Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 25 26 27 28 29 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

[quote='Krom' pid='3469' dateline='1437317101']
Biology Today: An Issues Approach
By Eli C. Minkoff, Pamela J. Baker p. 195:

[Image: pic.png]

I see five claims:

(1) According to the "morphological concept" --> there were common features which were invariant throughout time and group
(2) Morphological concept --> was always a typological concept
(3) Typological concepts --> ignored intra-individual variation
(4) Morphological/typological concepts --> were based on Platonic essences
(5) Supporters of typological race concepts --> were supporters of typological species concepts

By "race" the authors obviously don't mean "species" per (5). Yet, intraspecific divisions were not understood to have platonic essences (in an actual platonic sense). Rather, Linnean species were understood to have aristotelian-like essences which were understood to be invariant across time and groups. The morphological concept of both species and races was not equivalent to a typological one, unless we are dealing with the authors' idiosyncratic definition. For example, Darwin's concept is commonly said to be a morphological one e.g.,

"To Darwin, the origin of species became the origin of the morphological gaps between populations. This species concept has been called the morphological species concept, although it emphasizes the clustering of members of the same species in morphological space" implementation."http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Sp/speconc.html

Typological concepts such as Hooton's did not ignore intra-specific variation. Thus I quoted: [quote]This is classic typological thinking, yet Pearson, Fisher et al. were far from naïve. They may have focused on a few visible or imagined behavioural stereotypes, but they knew that there was variation even within racial types: not all Europeans (not even all Jews!) are morphologically or genetically identical. So what kind of “type” were they thinking about?...[/quote]

As far as I can tell, all 5 claims are false unless we adopt idiosyncratic definitions, which equate "morphological concept" with "typological concept" with "one invariant across time and space" with one based on "Platonic essences". And if we do this, I would wager that no one ever held this position.

That said, after searching a bit, I did find one homogenous-typological (intraspecific) race concept for you. Would you like me to point it out?
 Reply
duplicate.
 Reply
Typology didn't take in-group/intra population variation into account because it ignored in situ selection, and drift. For example Hooton, like Coon, Seligman etc, thought narrow nosed crania from East Africa and Egypt was the result of "Caucasoid" (Near-Eastern/South European) gene flow (they had to always involve "race mixture" models):

"An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation
founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa." (Brace et al. 1993)
 Reply
Are you aware Hooton labelled many native American skulls as (Pseudo)-"Negroid" and even "European"? He didn't realize those traits could be found in the native peoples of America without "race mixture".

"Hooton grouped the complete male crania from the series into
eight racial types and termed them according to similarities with other racial
types. His types included Basket-Maker, Pseudo-Negroid, Pseudo-Alpine, Longfaced
European, Pseudo-Australoid, Plains Indian, and Large Hybrid. Hooton
reported that he could detect a statistically significant difference between the
frequencies of racial types through time."
- Pecos Revisited: A Modern Analysis of Earnest
Hooton’s, The Indians of Pecos Pueblo
Katherine Elizabeth Weisensee (2001)
 Reply
(2015-Jul-19, 23:18:09)Krom Wrote: Typology didn't take in-group/intra population variation into account because it ignored in situ selection, and drift. For example Hooton, like Coon, Seligman etc, thought narrow nosed crania from East Africa and Egypt was the result of "Caucasoid" (Near-Eastern/South European) gene flow (they had to always involve "race mixture" models):

"An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa." (Brace et al. 1993)


What is Brace saying, that horn of African populations do not often represent Negroid-Caucasoid admixed ones. Could you post the article? The excerpt sounds idiotic. It's well established that there is substantial admix in the HOA; debated is the time of occurrence, see: e.g., Hodgson(2014) "Early back-to-Africa migration into the Horn of Africa".

The explanation to Brace's "paradox" would be that variance in craniometric features is largely due to neutral variation which indexes descent (and is slow to change through selection); while variance in "skin color or limb proportions" are heavily under selection, which indexes modification. In this passage the guy sounds either like a complete moron or sophist -- but to better judge I would have to read the full paper.

But as to your point, what is it precisely -- that Hooton and other biometricians recognized individual variation but believed -- despite being Darwinists -- that it resulted only from the mixing of once pure races which were though to lack internal variability? How do you imagine that they thought that these races came about in the first place -- if not through selection on individual variation? Anyways, if you could clarify this point, I will be better able to refer you to specific passages.

(The problem for you is that, and I can show this through primary textual references, the Darwinists necessary (correctly) believed in species and racial heterogeneity, since selection and drift acting on individual variation was recognized as being what allowed for racination and latter speciation. So none of your Darwinian racialists will believe in (literally) homogenous primary or secondary races/subraces -- they will believe in, instead, relatively "homogenous" races/subraces, where what that means is rarely quantified and therefore difficult to show to be outlandish. And before Darwin, you had your monogenists and polygenists, who thought that races, respectively, were constant varieties or species. The former were not homogenous -- they included inconstant varieties -- and the latter were not intraspecific races. What you need is someone who (a) disliked the monogenist pretensions that differences were relatively unimportant, (b) was pre-Darwinian, © wasn't willing to contravene scripture and sign onto polygenism, and (d) was willing to propose a quirky biologically weird theory.)

And please stop quoting nonsense like this Brace passage and the one about platonic forms.
 Reply
They didn't recognise variation in populations. If they did, Hooton wouldn't have written that Pecos Pueblo was a "melting pot" of "Negroids"*, "an archaic form of white men" (?), and plenty of other nonsensical racial types over a thousand years ago.

*"Pseudo-Negroid": "metrical and indicial likenesses to all Negro groups... and I am of the opinion that is in truth Negroid" wrote Hooton.

So instead of recognising in situ variation in the Pecos Pueblo Indians, he had to come up with ridiculous theories of how "Negroes" appeared there from 800 AD. So too, did Wiercinski, who found an "Armenoid-Bushmenoid" type among the Olmec and then proposed an African and Levant colonization of Mesoamerica in ancient times.

And here's the Brace paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...360603/pdf

Quote:But as to your point, what is it precisely -- that Hooton and other biometricians recognized individual variation but believed -- despite being Darwinists -- that it resulted only from the mixing of once pure races which were though to lack internal variability? How do you imagine that they thought that these races came about in the first place -- if not through selection on individual variation? Anyways, if you could clarify this point, I will be better able to refer you to specific passages.

The "race types" were an ideal/eidos, this is why. This view did not disappear after Darwin, it continued.
 Reply
"In accord with Dixon's views, Hooton believed the races were different enough to be separate species, writing: "the differences between the several races are quite as marked as usually serve to distinguish species in animals." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997, p. 143)

None of the race typologists in the early 20th century were arguing the variation between races was trivial/minor. Will you admit you are wrong about this?

It was the anti-typologist Franz Boas, who first showed "any existing biological differences are of minor importance" between putative races (Race, Language, and Culture. [1940], University of Chicago Press p. 13).
 Reply
Quote:Let me address the second point first since it is more easily addressable. Clines are character gradients; races, as I define them, are divisions of organisms. Clines describe singular traits; races, describe groups or organisms delineated in terms of ancestry which as a result differ in complexes of traits. Clines are interesting, but they are not races. Now, I could discuss ancestral relatedness without using discrete categories -- divisions -- but it's easier for me to think discretely, to talk about groups instead of degrees of ancestral affinity. In the same way, I often think about social classes instead of specific characteristics like education -- the former captures correlated variation too -- and when I think of social classes I tend to think categorically -- upper, middle, and lower. You can do otherwise; I am not saying that you should not. I am just asking you to recognize the validity of my way of thinking, since you undoubtedly recognize the validity of similar ways in other instances e.g., thinking about "ethnocultural groups" instead of memetic and somatic character gradients.

Moving back, Hochman and Marks, I believe, formulate their "strong form" differently. Could you please specify what so-said strong sense of race you had in mind? But you say: "You've already admitted racial differences are minor. So what is the point in a trivial classification?"

I never "admitted [that] racial differences" were "minor", rather I noted that they could be minor as is typically the case between minor races. As for major human races, they are moderate (see the quantification in section IV-K of my NofR paper), and between the formally recognized races of other species they are often major. Now, that said, the race concept, per my understanding is useful. This is why this concept is commonly employed in human related research, though under euphemisms. Consider the attached paper below. Let me quote from it:

I'm saying your (or any) race concept it isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them, and the remaining variation that has a geographical structure is trivial.

Here read this new paper -

"We have shown that even with 20 non-fragmented sets of skeletal remains none could be consistently placed into a single racial category. Individual variability may have played a significant role leading to inconsistency of the results found in this study, which further confirms the ideas of Brace and Ryan (1980), Henneberg (2010) and Lewontin (1976); that most human variation occurs between individuals of the same population rather than being attributable to geographic distribution."

"The accurate determination of ‘race’ is virtually impossible with distribution of human variation within and between populations. For this reason, no-matter how sophisticated the method, there is no way to consistently identify an individual as belonging to one specific ‘race’.
In court cases it is advisable to abstain from stating the ‘race’ of a skeleton, even if desired by the court, because a mistake in assignment is likely and it will compromise the proceedings. If an ‘ethnic’ identification is required, it is better to base it on the evidence of lifestyle, such as tooth wear or limb characteristics than
on any ‘racial’ characters."

Can ancestry be consistently determined from the skeleton?
Ingrid Sierp1 / Maciej Henneberg (2015)
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/anre.201...5-0002.xml

In response to Brues, these were Hooton's students:

Carleton Coon, Edward E. Hunt Jr., William W. Howells, Joseph B. Birdsell, Stanley Marion Garn, Sherwood Washburn, William S. Laughlin, Harry L. Shapiro, Laurence Angel, Alice M. Brues, Gabriel Ward Lasker and Marshall T. Newman.

Only Coon and Brues did not give up race. All the others abandoned the racial approach for clines to analyse human biological variation (from the 1960s-80s) because they came to see race as useless.
 Reply
Edits.

(2015-Jul-20, 21:19:51)Krom Wrote: I'm saying your (or any) race concept it isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them, and the remaining variation that has a geographical structure is trivial.

Quote: "The accurate determination of ‘race’ is virtually impossible with distribution of human variation within and between populations. For this reason, no-matter how sophisticated the method, there is no way to consistently identify an individual as belonging to one specific ‘race’.


You are making one of two arguments here:
(1) "race concept isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them" which precludes the accurate classification of humans into racial (i.e., genealogy-based) groups.
(2) "race concept isn't useful because there is more variation in populations than between them" which means that differences between said-human groups are of no importance.

Could you clarify which one? Position one is clearly false (despite it often being restated) since one can use numerous molecular markers to classify individuals into races. Even lewontin admitted this. In the same paper Lewontin clarified that his argument was (2). I noted:

Quote:This argument has been shown to be unsound. For the explanation why, readers are referred to the discussions of Mitton (1977; 1978), Risch et al. (2002), Edwards (2003), Witherspoon et al. (2007), Gao and Martin (2009), and Tal (2012). What is odd is that the idea of taking into account multiple indexes when making a racial classification is hardly new. Blumenbach in 1806 passingly noted that human racial classifications, being classifications in a natural system, should be based on “all bodily indications alike." Darwin noted that human racial classifications should be based on a full pedigree; moreover, he discussed the importance of correlated variation when it came to classification in general. In 1950, William Boyd showed how one could use multiple genetic loci to make such a classification and noted that one should use all possible genetic loci when doing so. And Lewontin (1978), in reply to Mitton (1977), agreed that it was obvious that one could divide humankind into biological races using multiple loci.

Here is an excerpt from Lewontin's reply to Mitton:

Quote:Indeed, the product approaches zero as the number of loci increases, so that when enough loci are looked at the multilocus identity between groups will be arbitrarily small as compared to the identity between individuals within populations...However, that remark completely misses the point. For any number of loci, large or small, the multiplicative measure used by Mitton necessarily gives a smaller proportion of the variation within groups than does the average of the single-locus values, and the magnitude of the difference depends upon the number of loci examined. The correct way to use all of the information from all of the loci is to use some kind of an arithmetic average, rather than a multiplicative one. Otherwise, the result is a tautology without any meaning for the real world.

Lewontin concedes Mitton's point -- and even says that it's tautologically true -- but then argues that what "really" matters is the average difference. According to him, yes, you can accurately classify -- because in a highly multi-variate analysis, in which traits are correlated, the variance between will be smaller than within -- but, he argues, the mean differences are still small.

Now, the above pattern roughly holds when it comes to e.g., craniometric traits as shown by Howell and others. Of course you have to use enough variables; in Howell's data, which you can freely download, there are around 80 measures. For other sets of traits it depends on how well they index genealogical relationship. This is why you have to weight by how well a character indexes descent.

Now, regarding the paper you cite, the authors fallaciously state:

"Since the majority of the biological variation in the human species occurs
among individuals with the minority being due to geographic differences (Brace
2005; Henneberg 2010; Lewontin 1976), it seems impossible to construct a  precise method of ‘racial’ identification."

This is obviously an erroneous claim for the reasons discussed above. (One of the benefits of defining race in terms of pedigree is that you can construct definite classifications -- assuming that you have very reliable indexes -- since genealogical relationship is a fact of the world.)

Now, as to their analysis, it looks like they tried to assign 20 individuals of unknown origin (e.g., "teaching skeletons bought by the University from India early in the 20th century)" into 9 different reference populations based on different traits using 9 different methods. Worse, 5/9 of there methods appear to be crude "counting methods" (1,3,4,5,6), which are quite outdated. Karl Pearson introduced multivate methods for racial analysis in the early 1900s e.g., Pearson's Coefficient of Racial Likeness.) I can't imagine how this paper passed review; do you not see the problems? Here were some of the possible reference groups:

1. White European or Black/American Indian/Eskimo
2. White European or Black or American Indian
3. Caucasoid or Mongoloid or Negroid
7. White or Black or East Asian/American Indian/Polynesian
8. South African White or South African Black
9. South African White or South African Black

So if we had an East Asian sample and perfectly reliable indexes, the analyses would assign it to Mongoloid for (2) and would fit it, procrustean style, into either "black" or "White" for 8 or 9. Don't you see that this would necessarily results in discordance? Did you even read the paper with a critical eye? In contrast to this, there are numerous well done analyses which show that based on x morphological characters you can reliable assign individuals into natural divisions.

I will just pretend that you didn't reference that paper, so as to keep my opinion of you inflated.

Now you said:

Quote:Carleton Coon, Edward E. Hunt Jr., William W. Howells, Joseph B. Birdsell, Stanley Marion Garn, Sherwood Washburn, William S. Laughlin, Harry L. Shapiro, Laurence Angel, Alice M. Brues, Gabriel Ward Lasker and Marshall T. Newman.

Only Coon and Brues did not give up race. All the others abandoned the racial approach for clines to analyse human biological variation (from the 1960s-80s) because they came to see race as useless.

This is an interesting claim, though of little relevance to our discussion. Could you provide a cite for Garn, Howell, and Birdell -- and maybe the others. If in fact some of them dropped "race" for "cline" I would like to see what they meant by "cline", since many people use it to mean "population continua" and not, properly, "character gradient" (which is how you defined it above and how I define it consistent with the original usage). The former, as I have pointed out are not antithetical to race since intraspecific races, as classically understood, can be cut out of these.

...............

Now, before I discuss the problem with argument (2) above, I would like you to clarify whether you mean (1, or 2). If (2), could you clarify the logic? Specifically, how would you quantify "importance" in terms of average racial difference?

(I, of course, assume that you mean that "race classifications are not useful -- in context to humans -- because..."; I imagine that you grant -- given your utility criteria -- that classifications would be useful as applied to certain other species. And that the race concept would be useful in deciding if human racial classifications were utile. No? Could you try to be a little more precise with your wording?)


Attached Files
.pdf   Single- and Multiple-Locus Measures of Genetic Distance between Groups.pdf (Size: 253.92 KB / Downloads: 362)
 Reply
(2015-Jul-20, 20:27:08)Krom Wrote: "In accord with Dixon's views, Hooton believed the races were different enough to be separate species, writing: "the differences between the several races are quite as marked as usually serve to distinguish species in animals." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997, p. 143)

None of the race typologists in the early 20th century were arguing the variation between races was trivial/minor. Will you admit you are wrong about this?

It was the anti-typologist Franz Boas, who first showed "any existing biological differences are of minor importance" between putative races (Race, Language, and Culture. [1940], University of Chicago Press p. 13).


Here, I see two arguments:
(a) race typologists in the early 20th century (generally) argued that the variation between races was non-trivial/major.
(b) race theorists prior to Boas (generally) argued that the variation between races was non-trivial/major.

Would you agree that monogenists such as Prichard argued that the variation was relatively unimportant -- since it was of the intraspecific type?

A problem with both claims about the bimetric typologists is that "non-trivial/major"/"trivial/minor" is a somewhat subjective estimate; as such, it's difficult to put claims on a common metric and to evaluate if they overestimated differences.

For example, in my section IV-K I argued that differences between major human races were often "large" given social scientific standards. Regarding importance, I noted that sociologists, at least in the U.S., consider ethnic differences in e.g., education and income to be very important and large despite the fact that the differences typically account for less then 10% of the total population variance. I might apply Lewontin's logic to ethnic differences and argue that "racial inequality" doesn't exist -- but I feel that doing so would be silly. Anyways, I can't say that our sociologists are wrong or are overestimating the magnitude of differences, because "large" and "significant" are not quantitative estimates.

So how would you propose to evaluate early 20th century qualitative claims? I would think that we would just look at their quantitative data. Isn't it reasonable to assume that they thought that differences were no larger than their reported data showed? If so, since they present the data with means and standard deviations we can just look at that. If it shows differences no larger than what is now known, we can conclude that they though that differences were no larger or significant than they quantitatively are. If so, then I would just have to show that their metrical data was not greatly off to show that their evaluations were not. Do you agree?
 Reply
 Previous 1 25 26 27 28 29 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)