Liberman responds

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

Mark Liberman has updated his post on race and IQ in response to my post. I actually wrote out a long response and deleted it–believe it or not, I have about as much of a desire to get sucked into this conversation as he does. But I strongly, strongly disagree with his claim that showing two populations have different distributions of IQ and claiming genetics plays a role is, in itself, a “racist theory”. My point in the post was that the basic premises of Saletan’s article (ie. that there are aspects of “intelligence” that are socially relevant, probably have a genetic component, and differ in distribution across populations) are entirely accepted by Shalizi (ok, he “might agree” with them). This is because they’re obvious in the light of evolutionary theory (allele frequencies evolve by natural selection and genetic drift. This includes alleles involved in socially awkward phenotypes like IQ). I’m not opposed to people holding out for more evidence, but imputing nefarious motives to writers for talking about the evidence that exists I do find questionable.

34 Comments

  1. “obvious in the light of evolutionary theory” 
     
    That’s why I don’t get dragged into the muck over psychometric arcana these days, and why Leiberman’s whole discussion fairly reeks of irony. It’s so fantastically improbable that the various racial groups evolved to have roughly the same average cognitive profile over the last 40K years that the point is not even worth arguing; if Leiberman doesn’t understand population genetics, then by his own standards he shouldn’t be “wasting our time”. Saletan is in the unenviable position of a man who’s uttered the obvious to a bunch of people who both think it’s not so and don’t have the theoretical apparatus to understand why it very probably is so.

  2. Which is not to say that Saletan does either, and that’s the problem: He’s not equipped to deal with moderately sophisticated and motivated skeptics, so he’s set himself up as an icon for them to burn.

  3. Perhaps, p-ter, you have missed Lieberman’s thrust. I don’t think that you would defend Saletan’s clumsy assertion that the Pioneer Fund research of Rushton, Lynn, Jensen and others is anywhere even remotely close to the scientific certainty of evolution theory. Even you must admit that that is an absurd notion. 
     
    And while all this talk of statistics, variance, and correlation is somewhat interesting… crshalizi’s most poignant criticisms were in his links to articles which directly challenged the sources and methodology employed by Rushton & Lynn
     
    Fans of these studies need to seriously address these claims. If Rushton is indeed using IQ data gathered in South Africa on non-English speaking people based on tests that were in English… with questions based on tennis, no less… to extrapolate IQ claims for all Africans… then his claims are clearly worthless. Actually, they would be less than worthless. The would be purposefully misleading, specious, and (hold your breath) racist
     
    I would like to see you folks here do an honest appraisal of the Pioneer Fund. Since the vast majority of the research you quote in this topic is funded by them, and they were established to promote white supremacy and eugenics, this is not an unreasonable thing to ask. One could say that the Pioneer Fund has changed since its admittedly racist beginnings, but the activities of its current head (Rushton) and major players like Lynn suggest otherwise. AmRen Convention 
     
    And, while I freely admit that a scientists bias does not alone discredit his findings, there is evidence that there is some impropriety going on with this data. People seem to look to you here at GNXP as the logical, rational side to this whole debate. You owe it to yourself to take a good hard look at who you are championing.

  4. I’m not opposed to people holding out for more evidence, but imputing nefarious motives to writers for talking about the evidence that exists I do find questionable. 
     
    That’s technique is not “questionable” but rather downright evil. It’s an attempt, often successful, to head off investigation and discovery of scientific truth on the grounds that any results showing a genetic component of sensitive group differences (such as IQ, proclivity towards violence or aggressiveness, time horizons, etc.) are “scientific racism” and hence verboten. 
     
    It’s a version of the old Marxist notion that “bourgeois truth” (aka reductionist truth) must always yield to “political truth”.

  5. willy wonka– 
     
    I’ve not read anything by Lynn or Rushton, and certainly am not “championing” them. I’ve not cited them at all in this exchange. 
     
    saletan’s analogy between rejection of evolution on the species level and the rejection of evolution within humans is just that–an analogy. some rhetorical excess? sure. but is there an analogy to be made? absolutely.

  6. What bothers me most about Liberman’s post is this point: 
    And just so that we’re clear on what the issues are here, Josh Marshall reminds us of Saletan’s basic premise, which is that that the genetic mental inferiority of Africans is as well established as the theory of evolution is, and that well-meaning liberals who try to deny the genetic mental inferiority of Africans are pitting their faith against scientific fact, just like the well-meaning believers who don’t want to accept evolution. 
    This is not Saletan’s premise, of course. Nor does Josh Marshall’s post put those words in Saletan’s mouth. Saletan’s mouth said
    It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true. 
     
    If this suggestion makes you angry?if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable?you’re not the first to feel that way… 
    What Saletan is saying, quite explicitly, is that we should entertain the possibility. I’m rather miffed at Liberman’s irresponsible misquote; if I were Saletan, I would seethe.

  7. p-ter et al. 
     
    Having read Saletan’s pieces & his prelude weeks before about Jewish Intelligence… I have to say that his faux dismayed liberal tone is obnoxious. “Oh, this may be hard for us to take, but Darwin’s proofs were just as hard for the religious.” [paraphrasing] 
     
    One sees a similarly dim logic in the “Galileo was persecuted for making truthful claims…” ploy. 
     
    What people completely avoid is that there is absolutely no causative proof of any of this stuff. Some correlation studies done with data that has been debunked… please. 
     
    You p-ter may not be directly quoting Rushton or Lynn, but 90% of Saletan’s links were to papers authored by Rushton, Lynn, Jensen or other Pioneer Fund recipients. If you haven’t done so already, follow the links in my earlier post and decide for yourself if the head of the Pioneer Fund is someone whose opinions on race should be taken at face value. 
     
    Do genes play a part in intelligence? Possibly. Do we have any clue as to what alleles are involved? Do we understand the mechanisms of consciousness? Are we even close to knowing what makes someone smart? No No & NO.  
     
    If we do ever find a genetic source which is causative for intelligence, is it conceivable that the alleles won’t be spread across the artificial designations of race? How would that even be possible? 
     
    So. What is the pressing need in science to encourage differential psychologists to study a question only answerable by geneticists? And aside from making Ashkenazi Jews feel extra superior about themselves, what is the practical use of this “research?” Tell me this isn’t just a circuitous, oblique way to influence political policies on affirmative action…

  8. willy, 
     
    What’s your position on the blank slate asymmetry? Are you as eager to condemn Gould, Lewontin, and the like for their Marxist ties as you are to condemn Rushton for associating with racists? If not, why not? 
     
    Are you aware that the article you linked to (on Abiola Lapite’s site) is from the “Journal of Black Studies”? (Note the capitalization of “Black.”) Do you think Rushton has posted any responses in the “Journal of White Studies”? 
     
    Do you have any references to back up your suggestions about non-English IQ tests, tennis, etc? I don’t see them even in the JBS article which Lapite references. 
     
    Would you characterize your argument against Rushton as “ad hominem”? If not, what do you think would qualify as an “ad hominem” argument?

  9. let’s keep the tone amiable here.  
     
    What is the pressing need in science to encourage differential psychologists to study a question only answerable by geneticists? 
     
    as a geneticist, I’m somewhat sympathetic to that sentiment :) but like I don’t outright dismiss epidemiology or economics because they’re (largely) observational, I’m not going to dismiss outright largely observational psychology research. 
     
    obviously there’s large agreement that studying this isn’t worthwhile (this is why it’s only done with “dirty” money by a mixture of people who are either completely indifferent to being called every name in the book and people who possibly deserve every name in the book).  
     
    And aside from making Ashkenazi Jews feel extra superior about themselves, what is the practical use of this “research?” 
     
    I don’t think research necessarily has to be practical. some people find it interesting (again, a mix of racists and people who are interested in human nature).  
     
    If we do ever find a genetic source which is causative for intelligence, is it conceivable that the alleles won’t be spread across the artificial designations of race? How would that even be possible? 
     
    any allele involved in any quantitative trait almost certainly differs in frequency across populations. seriously. find me an allele involved in a quantitative trait that *doesn’t* vary in frequency across populations and I’ll think more seriously about this whole issue.

  10. willy wonka says: 
    Do genes play a part in intelligence? Possibly. 
     
    It’s more than just a possibility – it’s almost certain.  
     
    Do we understand the mechanisms of consciousness? 
     
    Consciousness is irrelevant to IQ, which is about _individual differences_. 
     
    Are we even close to knowing what makes someone smart? 
     
    We know a fair bit about what does _not_ make someone smart. In particular, no one seems to have found any educational or psychological interventions that permanently raise someone’s IQ – and that includes being adopted into a different family. Now, it’s possible that there are things out there that no one has thought of yet – but at some point, when you’ve exhausted all the possibilities, the absence of evidence must become evidence of absence. 
     
    If we do ever find a genetic source which is causative for intelligence, is it conceivable that the alleles won’t be spread across the artificial designations of race? 
     
    Sure, just look around. Genes for skin color, hair color, sickle-cell anemia etc still match up with race (or more accurately, ancestral region). There are papers coming out every day from the HapMap that show alleles at different frequencies for different populations. 
     
    Now, about Rushton and Lynn. They are obviously interested in the question, and they’ve drawn a lot of attention – but the most important sources of information don’t come from them or the Pioneer Fund. The data on IQ of ethnic groups in the US, the heritability from twin studies, the adoption studies that show little effects of shared environment, the recent papers showing evidence of selection on genes by region – none of them depend on whether you consider those guys credible or not.

  11. I think willy wonka gives the game away when he says: 
     
    If we do ever find a genetic source which is causative for intelligence, is it conceivable that the alleles won’t be spread across the artificial designations of race? How would that even be possible? (Emphasis added.) 
     
    Clearly, he, or she, has not been keeping up with the literature.

  12. I agree that Rushton and Lynn’s credibility is ultimately of little importance, but my understanding was that Rushton’s original research on Sub-Saharan IQ has been largely based on data derived from Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test (which presumably would not require familiarity with tennis). No?

  13. I’ll try and address these issues in one post: 
     
    Mencius –  
    The allegations are in the Lynn article… Only the whole of the first 2 chapters quoted. If you didn’t see them, you didn’t look. They are fairly well annotated as well. 
     
    The “Blank Slate” stuff… tying that Pinker concept to the motivations of totalitarians on the basis of some perceived notions of Marxism… pretty tenuous stuff there. Do you honestly think that sociopaths like Stalin & Mao wouldn’t have killed their enemies regardless of what ideology they espoused. I assume Trotsky was killed because of this as well? Even in your link it clearly states that those people were killed by virtue of their opposition. Are you reasoning that: Blank Slate is a Marxist ideology, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China practiced a derrivative of Marxism, They killed lots of people, Therefore Blank Slate is responsible for millions of deaths? That is rather soft headed wouldn’t you agree?  
     
    Having read Marx in University, I would say that this “Blank Slate” nonsense is a ruse. Read Das Kapital. The ideas you claim as fundamental are not central to the philosophy. Besides, no government on Earth has ever practiced Marxism. 
     
    I’m not concerned where the critiques were published really… only that if they are true, they are damning. I don’t find such critiques to be ad hominem, as in order for such an argument to be a fallacy, the entire critique must rest on the personal attack. These claims obviously do not. Moreover, the fact that the scientists involved cavort with David Duke only lends credence to the evidence that they have purposefully misused and misrepresented data to further racist agendas. 
     
    I don’t have to defend Gould or Lewontin as I never quoted them. 
     
    p-ter -  
    I agree. Let’s keep the tone amiable. No reason rational people can’t debate an issue with respect for their detractors.  
     
    I wouldn’t call for dismissal of all observational science either. My point is more that these particular studies are not above reproach, have serious claims against them that go unanswered, that other noted scientists in a position to evaluate this work have tarred and feathered it, and, as a side note, that this is really a question for evolutionary biologists and geneticists. 
     
    As you are a geneticist, I won’t argue the point, but it was my understanding that alleles are capable of being turned on and off by some RNA processes and homochromatin (sp?), both of which are subject to environmental manipulation. Do not all humans share 99.9% of their genes? 
     
    tc-  
    Your saying that something is almost certain does not make is so. 
     
    How can consciousness be irrelevant to intelligence? IQ is merely a score on a standardized test created by a psychometricians, nothing more, nothing less. 
     
    Absence of evidence? What you have spelled out is a classical logical fallacy. 
     
    Sickle cell anemia is prevalent in all equatorial regions that have malaria carrying mosquitoes. There are many Africans who have no predilection to the disease, and there are many Caucasoids who do (in India for example). Skin color is not causative or even highly correlative with sickle cell anemia.  
     
    Besides, biologists talk about these attributes in clinal gradations. You would be hard pressed to find a modern biologist who even discusses race other than to debunk the notion. (this is to some random weirdo as well) 
     
    As for twin studies, I assume you mean Jensen’s? The guy who received over 1 million dollars from the Pioneer Fund? The guy who co-authored papers with Rushton? That guy? Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote in 2005 that “Jensen has largely ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy unwaveringly for over 30 years.” 
     
    Please don’t act like this has been studied thoroughly and well. The most laughable claim “race realists” make is that all these tests have been normalized, rendered culturally fair, and controlled for environment. Their proof of this? That Jensen & Rushton said so in their book on IQ testing bias. And yet we see that they quote studies given to Zulus in English. Controlling for environment is patently impossible unless you raise the children in identical sterile laboratories and feed them the exact same diets. IQ correlation between identical twins is less than 80% even in the same household. We simply don’t know how this works. There are theories, but this is not hard-science yet. How do we explain the Flynn effect? Even Flynn isn’t sure. How about the study by those TM freaks who showed that meditation produced significant changes on CFIT IQ tests? (Ps from .035 to

  14. My post got cut off: 
     
    Ps ranged from .035 to

  15. cut off probably because of a strange character like a carat.

  16. Something html with the less than sign? I’ll try again. 
     
    Ps ranged from .035 to less than .0001. That’s pretty huge, and certainly not heritable. 
     
    Chip Smith
    Read the Lynn hypelinked text. 
     
    BTW I meant to say the first 2 paragraphs of the quoted article not the first 2 chapters. 
     
    everyone 
    Maybe one day we will have the answers to this. Maybe it will even show the Pioneer Fund racialists to be correct. Who knows? Certainly not William Saletan. I suppose research doesn’t have to have direct practical application to be worthy, but when it only has practical unethical applications… and it’s main proponents hang out with neo-nazis… and the Fund who pays for it was established to promote eugenics… at a certain point you have to ask yourself “Is this really in the name of scientific inquiry?”

  17. I started chuckling at the “no government on Earth has ever practiced Marxism”, which is not to say that it isn’t true. 
     
    What I want to know is why the anti-racists aren’t conducting non-biased tests to refute Jensen & Rushton.

  18. it was my understanding that alleles are capable of being turned on and off by some RNA processes and homochromatin (sp?), both of which are subject to environmental manipulation. Do not all humans share 99.9% of their genes? 
     
    1. so yes, microRNAs, epigenetic silencing, etc, are all important areas of research. I (and others) have written a number of posts on epigenetics. all these things are very plausible mechanisms by which the environment can affect phenotype. just like people research the mechanisms by which genetic variation influences phenotype, people want to understand how the environment does as well. these are both absolutely necessary for getting a full picture of how genotype and phenotype are related. and they are not mutually exclusive. 
     
    2. humans are identical at something like 99.5% of the genome (depending on how you want to count). that last 0.5% contains a lot of information, however. Humans and chimpanzees are identical at something like 97% of the genome (again, depending on how you count). the number itself is meaningless. If I told you there were over 7 million places in the genome where two people could have different bases in their genomes, that would also be true. there’s even a database with over 3 million variants and their frequencies in a couple different populations you can peruse to your heart’s content. 
     
    3. re:race. you might want to read this old post.

  19. Something html with the less than sign? 
     
    it’s interpreted as opening an html tag

  20. at a certain point you have to ask yourself “Is this really in the name of scientific inquiry?” 
     
    this is a fair point, but i reject the manichaean choice. but even if the motive isn’t pure that doesn’t mean that all the data is falsified. science in practice is filled with ideological motive. in the end reality sorts the good from the bad. as more scientists become interested in these sorts of questions the ability to engage in one-degree-of-nazi-separation will hopefully become less of an issue.

  21. oh, and james watson is a liberal. so are many people quite open to the possibility of between group differences. they stay on the down low because of the flack they’ll receive.

  22. “Consciousness is irrelevant to IQ” 
     
    Really? So an unconscious individual can take a test and be assigned an IQ?  
     
    One cant even imagine human intelligence without consciousness. And the fact is that science knows diddly squat about this subjective experience of awareness which is the most fundamental aspect of our being. Which highlights the utter softness of this so called science of intelligence. Find the gene for consciousness and then we’ll talk.

  23. saul, that’s like saying that we couldn’t talk about evolution before DNA. or newtonian mechanics before quantum theory.

  24. I’m still reeling at this idea that Communism had nothing to do with Marxism. Very original! I suppose Hitler had nothing to do with racism, either. 
     
    The Lynn article at Lapite’s site is from Z Magazine. I’m sure there are quite a few degrees of separation between this source and Hitler, excuse me, Stalin. 
     
    It’s interesting to read pieces like this, because they all seem to take a sort of “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” angle. Ie, they look for even the slightest inconsistency or apparent bias in the evidence presented by the other side, latch on to it triumphantly, and declare that the LAPD must have framed OJ. 
     
    You also see this pattern of argument in Holocaust revisionists. They come up with some detail about the gas chambers which has no obvious explanation. No Prussian Blue in the walls of Auschwitz? The whole thing must have never happened. Perhaps the Jews of Budapest will be found someday, living peacefully in the mountains of Tibet. 
     
    Lynn does meta-analyses with all the studies he can find. The entire point of a meta-analysis is that you don’t have any perfect studies. As you note, IQ tests are extremely blunt instruments and can be confounded by all sorts of factors. Nonetheless, some people are born smarter than others, and smartness don’t seem to be distributed randomly. 
     
    To paraphrase Cosma Shalizi, you might want to think about why it’s so important to you that smartness must be distributed randomly. Because you certainly haven’t presented any evidence for your belief that it is.

  25. razib: 
     
    Damn straight on the liberal point. I got a little too open about my beliefs after the Saletan article and lost a passet of acquaintances. Ironic thing is some of them are quite up on population genetics vis a vis Cavalli-Sforza and Lahn.

  26. Razib, you can talk all you want about race and IQ; just don’t presume that you are talking hard science.

  27. mencius & others 
     
    I and others who feel as I do are not the ones making a case. We are not presenting any theory or any form of hypothesis. We do not claim to have any answers. We didn’t get given huge grants to conduct research. And as such, we only have to show that the case being made is inconclusive. 
     
    This also the case with defense lawyers due to our “innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal justice system. Rail all you want about OJ, but this system is designed this way to protect us. Innocent people still end up on death row as it is. You really wouldn’t want it any other way.  
     
    I simply looked at this case as presented by the Pioneer Fund and its group of social scientists and found the case to be full of holes. The studies were by and large poorly done. There is a preponderance of evidence to suggest curve fitting and actual falsification. And the people involved are, to a large degree, unrepentant racists. 
     
    Please don’t put words in my mouth. I am baffled by the polemical stances of people for whom everything in life boils down to liberal v. conservative. How utterly banal. I have opinions that fall all over the spectrum, but that is neither here nor there.  
     
    Your thing about the Marxist beliefs was simply false. It was a triple logical fallacy. You started with a hypothesis contrary to fact, then proceeded to make a Dicto Simpliciter argument on top of an Affirming the Consequent. You really should study logic. (Blank Slate is a subset of Marxism. B is a subset of A. Totalitarian Communists practice a derivative of Marxism. C approximates A. Therefore Totalitarian Communists believe in the Blank Slate. B is a subset of C. Totalitarian Communists killed millions of people. C commits D. Therefore Blank Slate killed millions of people. B commits D.) This is so wrong that I’m surprised I have to point it out to you. Forget the fact that the first item is not even true. Even letting that go for the sake of argument, this is pure lazy thinking. 
     
    To sum up this. You will find that William Saletan has issued an apology today… for the very reasons I have laid out. So for those of you who need an argument from authority to recognize the truth of something… here you are: Saletan’s Regret  
     
    He was a bit tame, and he could have talked about the millions given to Himself, Jensen, Lynn, and Gottfredson, but he called out Rushton and the Pioneer Fund and apologized admiting his negligence. I applaud him for that. 
     
    Peace y’all.

  28. I was trying to say the millions Rushton gave to himself. Not that Will got any of that cash… 
     
    ;-) 
     
    I wish you could edit these posts….

  29. Willy wonka says: 
     
    I and others who feel as I do are not the ones making a case. We are not presenting any theory or any form of hypothesis. We do not claim to have any answers. We didn’t get given huge grants to conduct research. And as such, we only have to show that the case being made is inconclusive. 
     
    Oh but you do claim to have answers and make claims. Your claims are above: Race does not exist and is a social construct as any biologist will tell us. You said that yourself.  
     
    You also claim that there are no differences, otherwise you wouldn’t be here arguing …

  30. willy wonka says: 
    How can consciousness be irrelevant to intelligence? 
    We can tell that some people are smarter than others even if we have no idea how the brain produces consciousness or how intelligence evolved. IQ, g, and all that are solely concerned with _differences_ between people. If there was only one person in the world, or if everyone were exactly the same, then there would be no use for IQ – but we don’t.  
     
    Skin color is not causative or even highly correlative with sickle cell anemia. 
    Not skin color – ancestry. 
     
    You would be hard pressed to find a modern biologist who even discusses race other than to debunk the notion. 
    How about this one
    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. 
    As for twin studies, I assume you mean Jensen’s? 
    No, there have been dozens of twin studies all around the world, with similar results. From Plomin & Spinath
    A stronger case has been made for substantial genetic influence on g than for any other human characteristic. Dozens of studies including more than 8000 parent-offspring pairs, 25 000 pairs of siblings, 10 000 twin pairs, and hundreds of adoptive families all converge towards the conclusion that genetic factors contribute substantially to g [4]. Estimates of the effect size, called heritability (see [4] for explanation), vary from 40 to 80% but estimates based on the entire body of data are about 50%, indicating that genetic variation accounts for about half of the variance in g. 
    at a certain point you have to ask yourself “Is this really in the name of scientific inquiry?” 
    Do differences in outcomes between individuals and groups matter – do you think that it’s worth knowing why some people make more money than others, why some countries are vastly richer than others, or why some groups seem to produce more or less scientists, or writers, or engineers? If you care about that stuff, if you want to truly understand the reasons why – then you must eventually come across the possibility that those differences are related to g, the factor that seems to affect nearly every mental ability.

  31. willy, 
     
    Oh, but you are making a case. Your case is that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of reality is evil
     
    Imagine how strong your evidence must be to believe this! What a pity we haven’t seen any. 
     
    I actually do not judge Gould or Lewontin based on their connections to Marxists. I don’t think anyone here does. I was just pointing out that if you wish to indulge in the reductio ad hitlerum, you should understand how the world would look if this principle were applied consistently.

  32. I and others who feel as I do are not the ones making a case. Of course you are! It’s just that your case involves representing your position as the null hypothesis, when everything we know about genetics and population differences shows us that is inappropriate.

  33. You guys are too much. 
     
    Debunking someone’s study is not making a case. I offered no null hypothesis. I never said there were no differences. You guys as a group are very quick to read into what someone is saying without actually addressing what they have said. 
     
    Pointing out that Rushton hangs out with David Duke is not Reductio Ad Hitlerum. An Ad Hominem fallacy requires that such a character attack be the entire basis for the case against an argument. As was the case for your argument against Gould & Lewontin. I offered up actual critiques of actual studies. The fact that The Pioneer Fund is classified as a hate group merely adds a preponderence of evidence as to the trustworthiness of an expert witness. You do not seem to understand how red herring fallacies work. 
     
    And trying and make a case for biological race by quoting a study that shows hispanics as a race… Wow. You really are desperate. Everyone knows that latinos are a mixture of European, Indian, and African stocks in widely different ratios. As if Guatemalans, Argentinians, and Haitians all form a race… Even US blacks have quite a bit of European blood, and often Native American as well. You’d be surprised to see how many southern klansmen had black sheep in their families as well. After all, if you only had 1/16th black blood, you were “officially” white again. My advice, go back to genetic clusters or learn about clines…. 
     
    ;-)

  34. Oh, and Mencius, I said that the members of a group that has been officially designated as a hate group are racists… I never called them evil. 
     
    If they didn’t want to be called racists, you’d think they’d know better than to hang out with David Duke and Don Black. (both former grand wizards of the KKK)

a