«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Stupid in the Eye of the Beholder: The Human Genome and Racial Difference

The decoding of the human genome continues apace and those of us who have latched on to the '99% meme' (e.g. "99% of our DNA is the same so we all live in a yellow submarine of bio-racial sameness la la la," etc.) have to batten down the hatches for the continuing unprocessed info-glut from the science types even as the political types sharpen their anti-intellectual cultural swords.

Here's the good news: "When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind's remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical."

Here's the bad: "But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins."

Ruh roh. Bell curve, anyone, and nefarious laymen perverting neutral scientific advances to further their own group's racial agenda?

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means "the egalitarian theory," that all races are equal, "is proven false."

Three guesses as to this "software developer's" race. But check out what scientists have to say about this information still in it's infancy:

"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries," said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. "It's not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better."

The blogosphere, of course, is leading the race to the bottom. I'll spare you the links to all the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals but here's this smart-ass Negro's advice: wait.

Say nothing.

Start carefully annotated files.

Resist the impulse to try to stifle the discourse with so-far bogus cries of racism. Who knows who'll turn out to be right and who wrong (I do, but the time is not yet right, dearies). Unless, of course, you're actually afraid that blacks really are dumber.

Wait. Watch. Study. Amass evidence for some very specific, very well timed indictments.

Remember, Timbuktu wasn't built in a day.

Comments

author of the Half Sigma blog

Three guesses as to this "software developer's" race.
1. Jewish
2. Jewish
3. Jewish

Posted by: you asked on 11/15/07 at 12:55 AM Respond

Actually, we share pretty much 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, so that "DNA snippet affects intelligence" BS goes right out the window. What affects intelligence most is early nutrition and an emphasis on exercising the brain. And a chimp is more intelligent than George Bush any day.

Posted by: The Die Hard on 11/15/07 at 4:13 AM Respond

Science has told the Roman Catholic Church the errors of some of their ways and it will also tell the Politically Correct religion the same. Sorry folks. We worship Science, not any religion, no matter what its name. Things are the way they are, not the way we would like them to be.

Posted by: Steven King on 11/15/07 at 7:29 AM Respond

Even if it comes out that one group, as a whole, has certain traits in more abundance than another group, we must remember the diversity within groups. As a group, Group A may have 20% more of a desired trait than Group B, but within Group B there are individuals who have 40% more of the desired trait than some member of Group A. Look at men and women. For example, there are some women who can out perform some men in traditional male tasks(e,g, weight lifting), even though as a whole, the males are better at that task. The bottom line is that we always have to judge people as individuals, not by their group.

Posted by: Dr. Science on 11/15/07 at 7:36 AM Respond

It is important to determine the differences. If you just analyze DNA from people from different parts of the world, as in RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphisms), there are predictable patterns. It is a known fact that many drugs work better for some people than for others, and physicians choose treatments, as for cancer, based on this knowledge. Defining the DNAs will help to design effective new drugs for each ethnic background; that's not bias, it's just science.

Posted by: Jayne Marasa on 11/16/07 at 5:03 PM Respond

You Asked wrote:
["Three guesses as to this "software developer's" race.
1. Jewish
2. Jewish
3. Jewish"]

Having over 30 years involvement in martial arts, I tend to frequent a few discussion boards dedicated to the topic, where Japanese, Koreans Phillipinos, Chinese, Americans, Brazillians, Irish and just about everybody else goes to argue how all other arts are inferior to the one they're training in.
I can tell you that the most derogatory noise I've heard about black people since the 60's has come from Asians, living in Asia.

Posted by: Pure Speculation on 11/17/07 at 6:18 AM Respond