What if there really are racial/sexual differences between people?

[Supdupadog]

How come whenever someone makes this kind of post, they don't propose what if white people are the intellectually inferior ones?

tbth there are plenty of "white people" suggesting other people "white people" are intellectually inferior to other racial groups nowadays...more often than not "the Asians"...aka "the Chinese"...

That's not what I was pointing at.

When people make these kind of posts, it's almost always "How do the Blacks measure up to the Whites?"

Saying the Asians are smarter than us has been a stable of "Yellow fear" for decades. It is it's own weird, awful thing.

 

[Supdupadog]

well if you're going to make sweeping generalisations with hidden caveats...i'm not playing *rasp*

Well if the OP didn't feel the need to say the usual, maybe I wouldn't generalize.

 

[ExtraDebit]

Only a blind person would say there are no differences between race and gender, right in front of your eyes you can see the color difference, the hair difference or difference in physical apparatus.

What people really striving for isn't to be blind to the differences or be ignorant to the differences; what they really striving for is free of discrimination due to the differences.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing that africans are black or women are generally physically weaker than men, there is nothing wrong thinking it's silly for a black person to wear face paint during night missions, it IS wrong if opportunities are denied due to those differences or insults focus on those differences (however insults are wrong no matter where they are focused).

However there really is no right answer when it comes to discrimination, on one hand it seems wrong to racially discriminate, on the other hand, the progress of the entire world is based on discrimination. Finding the best football player is to discriminate against weaker players, finding the best mate is to discriminate against people that doesn't fit your personal preference, the entire school system is discrimination down to a science.

If we don't discriminate at all, EA wouldn't get the poop award twice and microsoft will have it's way and have us play an always online console. If we do discriminate, Stephen Hawking wouldn't be able to make all those contribution to science and we wouldn't be able to enjoy all those amazing songs by Michael Jackson all those years ago.

Nothing is absolute, everything depends on the situation.

 

[bliebblob]

This is a classic example of mixing moral and scientific viewpoints.

That all humans should be treated as equal is a purely moral stance. It is based on philosophy, not scientific fact. Because from the scientific point of view there are differences, there's not even a question. The whole reasons we have races in the first place, for example, is that humanity spread across the globe and evolved to better deal with whatever conditions they found. Thus making them different by definition. It also doesn't take an expert to distinguish a male from a female, there's clear differences. Finally, it is common knowledge that no two humans are identical, even when of the same race, sex and age.

So to answer your question directly, "What if there really are racial-sexual differences between people?": there are, but the majority (more or less) of humanity feels this should not affect how they are treated. Thus it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter that there are differences.

 

[HannesPascal]

After a quick search I found one article about difference in cognitive ability. (The abstract can be found here [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188390]). So it would seem that you can publish articles about it, but I just skimmed through the abstract so I can have totally misunderstood what it was about.

But yeah as other people have said, there might be differences between race and such, but that doesn't mean you should be treated differently.

 

[Megalodon]

Put down your pitchforks and torches, I'm not saying there are. Hear me out.

Today I was chatting with a (philosophy major) friend and we got onto the subject of science and how it's not quite as infallible as we like to believe. He mentioned something that peaked my interest and the more I think about it, the more I think he's right.

His comment was that science is just as beholden to the whims of society as we are. That's a scary thought, but it's true.

No. He's full of it. Science is a process. Processes are inanimate, insubstantial, incorporeal, abstract concepts. They don't have whims, because they don't have neurological systems, let alone brains capable of conscious thought.

Thinking, conscious creatures (i.e. people) have whims. That means what people think science means may be wrong and beholden to public whims, but science itself is just science.

When the whole global warming debate was going on a few years ago, I remember the deniers getting shouted down with research and threats. It is to the point now that we believe so strongly that global warming is happening, that any claim to the contrary is immediately rejected, regardless of its evidence (or lack thereof).

When a claim opposing anthropomorphic climate change is submitted that actually has substantial evidence, your claim can become true. Until that point is reached, all claims to the contrary are rejected because of their lack of evidence.

Consider this: if there really were measurable differences between, say, the average intelligence of black people and white people, would that research every truly come to light?

Of course it would. It already has. It's was widely observed in past decades that black Americans tended to score lower on tests of intelligence than white Americans. This information was never censored. But correlation does not equal causation, and simply because a selection of black people scored less on a particular test does not mean at all black people are inherently less intelligent. Results have generally been interpreted (with supporting evidence) to show that either intelligence tests are flawed and themselves racially biased, or that blackness tends to correlate (due to racial discrimination legacy) with social circumstances that limit children's ability to score well on intelligence tests. Which is pretty much another way of saying the test is biased.

Which shouldn't really be shocking. It's tremendously difficult to invent a test that can tease out the difference between what a person is capable of figuring out at the moment and what their actual potential to figure out with maximum education is. Hell, educators can't even entirely agree on what intelligence actually is, so it's no surprise that tests to measure a construct we're not even entirely sure how to define aren't all that valid.

If someone tried to publish a finding like that in a paper or journal, they would immediately be called a racist, dozens of other papers would show up explaining how their methods were wrong or evidence was confounded,

Have you by chance ever published? Because my experience directly reading research publications has tended to be that while it's by no means perfect, people who discount things because of flawed methodology do tend to actually identify methodological flaws. Despite the paranoid conspiracies pushed by fringe right-wing groups, there is no secret cabal of scientists controlling what gets published.

100 years ago, there was "legit" science to support the fact that blacks WERE inferior intellectually to whites. Now, of course, we dismiss that as "bad science" but that just goes to demonstrate my point.

That only supports your point if your point is that bad science exists. Of course it exists. That doesn't mean there is a secret cabal censoring scientific publications to protect us from the truth.

So why would someone risk their career and reputation to study something like that if they know they will be chastised for presenting their findings?

Well, because in the US we have this thing called "tenure" which once professors get it, they can basically research whatever the hell they want and there's zero chance of their career being penalized for it. That's why tenure exists in the first place.

Also there's the fact that researchers love the idea of being the first person to discover something.

If scientific results are dictated by societal values, how can we really know what the answers are?

Your question is not meaningful because scientific results are not dictated by societal values. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how scientific research publication actually works.

Bravo, very well said.

Comments like the OP's friend's tend to be why I don't take philosophy very seriously.

 

[Lieju]

Yes, obviously there are differences between different human populations. Some diseases for example are more common in certain populations, and obviously some people have things like more melanin in their skin.

But you need to be careful what kinds of generalizations you make, and what people you group together.

Just talking about all black-skinned people like they are all the same 'race' is for example just really white-centric view, especially if you then go and consider 'hispanics' to be a separate race from 'caucasians'.

You also need to be careful when considering the reasons for them.

Because if you are looking at a part of the population, ethnic or gender, that doesn't have the same opportunities, why should you be then surprised they don't measure the same?
It used to be 'common knowledge' that women just weren't suitable for leadership positions, or for science, and the 'proof' you got was how there weren't many women in those kinds of fields, and how this was proof that it's just something inherent for women.

There's also the fact that people can't tell the difference between 'better', and 'better on average'...

Maybe there are differences between races and sexes on average.
Maybe for example white men are better at baking bread than black women. (All the best breadmakers I've personally known have been white men COINCIDENCE!?)

But it doesn't mean that if you take a random black woman and a white man, that the white man WILL be better at it. (But this is how people will think. They'll see the white man and assume he knows how to bake, even if the black woman has more experience, and he will be the more likely one to be hired as a baker, which will then just make him a better baker than the woman who didn't get the job, thus 'proving' men are inherently better bakers.)

EDIT: Also, as far science goes, you need to consider what kinds of research gets funding and publicity.

And how media and people like to interpret them to their own benefit.
You could easily have a scientific paper about how some minority for example is not as intelligent, and even if the paper in question points out this is likely because they don't get the same kind of education as some, laypeople who want to believe some are inferior will then take the story and run with it, saying 'look, this is what the scientistst say!'

 

[mistahzig1]

Intelligence is soooo subjective that any method of quantifying it is flawed by deffault imo.

Of course an African man will score lower than a suberban white dude from the West on an IQ test. Yet, put those 2 in the wild with nothing but a knife and I'm pretty sure that the "smarter" white guy will die first.

As for gender, there's a big part of "social construct" in there of course, but not all. Women/Men *in general* will score higher than their counterparts in certains fields of "intelligence"


But all this is a slippery slope, as one demographic group scoring higher than another in a given subject will use this subject as a starting point for an overall standard of intelligence/skills and condescend on the other groups (humans being.. humans afterall)

 

[JoJo]

Well, IQ does differ between nations (though education probably has a large effect on that) and there's some pretty clear differences on average between the sexes in some areas. One somewhat trivial example, did you know on average young girls spend more time climbing than young boys, despite the latter being more active on average. No-one's entirely sure why, some theorise that back millennia ago females spent more time in the trees to protect against predation from big cats and the like and somehow that instinct has been preserved.

Anyhow, the most important point is any differences are just averages, they won't mean any one individual is definitely going to be smarter or stronger or whatever than any other individual. As Sleekit said, ultimately every human deserves rights regardless of their capacities and so this debate shouldn't matter either way really.

 

[Frission]

Huh. I remember when climate change was a fringe thing and you had people like Bush doing anything to hush it up. How the "deniers" are capable of victimizing themselves over a matter that should have been just a measure of policy and scientific inquiry but was turned into an ideological and political battle, due to their own meddling remains a mystery to me.

Although this isn't the best time to talk about this.

OT: I'm skeptical of the intent of this thread, but I would say that human beings have the same rights despite different cognitive, physical or intellectual capacities.

There's already people who are smarter, healthier or stronger than you or me and the opposite holds true.

Anyway this study would have to have alot of ironclad evidence.

Way back when in the very dark days of psychology, plenty of eugenics studies were done in an attempt to justify treating immigrants from certain countries differently. One example of this bad science you feel the need to put in quotes was how the testers gave their test in a language the immigrants did not understand and when they scored low, those low scores were held up as proof that '[x] are dumb!' Turns out, though, that testing the intelligence of a person by using a language they don't understand is kind of a very flawed research method. So, yeah, it's pretty fucking bad science.

But most scientists don't let societal whims get in their way. I had access to plenty of research on gender differences for my research project and all of them were fairly recent, as ordered to me by my teacher. Science, itself, is unbiased, no matter if scientists themselves are. One study can never be held up as proof of anything. Studies are endlessly repeated to see if the data replicates, even controversial ones, and then the methods are changed or different variables are manipulated to see if a different outcome or maybe use a different sampling process and the same would go for your hypothetical study on racial differences of intelligence. Out comes this study that says black people are less intelligent than white people on average. What method they used is extremely important. What sampling process they used is extremely important. It's quite possible that black people are less intelligent on average than white people, just to roll along with this hypothetical. Is it because of something biological in black people, though? Or is it because of a third variable that grossly effects black people more than white people? Is it something genetic in black people or perhaps that black people have less access to education? That study is going to get picked apart, yes. Its methods are going to be called into question. Its variables are going to be looked at for confounds. The research might be attributed to something else and yes, the data is going to be examined by many other scientists - a very common enough procedure in peer-reviewed journals. You know why? Because that's what scientists do.

Scientists pick each other's studies apart to hell and back and they fight over even the most seemingly innocuous bullshit ever, like a ten year *****-fight between two particular scientists over whether mental images are visual or verbal (a real fight, by the way). That's what science does. It picks apart studies in every last little way, does them with slightly difference changes, or else just does them exactly and tries to replicate the data as is to see if the data itself is as cold and hard as science requires it to be. That's what happens with science. Your peers review it. Everyone questions it. That's what science just does because science doesn't just want one study, it wants a mountain of studies and if these scientists can't accept that their study is going to be treated in this manner, then it was probably a bad study. As one of my teachers said, "A study that doesn't make us question, that doesn't provoke more research, is a bad study." Scientists like to fight each other. They want to come up with as many possible explanations for something because there really are a lot of variables that you have to look at and examine. Even when it comes to the most trivial things, science never stops cracking the whip.

As long as they don't commit legit fraud like Andrew Wakefield, nothing is going to happen to your hypothetical scientists that doesn't already happen with other areas of research. If they don't purposefully skew their data, their job and reputation is no more in question than other scientists' reputation is. Their methods are going to be questioned, but that's okay. That happens with everyone. Other variables will be blamed, but that's okay. That happens with everyone. That's a really good thing, actually, and it just doesn't stop scientists from their endless pursuit of knowledge. It hasn't in the past. It hasn't now. It won't in the future.

I'll be the third or fourth to quote you, since you wrote what I was trying to say far better.

 

[Booklover13]

Today I was chatting with a (philosophy major) friend and we got onto the subject of science and how it's not quite as infallible as we like to believe. He mentioned something that peaked my interest and the more I think about it, the more I think he's right.

His comment was that science is just as beholden to the whims of society as we are. That's a scary thought, but it's true.

On what logic or basis is your friend making this argument? If you would like I'm pretty sure can provide evidence of the contrary quite easily. The core problem with arguing about a non-STEM person about science and it's application is they often(not always) do not understand the scientific process, or even the history of it. I have shocked may people with by reminding them the catholic church has been historically pro-science, and I would still consider it so today. This is because science is not beholden to the whims of society, the closest it comes is the the whims of a scientist or study that is bias/has an agenda. Which is mitigated by all the other scientists watching for that.

Once of the advantages modern scientific study has is our massive improvement in technology. This makes it so much easier for them to check work and understanding. Also there are much stricter guidelines on how a study is done and more examination of metrics.

Also, simple test, if someone thinks science is infallible they are not a very good scientist. Every competent scientist understands how easy it is for things to show true that aren't because of different variables, this is why repeatably is so important. If anyone can (competently) repeat the experiment and get the same results, then we can consider it free from whim.

One last thing, how do you get your science news, because in most cases science news reporting is just bad. Most news outlets are not going to be paying someone who understands how to read a scientific study, because it costs to much. More than once I have read an article on a study, then read up on the study, and found the article 100% misleading. Not on purpose, they just lack the ability to properly report on it.

 

[Lightknight]

There are differences between races and sexes in people. We see studies and research on that fact all the time. Hell, there are even differences within the same races according to region. A Kenyan whose lineage is traced back in the mountains is going to have noticeable differences between a Kenyan whose lineage is on the plains.

Racism comes where we assume every subset of a group is always going to have all the common characteristics associated with the group (prejudice) or where we attribute a general level of superiority or inferiority to the entire group based on those agreggate numbers. In short, acknowledging that one forest is different from another forest isn't bad but being unable to see the individual trees for the forest is.

Men and women have all kinds of differences physically and physiologically. Differences that are both biological and sociological.

As a society, we need to arrive at a point where we can recognize and celebrate these differences without condemnation. Being different doesn't make a person any less human and who is to say what the regular human is, anyways? Generally speaking, for every weakness a gender or race present comparatively, there will be another strength they have over the other. Evolution is quite remarkable that way in making us suited for our specific environments through the trials and failures of time.

 

[spwatkins]

When someone asserts that there are (for example) IQ differences between races/genders/etc they generally mean:
there is a bell-shaped distribution curve showing how many members of the population are represented at each IQ level
and the center of the curve is at different locations for each separate group.
This means that for every group there are individuals at all levels of IQ. So practically there is no reason to segregate people from certain groups on the basis of some statistical handicap. Simply apply objective standards and let each individual stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

The difference arent so black and white. (see what i did;-) People are all different. You have smart and dumb people regardless for colour or sexuality. There are difference as in skin colour, whether you like cock or your likes and dislikes. Alot is dependent on how your born (genes etc) and where your born (poor or rich) and what benefits you have in your life. A poor black kid in an african shit hole could have been the smartest person in the world if had the academic freedom of a western country. We are all born with the ability to do anything, but being raised as we are, people that effect and mold us as people, all effect who we turn out to be.

 

[Majinash]

Of course an African man will score lower than a suberban white dude from the West on an IQ test. Yet, put those 2 in the wild with nothing but a knife and I'm pretty sure that the "smarter" white guy will die first.

This idea is so silly and yet so prevalent. Not everyone in Africa hunts for their dinner with a spear, and not every white guy in the suburbs is smart. Some massive generalizations about very diverse groups of people are applied as if they are universally true. The entire notion is incredibly flawed and yet it pops up not only on the internet, but in day to day conversation.

People need to stop parroting claims like this in an attempt to "even out" people's worth. "Group A is better at this but group B is better at this" isn't applicable to races, or any large grouping of people. If you ever want that statement to be true you're going to have to make your sample size incredibly small.