another thread and will bow out of this one.

[GreNME]

That's your claim.

Let's stick with the bits of your paper that you think you understand.

I presented the whole paper, and apparently cherry-picking is the only trick you can pull. Unfortunately for you, your clear lack of understanding only underscores how weak your arguments are. Your attempt to use it as a derail from the OP continues to fail.

Your assertion has still not been proved.

If you want to discuss this further, please start a new thread.

What you mean is that you're not convinced. I'm not surprised, considering the views that you keep almost-stating-but-not-quite-saying-outright. Frankly, I'm not concerned with your opinion, and mostly find it amusing that my pointing out the basic fact of genetic similarities between humans got you worked up enough to try to poke holes in such a basic concept of genetics. You fared about as well at providing sound opposition to this as you would have had you continued with the stupid dog analogies.

You haven't shown a correlation/causation fallacy. Sorry, you fail.

I showed you specifically skipped over the part where the correlation-causation fallacy takes place and then subsequently cried foul at the original definition. If you ever manage to muster up the intellectual honesty to come back to what I highlighted and address the hole in your assertions where the fallacy would be, then perhaps you'd be arguing something interesting.

But I doubt it. Keep on digging, Clippy.

[ProbeX]

Isn't that the conventional fate for all threads on this forum ?

Was in the company of "skeptical" acquaintances and someone brought up James Randi's MDC. Then someone else brought up JREF forums and said he lurked here for a few days and left. He described this place as "auto-cannabilistic" and immature.

Not me ... I'm here for the articles :D

[ProbeX]

I'd be happy to defend the validity of IQ tests in another thread and will bow out of this one.

Thanks for your willingness to take this to another thread. But I was just thinking that all I really wanted was for you and Clippy to respond directly to the specific flaw I pointed out about the Rushton and Jenson IQ study, and why that flaw is acceptable.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. At the very least I suppose my point was made by addressing the flaw. See y'all later ... dinner awaits me ;)

[LostAngeles]

No, I am not ignoring you. I think any questions you had are answered in #173.

No, they weren't. What reasons could your hypothetical attacker have that do not fit the OP?

[bpesta22]

It's sloppy, poor research and definitely not scientifically sound to set up a study (ex: Rushton and Jenson) whereby the nominal assignments for each test group overlap (White, Jewish, Black), and then attempt to compare and contrast the results from each of the test groups as if each group were homegenous in nature. The bar ought to remain higher than this ... especially considering the implications of such a study's supposed findings.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, and you asked me to address it...

Are you saying that because no one is (or perhaps very few people are) purely black or purely white, any classification of people by those labels is non-scientific?

I see a weasel word in claims like: races can't exist because the dna overlap among all humans is *almost* 100% (pick a big number, any will do). It's obvious within races that individual differences exist and are "genetic" (ugliness, smartness, athletic ability, personality). How is it possible for lebron james to be born more athletic than I when we share 99.9% of our DNA?

Gottfredson identifies this as one of her fallacies used to wrongly trash IQ research:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies.pdf

see bottom of page 38-39. She also trashes the Lewontin's fallacy (see page 57)

I'm not a geneticist but according to gottfredson, even if we're 99.9% alike in dna, the 0.1% difference represents 3 million base pairs!

To me, it's undeniable that individuals differ often profoundly because of that small non-shared DNA. That race (the dna part that causes skin color and other differences across groups of people based on where most of their ancestors come from) might also show group differences doesn't seem a far stretch. At least to me. It certainly seems as open to scientific study as anything in social science.

If I missed your point, please correct me.

[ProbeX]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, and you asked me to address it...

Are you saying that because no one is (or perhaps very few people are) purely black or purely white, any classification of people by those labels is non-scientific?

I see a weasel word in claims like: races can't exist because the dna overlap among all humans is *almost* 100% (pick a big number, any will do). It's obvious within races that individual differences exist and are "genetic" (ugliness, smartness, athletic ability, personality). How is it possible for lebron james to be born more athletic than I when we share 99.9% of our DNA?

Gottfredson identifies this as one of her fallacies used to wrongly trash IQ research:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies.pdf

see bottom of page 38-39. She also trashes the Lewontin's fallacy (see page 57)

I'm not a geneticist but according to gottfredson, even if we're 99.9% alike in dna, the 0.1% difference represents 3 million base pairs!

To me, it's undeniable that individuals differ often profoundly because of that small non-shared DNA. That race (the dna part that causes skin color and other differences across groups of people based on where most of their ancestors come from) might also show group differences doesn't seem a far stretch. At least to me. It certainly seems as open to scientific study as anything in social science.

If I missed your point, please correct me.

I see what you're getting at when you question the idea that if no one is (or perhaps very few people are) purely black or purely white, any classification of people by those labels would be considered non-scientific. My understanding is some of these tests rely on generalizations to some extent. But I think there's such a thing as going too far, which is my observation with the Rushton and Jenson study:

Rushton and Jenson set up a study whereby the nominal assignments for each test group overlap too greatly (White, Jewish, Black). There is no such thing as a global "Jewish" gene without great ethnic diversity included. So I fail to see how this study is sound when it tries to include Jews as a separate ethnic category; separate from Whites or Blacks, etc. If this can be defended, I'd like to hear the defense, if you wish to address it. Thanks.

[Clippy]

I presented the whole paper, and apparently cherry-picking is the only trick you can pull. Unfortunately for you, your clear lack of understanding only underscores how weak your arguments are. Your attempt to use it as a derail from the OP continues to fail.

What you mean is that you're not convinced. I'm not surprised, considering the views that you keep almost-stating-but-not-quite-saying-outright. Frankly, I'm not concerned with your opinion, and mostly find it amusing that my pointing out the basic fact of genetic similarities between humans got you worked up enough to try to poke holes in such a basic concept of genetics. You fared about as well at providing sound opposition to this as you would have had you continued with the stupid dog analogies.

I'm pointing out how your claim is not supported by the evidence you presented. Quoting the relevant text is not 'cherry-picking'.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5131765&postcount=205

Your claim is that you have as much in common genetically with Malcolm X as you do with Dennis Leary. But your own evidence suggests that the likelihood of this statement being correct is very low.

"In the microarray data set , ωˆ drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ωˆ reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, Cc remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero."

How does a value of 3.1% help your claim? Hoisted on your own petard, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, if I understand the methodology correctly, ω for the admixed and geographically intermediate groups has been calculated using 7 different groups (Europeans, East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, African Americans, Indians, Native Americans, New Guineans, and Hispanics). I suspect that if you only used Europeans and African Americans, ω would be closer to 0, espcially if cases with very high levels of White admixture were excluded. So I think even 3.1% is overly optimistic.

Again, please start another thread if you want to discuss this paper. You quite obviously do not understand its contents.

I showed you specifically skipped over the part where the correlation-causation fallacy takes place and then subsequently cried foul at the original definition. If you ever manage to muster up the intellectual honesty to come back to what I highlighted and address the hole in your assertions where the fallacy would be, then perhaps you'd be arguing something interesting.

But I doubt it. Keep on digging, Clippy.

No, you have engaged in wishful thinking and psychologizing. You don't understand what is meant by a correlation/causation fallacy. Just like you don't understand the difference between analogy and correlation, or the meaning of cherry-picking. You are nearly clueless about genetics and suffer from reading incomprehension. Harsh? I think the evidence backs it up. (Mods, please feel free to delete that sentence if you like, but I think this thread supports my assertion)

[Clippy]

GreNME, please provide some examples of a correlation/causation fallacy to show that you understand what it is. Thank you.

[GreNME]

I'm pointing out how your claim is not supported by the evidence you presented. Quoting the relevant text is not 'cherry-picking'.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5131765&postcount=205

Your claim is that you have as much in common genetically with Malcolm X as you do with Dennis Leary. But your own evidence suggests that the likelihood of this statement being correct is very low.

How does a value of 3.1% help your claim? Hoisted on your own petard, I'm afraid.

No, you apparently can't read both the paper in question and my own posts providing more information for my statements. At this point I'm inclined to allow your confirmation bias to continue fumbling loosely, because I'm of the impression that you are ardently determined to ride this attempt at derail as far away from your embarrassing (lack of) logic as possible.

Furthermore, if I understand the methodology correctly, ω for the admixed and geographically intermediate groups has been calculated using 7 different groups (Europeans, East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, African Americans, Indians, Native Americans, New Guineans, and Hispanics). I suspect that if you only used Europeans and African Americans, ω would be closer to 0, espcially if cases with very high levels of White admixture were excluded. So I think even 3.1% is overly optimistic.

You not only don't understand the methodology correctly, you also seem to not understand the results correctly.

Again, please start another thread if you want to discuss this paper. You quite obviously do not understand its contents.

You're the one insisting on bringing it up, just as you kept insisting on the other genetics stuff you brought up but failed to make a positive argument for. Your polemic tactics are what's in question at this point, as you seem to be working from a very limited set of rhetorical tools and you seem to expect different results than the continued failures you keep experiencing.

I showed you specifically skipped over the part where the correlation-causation fallacy takes place and then subsequently cried foul at the original definition. If you ever manage to muster up the intellectual honesty to come back to what I highlighted and address the hole in your assertions where the fallacy would be, then perhaps you'd be arguing something interesting.

But I doubt it. Keep on digging, Clippy.
No, you have engaged in wishful thinking and psychologizing. You don't understand what is meant by a correlation/causation fallacy. Just like you don't understand the difference between analogy and correlation, or the meaning of cherry-picking. You are nearly clueless about genetics and suffer from reading incomprehension. Harsh? I think the evidence backs it up. (Mods, please feel free to delete that sentence if you like, but I think this thread supports my assertion)

Your constant appeals to the mods are some of the worst martyr complex nonsense I've seen. As to the rest, you present as possible reasons for the hypothetical assault as being conclusions with no explanation as to how such conclusions were reached. However, based on the content of the conclusions it's very easy to see the flaw in them as they are pretty much stereotypical racist conclusions: not wanting someone of a different ethnicity in one's neighborhood, and outright hatred for someone due to their ethnicity. Those conclusions, since they are obviously reached based on the ethnic/racial differences, and the ethnic/racial differences are viewed as the cause of the animosity (that leads to the assault). It doesn't require mind reading because the statements you gave-- both in your proposed "reasons" as well as the initial hypothetical itself-- clearly indicate that it's ethnicity/race that is the primary factor leading to the assault, thus meeting the criteria laid out in the original post.

Instead of playing evasion games, Clippy, answer these questions:

1) Why would someone decide that they did not want someone of a specific ethnicity in their neighborhood?

2) Why would someone foster a hatred of an entire ethnicity as a complete group?

I posit that you can't answer those questions in a realistic manner and not use the correlation-causation fallacy to justify them. You're more than welcome to try, though.

GreNME, please provide some examples of a correlation/causation fallacy to show that you understand what it is. Thank you.

Clippy, please try to actually support your assertions with logic instead of pretending you have some sort of authority in this thread. It will aid in your being taken more seriously than the current hole you're digging for yourself.

You made the assertion in your example that the OP didn't apply. When pressed, you offered motivations for the assault in your example as an attempt to justify it. Now all you have to do is provide the supposed logic used to show that your hypothetical assaulter is not acting based on the correlation-causation fallacy. You're the one making the claims, Clippy, and (just like Creationists) as such you're the one who has to support them. Constantly crying "nuh uh! you don't know what you're talking about!" and complaining about the mods do not an argument make.

[Clippy]

No, you apparently can't read both the paper in question and my own posts providing more information for my statements. At this point I'm inclined to allow your confirmation bias to continue fumbling loosely, because I'm of the impression that you are ardently determined to ride this attempt at derail as far away from your embarrassing (lack of) logic as possible.

You not only don't understand the methodology correctly, you also seem to not understand the results correctly.

You're the one insisting on bringing it up, just as you kept insisting on the other genetics stuff you brought up but failed to make a positive argument for. Your polemic tactics are what's in question at this point, as you seem to be working from a very limited set of rhetorical tools and you seem to expect different results than the continued failures you keep experiencing.

LOL. You don't understand this paper, GreNME. I am going to start another thread so we can continue this.

[Clippy]

Your constant appeals to the mods are some of the worst martyr complex nonsense I've seen.

Once bitten, twice shy. Seems some people have thin skin and want to get comments censored. No worries about tarring me as a racist or White supremacist, though. Calling a White person 'racist' is equivalent to calling a black person the N word. Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy.

Ok, rant's finished.

[Clippy]

GreNME, I'll answer your questions if you can prove to me that you understand what a correlation/causation fallacy is. Thanks!

[EGarrett]

Grenme's explanations have been crystal clear.

LostAngeles also asked you a question, Clippy, and in the process of claiming you weren't ignoring him, you haven't answered it.

You said that you (the attacker) may not want the person in your town or you may hate people of that skin color? Why?

[ProbeX]

I'm not trying to get in the middle of the heated debate between you and Grenme (which I'm not following closely right now). But this statement stood out for me as problematic:

Calling a White person 'racist' is equivalent to calling a black person the N word. Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy.

Person One: Go back to Africa you n*****!
Person Two: Racist!

One is always a racial slur, while the other can simply be an objective observation. But I also get that the race "card" is sometimes played without the underlying problem being racism.

[Clippy]

Grenme's explanations have been crystal clear.

LostAngeles also asked you a question, Clippy, and in the process of claiming you weren't ignoring him, you haven't answered it.

You said that you (the attacker) may not want the person in your town or you may hate people of that skin color? Why?

Why don't you like the color white? Why don't you like olives? It could be as simple as a question of taste, EGarrett. Nothing to do with a correlation/causation fallacy.

[GreNME]

LOL. You don't understand this paper, GreNME. I am going to start another thread so we can continue this.

Hey, good for you. Maybe your next step could involve making some positive arguments for a change.

Once bitten, twice shy. Seems some people have thin skin and want to get comments censored. No worries about tarring me as a racist or White supremacist, though. Calling a White person 'racist' is equivalent to calling a black person the N word. Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy.

Ok, rant's finished.

And if I'd called you a racist or white supremacist--instead of calling the sources you've used that had anything resembling a positive argument white supremacist, an accusation AmRen is rather unabashed about in general-- then perhaps you'd have a reason to be playing the martyr like you are. Sorry, but the fact that I've pointed out the person in your avatar, a known sympathizer of the Nazi cause and author of a book calling for a racist authoritarian government, has more to do with the connection to the literature you've promoted in past posts, which lend context to the method and style of argument you've been using-- namely, polemics toward anything anyone says (demanding "evidence" or accusing people of not understanding the subject) while at the same time avoiding making any positive arguments of your own. Now you're also playing the martyr as if it means anything to the validity of your assertions.

GreNME, I'll answer your questions if you can prove to me that you understand what a correlation/causation fallacy is. Thanks!

More evasion polemics. I've already displayed plenty of understanding of the correlation-causation fallacy. Just answer the questions and stop trying so hard to avoid answering them. They just make your position look that much weaker.

Or, you know, you can just keep on digging the hole.

[GreNME]

I'm not trying to get in the middle of the heated debate between you and Grenme (which I'm not following closely right now). But this statement stood out for me as problematic:



Person One: Go back to Africa you n*****!
Person Two: Racist!

One is always a racial slur, while the other can simply be an objective observation. But I also get that the race "card" is sometimes played without the underlying problem being racism.

Yes, but (not to make Clippy's argument for her/him) there is a certain line of thinking that justifies the desire and preference for keeping "pure" or un-mixed (with other cluster groups) the ethnic and genetic lineage of the white European people as being rational and reasonable due to the proposed advantages inherent to people who have that ethnic and genetic heritage (as opposed to other ethnic/genetic heritages). This line of thinking considers the accusation of "racist" to be an epithet based on limited and closed-minded thinking, influenced by the "flaw" of multiculturalism and the supposed dangers that lie within the ethnic, cultural, and genetic mixing that results from it.

In other words, ProbeX, not only does your description about people playing the race card seem offensive, but there are actually people who believe that the accusation of racism is a backward and ultimately destructive term in the context of preserving society and progress as we (are supposed to) know it.

[LostAngeles]

Grenme's explanations have been crystal clear.

LostAngeles also asked you a question, Clippy, and in the process of claiming you weren't ignoring him, you haven't answered it.

You said that you (the attacker) may not want the person in your town or you may hate people of that skin color? Why?

"Her"

Why don't you like the color white? Why don't you like olives? It could be as simple as a question of taste, EGarrett. Nothing to do with a correlation/causation fallacy.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2645/3929675283_c36e13521a.jpg

[GreNME]

Why don't you like the color white? Why don't you like olives? It could be as simple as a question of taste, EGarrett. Nothing to do with a correlation/causation fallacy.

You weren't talking about just a color in your example. You actually went to great lengths to specify assault based on a group of ethnic identifiers. Backpedaling out of all that effort you put into specifying ethnic differences just makes your assertions look that much less credible.

Keep on digging that hole, Clippy.

[EGarrett]

Why don't you like the color white? Why don't you like olives? It could be as simple as a question of taste, EGarrett. Nothing to do with a correlation/causation fallacy.Why are black people, in your example, "not to your taste?"

[Clippy]

And if I'd called you a racist or white supremacist--instead of calling the sources you've used that had anything resembling a positive argument white supremacist, an accusation AmRen is rather unabashed about in general-- then perhaps you'd have a reason to be playing the martyr like you are.

:jaw-dropp

Post #109, you call me a white supremacist.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5113754&postcount=109

[Clippy]

You weren't talking about just a color in your example. You actually went to great lengths to specify assault based on a group of ethnic identifiers. Backpedaling out of all that effort you put into specifying ethnic differences just makes your assertions look that much less credible.

Keep on digging that hole, Clippy.

Hardly any backpedaling, genius. Phenotypes mentioned have a genetic basis, despite what you might think.

[Clippy]

Why are black people, in your example, "not to your taste?"

Personal preference, innate feeling. Want to call that a correlation/causation fallacy?

[LostAngeles]

Personal preference, innate feeling. Want to call that a correlation/causation fallacy?

Well, it depends.

Why do you have a personal preference? What impression does an average black person give you? What is your innate feeling?

[ProbeX]

Yes, but (not to make Clippy's argument for her/him) there is a certain line of thinking that justifies the desire and preference for keeping "pure" or un-mixed (with other cluster groups) the ethnic and genetic lineage of the white European people as being rational and reasonable due to the proposed advantages inherent to people who have that ethnic and genetic heritage (as opposed to other ethnic/genetic heritages).

What are some of these "proposed advantages"? ... Not sure I'm reading you here. Will respond to the next statement you made (below) after having this clarified. Thanks.

In other words, ProbeX, not only does your description about people playing the race card seem offensive, but there are actually people who believe that the accusation of racism is a backward and ultimately destructive term in the context of preserving society and progress as we (are supposed to) know it.Not understanding why mentioning the fact that some play the "race card" is so offensive. Please explain why you think my mentioning it is offensive.

And yes, I understand some people think an accusation of racism is backward, etc., but sometimes those very people being accused actually are demonstrating a racist attitude and are deserving of the observation ... and sometimes not (which is what I mean by "playing the race card").

[EGarrett]

Personal preference, innate feeling. Want to call that a correlation/causation fallacy?Your personal preference is for what?

[GreNME]

:jaw-dropp

Post #109, you call me a white supremacist.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5113754&postcount=109

Okay, so play the martyr. It's still doesn't make up for your impressive lack of a positive argument so far, nor does it address your constant evasions. Or strawmen, as follows:

Hardly any backpedaling, genius. Phenotypes mentioned have a genetic basis, despite what you might think.

You should get out of the mind reading business, because you're horrible at it. Since you seem to have missed it, I specifically pointed out a particular rare phenotype that all three of us (whom I mentioned) share. You fail yet again.

Personal preference, innate feeling. Want to call that a correlation/causation fallacy?

That's still producing a conclusion without providing the reasoning. All you're doing now is backpedaling into less aggressive descriptions because the obvious ones from your first example (physical assault) and the later justifications you offered for the assault (wanting to drive 'them' out of the neighborhood' or outright hatred for the entire ethnic group) were pointedly aggressive action and conclusions. If you're not willing to be intellectually honest about the motivations of the action and the (supposed) logic behind the conclusions, then you're just making EGarrett's definition seem that much more correct by your evasion.

Keep on digging that hole, Clippy.

[Clippy]

Ok, GreNME. Here's your chance to defend your claim on genetic similarity to Dennis Leary and Malcolm X.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154889

It's in the 'Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology' subforum.

[Clippy]

Your personal preference is for what?

Could be to prevent people not of my race from feeling welcome in my neighbourhood.

This is a question of preference. It's a value judgement. It's not a statement about causes of observed differences that can be 'incorrect'.

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

[ProbeX]

Could be to prevent people not of my race from feeling welcome in my neighbourhood.

Interesting. Sounds more like discriminatory action to me.

[GreNME]

Could be to prevent people not of my race from feeling welcome in my neighbourhood.

This is a question of preference. It's a value judgement. It's not a statement about causes of observed differences that can be 'incorrect'.

More fail on your part. You're basically admitting you're proposing a value judgment, but you're still avoiding laying out the factors that the value judgment is being based on. At this point you're (perhaps unintentionally) being transparent in your display of the correlation-causation fallacy at work by focusing on the conclusion instead of the part where the fallacy is actually occurring.

Keep right on digging, Clippy.

[Clippy]

More fail on your part. You're basically admitting you're proposing a value judgment, but you're still avoiding laying out the factors that the value judgment is being based on. At this point you're (perhaps unintentionally) being transparent in your display of the correlation-causation fallacy at work by focusing on the conclusion instead of the part where the fallacy is actually occurring.

Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons. Could be that I prefer those with whom I enjoy greater kinship (shared ancestry, genetic relatedness). Could be that I have an aesthetic preference for those of my own race. Now where do you fit in your correlation/causation fallacy? And please don't engage in any sophistry, like this:

It doesn't matter, actually. The ultimate cause is always going to be environment, not race. After all, environment dictates the selection pressures, and selection pressures dictate how life forms develop. Thus, referring to race as a cause or using language that implies race is the cause is pretty much always going to be inaccurate and fallacious.


Keep right on digging, Clippy.

LOL. Who are you trying to convince? Face it, you got in over your head.

[ProbeX]

Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons.

... except you lost me when, earlier you said ...

Could be to prevent people not of my race from feeling welcome in my neighbourhood.What is that all about? Please explain.

[GreNME]

Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons. Could be that I prefer those with whom I enjoy greater kinship (shared ancestry, genetic relatedness). Could be that I have an aesthetic preference for those of my own race. Now where do you fit in your correlation/causation fallacy?

You can't be talking about genetic relatedness in the real world, since in pretty much every industrialized nation, and far more so in the United States, the level of admixture is significant and still growing. The only way your criteria works is in a 19th century context. There's your correlation-causation fallacy. Congratulations.

And please don't engage in any sophistry, like this:

Stop trying to change the subject and just stick to defending the reasoning in your example.

LOL. Who are you trying to convince? Face it, you got in over your head.

At this point I'm not trying to convince anyone, Clippy. I'm simply allowing you to continue to dig that hole deeper.

You're doing a splendid job on that hole, by the way.

[EGarrett]

EDIT: This post isn't needed because Clippy actually attempted to answer the question and exposed the fallacy.

[EGarrett]

Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons. Could be that I prefer those with whom I enjoy greater kinship (shared ancestry, genetic relatedness).There it is. It's assuming that dark skin and other apparent ethnic characteristics cause the person to not be genetically related to you. Thanks for playing.

[Clippy]

You can't be talking about genetic relatedness in the real world, since in pretty much every industrialized nation, and far more so in the United States, the level of admixture is significant and still growing. The only way your criteria works is in a 19th century context. There's your correlation-causation fallacy. Congratulations.

Who is GreNME? What planet does he live on? GreNME, please contact Cavalli-Sforza right away to let him know that all those FST distances he calculated do not exist. :rolleyes:

[Clippy]

There it is. It's assuming that dark skin and other apparent ethnic characteristics cause the person to not be genetically related to you. Thanks for playing.

Not so fast, 'Mensa' EGarrett.

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

The cause of the difference in skin color (plus afro and everted lips) is genetic in origin. No correlation/causation fallacy there. If you read Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (which, according to GrenME, is perpetrating a hoax), you will see that Japanese are part of a cluster (his euphemism for race) that is distinct from Africans (and Australian Aboriginals). I have not said that the black skin, afro, and everted lips are the cause of the genetic distance. I am saying that they allow me to identify this person as being from another race. Sorry, but that's not a correlation/causation fallacy either. And if you want to believe that it is, then let's say that the person hands me their 23andMe profile results prior to the attack.

Where is that darn fallacy hiding?

[Clippy]

While trying to explain this extremely difficult topic to people elsewhere, I happened upon a definition that I think is pretty damned good...though the phrasing might need some work. Whadaya think?

Racism: A specific form of the causation-correlation logical fallacy, where a person looks at different tendencies that happen to align among people of different ethnicities and assumes incorrectly that the ethnicity or genetic aspects of the ethnicity are the CAUSE of those differences. The person then usually acts, speaks, or governs in a damaging and incorrect way based on that mistaken assumption.

Examples: 1. I waved hello to a sleeping Asian person once, and he did not respond. This taught me that Asian people are rude, and I have never said hello to one since!

2. Those blue people who we forced to work for 300 years with no families and education are performing less than average in their normal jobs and schools. Obviously, Blue people are mentally inferior and are damaging the country.

I don't think EGarrett understands what a correlation/causation fallacy is. His first example is really a fallacy of hasty generalization. And it's ironic that in his second example he hints at his favorite correlation/causation fallacy (more specifically, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

[GreNME]

Who is GreNME? What planet does he live on? GreNME, please contact Cavalli-Sforza right away to let him know that all those FST distances he calculated do not exist. :rolleyes:

And your personal attacks couldn't be less predictable.

Good job, Clippy. Keep on digging away.

[EGarrett]

Not so fast, 'Mensa' EGarrett.You brought up your intelligence relative to mine. So I'm asking you, are you a member? If not, maybe you should drop that topic and pretend you never said it.

The cause of the difference in skin color (plus afro and everted lips) is genetic in origin. No correlation/causation fallacy there. If you read Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (which, according to GrenME, is perpetrating a hoax), you will see that Japanese are part of a cluster (his euphemism for race) that is distinct from Africans (and Australian Aboriginals). I have not said that the black skin, afro, and everted lips are the cause of the genetic distance. I am saying that they allow me to identify this person as being from another race. Sorry, but that's not a correlation/causation fallacy either. And if you want to believe that it is, then let's say that the person hands me their 23andMe profile results prior to the attack.

Where is that darn fallacy hiding?You said that you observed those differences and attacked them, one of the reasons you offered (which I chose purely for convenience) is that you wanted to push that different person away because you wanted people who shared "genetic relatedness" with you.

Studies have shown that there is more variation WITHIN apparent "racial groups" then between them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation). As I explained to you, this is assuming that the apparent differences caused the person to be more genetically "different" from you than people who appear racially closer.

There's your fallacy. There's the definition. You stepped in it. Sorry to break it to you. You can ask and throw a tantrum over and over and it's just going to result in different people trying to explain it to you until you understand it or until you break down so thoroughly that the mods kick you out.

[bpesta22]

At the risk of sounding like a nazi, I think Egarret and Gren are being unfair to clip here.

First, clip said:

"Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons. Could be that I prefer those with whom I enjoy greater kinship (shared ancestry, genetic relatedness)."

The key word here is "greater". I don't think clippy is claiming no relationship between blacks and white, just that white white is a greater relationship than white black.

Then, egarrett says:

"Studies have shown that there is more variation WITHIN apparent "racial groups" then between them. As I explained to you, this is assuming that the apparent differences caused the person to be more genetically "different" from you than people who appear racially closer."

This argument is flatly wrong. I accept that within group differences can be larger than between group differences. The flatly wrong part comes in assuming the between group differences have to be trivial.

Here's an example:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/Sexdiffs/Textbook/chap1_files/image002.jpg

This is the sex difference on height.

Looks to me like the variability within sex (two bell curves) is bigger than the mean difference between the sexes.

But it's profoundly salient that men on average are taller than women on average.

The correlation between lead exposure and IQ (in 5 year olds) is .40. This would result in distributions that overlap massively. By your logic, though, we shouldn't care what's in the paint?

[ProbeX]

At the risk of sounding like a nazi, I think Egarret and Gren are being unfair to clip here.

That's interesting, but Clippy has also said this when asked about his racial preference

Could be to prevent people not of my race from feeling welcome in my neighbourhood.

? ?