The looming [un-PC] crisis in human genetics (1 Viewer)

[Dezaad]

... You really need some basics:

Actually, I was already aware of all these claims. In fact, my awareness of them, and their effect on society's attitudes, are the reason I wrote my post.

As an aside: The meaning of the claims you posted is still in dispute. IQ may or may not be a definitive measure of intelligence (probably is not). The contention that it is not goes back many many years.

Now, was there something you were going to tell me about that I didn't already know? You seem to be under the impression that I am sorely lacking in information and that you're going to save me from myself. I won't hold my breath.

 

[spud_meister]

The reason this is a political nuke is that the racists will want to use this to justify many programs that will hold back or prevent other ethnic groups.

can you imagine that though, the KKK will suddenly only want asians to attend tertiary education, 'cause they're genetically predisposed to be more intelligent

 

[mbig]

What is it, exactly, that you think I believe?

Hard to tell
You make ridiculous assertions including unreleased studies "sloppy".
And more to follow.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that they are delaying release of the info for propaganda purposes?

I am saying this is politcially very senstitive info, and that they may be considering how best to release with the least possible negative impact on society.
Perhaps even delyaing it as it's news is powerful and perhaps devastating to some.

Really? A guy who made it to be a Supreme Court Justice isn't that bright? Not brighter than a bunch of Internet dwellers on a message board? Ok :doh

By all accounts, the intellectually weakest member of the court.
Again, do some research instead of faking it with with semantics, on which you couldn't outdo me Either even if I wasn't the one with facts here and you were.

OMFG. You are simply making my argument for me. This is EXACTLY what I was trying to convey. This is precisely the reason every individual deserves their chance to prove themselves. What did you think I meant?

I Was the first to and beyond that, it's Obvious.
One ie, Bell Curve!, could be well lower in peak and average than another, but one can always pick an individual from any spot on them.
Duh!

Yep. I think we all should have an emotional stake in the outcome.

I think we should try and discussd it rationally while you hurl insults because you don't like the infornation.
Hostile throughout.

If it turns out that it is a fact that one race TENDS to be less capable than another, it would still not justify discrimination based on race: Because any one individual within that race could be a whole lot smarter than, say 80% of the other 'smarter' race.

"If"? I thought you said you were "familiar".
Yet aren't Familiar, you Unwittingly inserted "2%" which shows you are NOT familiar with all the studies which are in the 10-15% range.
If you were, you sought to Dishonestly minimize it.

But, this isn't what would happen. Discrimination would happen based on race. Humans don't behave in an ideal fashion. There would be a pronounced wave of discrimination based on facts, but also based on faulty logic.

What "Faulty Logic".
AGAIN... Races have differing IQs. There CAN a genius in any, it's just less likely in some than others.
It of course also effects the average group/great majorty of that race and can be evidenced in life outcomes as well.
Might help explain a continent/s, or country/s, or city, etc.

You seem to think that I won't accept the facts (if they turn out as the OP hints), or that I believe in suppressing them. I don't. I am still sickened by the probable outcome in society that will result from the discovery of those facts. You should be too.

Lie.
You are sickened by what the truth.
First one must have the facts, THEN we deal with them.
We don't suppress the facts because some can't handle it.

I concur, it will be only a few who really understand the meaning of the genetics and will gain an enlightened, live and let live recognition ... and so forth. The rest, the majority, will choose a different path. This is what scares me. A majority will feel justified in their racism.

If their 'racism' is based on average IQ, they probably will feel justified. Why wouldn't they?

I know it seems impossible, but sometimes the revelation of facts CAN lead to poor outcomes. I still believe that we must maintain credibility by allowing the truth to see the full light of day, but that changes nothing about the nature of the outcome.

Make up your mind.

All that said, I do think we need a reminder that this information has not been presented, yet. Nor has it been debated by the larger scientific community. I have been speaking hypothetically and speculatively about what it is that they think they have.

And yet, it was already "sloppy" pre-release according to you!
and no doubt there will be detractors Including You, no matter what the evidence, just as those whose religion is creationism instead of Liberalism allows them to Deny reality.
-

 

[mbig]

Actually, I was already aware of all these claims. In fact, my awareness of them, and their effect on society's attitudes, are the reason I wrote my post.

That's why you intentionally plugged in "suppose it's 2%" instead of the true spread. To mislead. To minimzie the truth.

As an aside: The meaning of the claims you posted is still in dispute. IQ may or may not be a definitive measure of intelligence (probably is not). The contention that it is not goes back many many years.

Probably is.
Life outcomes confirm them in large degree.
Of course liberals will attribute this to 'Racism' on behalf of other groups.
Apologism is so tedious.

Now, was there something you were going to tell me about that I didn't already know? You seem to be under the impression that I am sorely lacking in information and that you're going to save me from myself. I won't hold my breath.

I think you're very decently smart, but like many/most, more politcal than analytical and can't look at this issue objectively.
Your posts filled with rationalizations and denial.

I, for One, am greatful for ALL factual revelations I've been privileged to witness during my life.
It may be bad news some are more likely to get cancer-- but best we Know that's the case first. Then again, there's no non-generational cure for intelligence deficit so it's not as Immediately apparent how constructive it is.
The 'out' will be apologism/minimization and 'creative' explanations. Gauranteed. Just as it's been for decades.

 

[jallman]

If that happens I dont want to be around for it. It wont be pretty.


The eugenics ideal that was popular in the early 1900's would come roaring back. We would have institutional policies against specific ethnicities and possible regions (aka hillbillies). Possible sterilization of those that are deemed to be lower genetic stock

The older I get, the less appalling that actually sounds...

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Assuming you believe this, what would be some examples? I expect that with current technology and communication capabilities, it's not likely that anyone would actually use this information in this manner today. 80-100 years ago? Yeah.

We still have racist groups in the world, and plenty of racist people, imagine the outcry if people who dont like ethnic group A, had "scientific studies" that showed that ethnic group A is has inferior mental capacities compared to their own ethnicity? Do you not think that they would lobby to stop wasting their tax dollars on educating ethnic group A as they wont be able to learn enough to make up for the money spent on them

80-100 years is not that long ago in human history

 

[lizzie]

Do you not think that they would lobby to stop wasting their tax dollars on educating ethnic group A as they wont be able to learn enough to make up for the money spent on them

No, I don't think that, at least in the industrialized parts of the world. In some countries, there's already hate against other groups, whether they be racial, religious, or culture, and it doesn't take lobbying or legislation to have appalling things happen. In countries that are democracies, I don't at all believe this would happen. As for the rest of the world, it's nothing new.

80-100 years is not that long ago in human history

In terms of what we have accomplished with science and technology, we are eons ahead of where and how we were 100 years ago.

 

[Dezaad]

Hard to tell
You make ridiculous assertions including unreleased studies "sloppy".

Are you having verbal diarrhea here, this sentence doesn't make sense. I get the idea that you think I'm making ridiculous assertions, but about what is anyone's guess. I would address your accusation if I could figure out your poorly formed sentence.

And I didn't make ANY assertions about these studies. I merely speculated about what they might say (as did YOU). I made assertions about what would occur in society if my speculations turned out to be true.

I am saying this is politcially very senstitive info, and that they may be considering how best to release with the least possible negative impact on society.
Perhaps even delyaing it as it's news is powerful and perhaps devastating to some.

Could be. Or, they could be delaying because they haven't finished their analysis and write-up. I got the idea that they want to put it out there, and intend to do so.

By all accounts, the intellectually weakest member of the court.
Again, do some research instead of faking it with with semantics, on which you couldn't outdo me Either even if I wasn't the one with facts here and you were.

How have I misused semantics? You are so convinced that I was coming in here to suppress "the truth" and/or unwilling to accept the truth that you're simply seeing what you expect to see. I am laughing at you.

I Was the first to and beyond that, it's Obvious.

Not to everyone, its not. Which is my point. Not everyone is going to give the 'lesser races' individuals equal chances to prove themselves with the 'higher races'. I am contending the majority will not.

One ie, Bell Curve!, could be well lower in peak and average than another, but one can always pick an individual from any spot on them.
Duh!

Yeah, Duh! I already understood this, of course. You seem to think I did not. Please quote what you think means that I didn't.

I think we should try and discussd it rationally

I am discussing it rationally

while you hurl insults because

Internet dwellers is an insult? Or you just think being told you're less smart than a black man is an insult?

you don't like the infornation.

As I've stated, I don't like the outcome I foresee arising from the misuse of the information.

Hostile throughout.

You started the hostility, bud. In the small part where I did actually show hostility, I am just having a natural reaction to YOU.

"If"? I thought you said you were "familiar".

Yes, IF! You have assumed I was referring to the studies that went into The Bell Curve when I said 2%. I was not. I am referring to the information being speculated on in the OP. IF that information shows a difference in capabilities between the races.

Yet aren't Familiar, you Unwittingly inserted "2%" which shows you are NOT familiar with all the studies which are in the 10-15% range.
If you were, you sought to Dishonestly minimize it.

I didn't 'unwittingly' insert 2%. I chose 2% because I simply pulled a number out of my head. Any number. YOU don't know yet what the number is either. There is no way you can know anything about any number that might come out of the information as yet to be published in NEW studies.

What "Faulty Logic".

This would be a faulty logic:
.

1. Black people are 10% less smart on average than white people.
2. George is a black person.
3. I am a white person.

• Therefore, George is 10% less smart than me.

... Faulty because the premises might be true but, even if so, don't actually force the conclusion.

Which is what I think we are BOTH arguing against. The only point I have been trying to make, from the beginning of my posts in this thread, is that this, and other more subtle but still fallacious arguments, will be made. They will be based on any facts that point to differences in capability between the races. I don't trust the majority of people to see the fallacies. We differ, I think, only in that you don't think any unfair consequences will happen as a result of this information.

AGAIN... Races have differing IQs.

I have been aware of this for many, many years.

Lie.

Do you have evidence that I am lying?

You are sickened by what the truth.

No, as I have said in the quote you are addressing here, I am sickened by what I foresee as the outcome of the information in these studies if it turns out to be factual that some races are less capable than others. You are calling this the truth. I have not accepted that the information shows this. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is the the truth. I will not be sickened by it. I will be sickened by people's misuse of it.

First one must have the facts, THEN we deal with them.
We don't suppress the facts because some can't handle it.

I stated "I still believe that we must maintain credibility by allowing the truth to see the full light of day". That was me saying that I don't believe the truth ought to be suppressed just because it will be misused. The reason I think we should not suppress the truth is because suppressing the truth ruins the credibility of science to do so. It is more important to maintain credibility than it is to keep people from misusing the truth.

If their 'racism' is based on average IQ, they probably will feel justified. Why wouldn't they?

If by racism, for example, you mean not hiring blacks because they believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites, it is unfair to engage in such racism. It is unfair, even if it is true that statistically blacks are less smart than whites. Each black person ought to be judged according to his/her own merits. It is an unfair shortcut to group people together and judge them ALL according to a statistic.

Make up your mind.

No where did I ever express any differently. You have just convinced yourself that I have.

And yet, it was already "sloppy" pre-release according to you!

I didn't say that it was sloppy. What ARE you talking about???

and no doubt there will be detractors Including You, no matter what the evidence, just as those whose religion is creationism instead of Liberalism allows them to Deny reality.
-

You are right that I don't want this to be true. But, like any scientifically minded person, I will accept it once any objections are addressed and overcome. You, on the other hand, seem to really WANT this to be true. You seem to LOVE that you feel that you have found that blacks are on average inferior to whites, and seem to be salivating at the prospect that additional scientific information is forthcoming that you believe will confirm what you already believe. I can't imagine why you think it would be a good thing for there to be differences of this kind.

 

[Dezaad]

That's why you intentionally plugged in "suppose it's 2%" instead of the true spread. To mislead. To minimzie the truth.

Again, you think I was talking about other population studies. I wasn't. I was speculating about what the future studies might show. Insert 10%, 50% or whatever turns your crank. The argument presented by the paragraph still stands.

BTW: I didn't think this thread was going to be about all the existing studies. You have brought up the existing studies and seem to want to focus on those. Have you already determined that the information being talked about in The Economist will confirm the prior studies? How did you do this? Can you provide me with a specific quote that specifically confirms prior studies? The article indicates that the new information seems to show that there are differences in intelligence based on race, but it doesn't say how much, whether it confirms or contradicts what has seemed to be indicated earlier, etc.

Probably is.
Life outcomes confirm them in large degree.
Of course liberals will attribute this to 'Racism' on behalf of other groups.
Apologism is so tedious.

Well, I'll just say that I disagree, since I don't want to go further away from the topic that you presented in the OP.

I think you're very decently smart, but like many/most, more politcal than analytical and can't look at this issue objectively.

Oh, but I can. I am perfectly capable of being persuaded by evidence. Even of things that I think will be misused. Even of things that I simply don't like. I am perfectly willing to be wrong. You on the other hand: I doubt it.

I, for One, am greatful for ALL factual revelations I've been privileged to witness during my life.

So am I, because I trust myself to use information properly. I am not always thrilled for the general public to know the truth of things because I don't trust them. They make demonstrably fallacious arguments all the time.

It may be bad news some are more likely to get cancer-- but best we Know that's the case first. Then again, there's no non-generational cure for intelligence deficit so it's not as Immediately apparent how constructive it is.

Indeed

 

[phattonez]

It's important to note that genetics may be responsible due to trait selection and epigenetic modifications. But still, I think that cultural issues are more responsible.

 

[Mach]

I'll want some peer reviewed findings first, as the claims are quite outrageous. For example, class can't really have a genetic basis

Sure they can.
Take a class, and the not-class group.
Statistically compare <XYZ> between them.
If different, classes exhibit said differences.

By the same token, poor farmers became poor factory workers in a single generation. Evolutionary time takes a least hundreds of years for anything noticeable, society can be utterly changed in a decade.

They aren't suggesting that evolution is happening as a result of classes. Instead, that classes may be affected by underlying genetics. See class test above.

The attempt to frame opponents of their hypothesis as politically minded is sloppy, pathetic and highly unprofessional. Bold claims demand skepticism and scrutiny, so they should expect to be grilled over their findings.

They didn't. They claimed there will be oponents based on politics and bias. That's a fact. Obviously if they are publishing their studies they expect legitimate scientific opposition as well, and hopefully welcome it. Doesn't change the fact that you will no doubt see politically charged opposition that you DON'T see on equally scientific topics.

 

[Mach]

This would be a faulty logic:
.

1. Black people are 10% less smart on average than white people.
2. George is a black person.
3. I am a white person.

• Therefore, George is 10% less smart than me.

... Faulty because the premises might be true but, even if so, don't actually force the conclusion.

Who actually argues that though? It's more insidious than this. Anyone arguing the above is just ignorant.

Some entire industries are basd on such probablities. Casinos don't care what your particular card hand is do they? They simply bet on the probabilities and over time, win. They don't win every hand, but they don't need to. Similarly, if you are building a nation, or a corporation with 20K employees, or a sports team with 40 players, probabilities can indeed play a factor in determining who is most likely to have a population expressing geneXYZ.

And look at the Gattaca example specifically. If you're going ot invest billions on an astronaut, and that astronaut has a 60% chance to develop heart failure before 40, then can you really argue against the economics there? If it's your money at risk, you start to pay attenition right?

At some point, our culture will absolutely have to deal with such issues. I think we'll do it as well as it can be done. But the information will eventually change things no matter how much we plug our ears.

 

[Dezaad]

Who actually argues that though? It's more insidious than this. Anyone arguing the above is just ignorant.

Agreed. But, there are alot of ignorant people.

Some entire industries are basd on such probablities. Casinos don't care what your particular card hand is do they? They simply bet on the probabilities and over time, win. They don't win every hand, but they don't need to. Similarly, if you are building a nation, or a corporation with 20K employees, or a sports team with 40 players, probabilities can indeed play a factor in determining who is most likely to have a population expressing geneXYZ.

Agreed, again. I did say in a post up there somewhere something about "arguments more subtle but still fallacious" or some such.

And look at the Gattaca example specifically. If you're going ot invest billions on an astronaut, and that astronaut has a 60% chance to develop heart failure before 40, then can you really argue against the economics there? If it's your money at risk, you start to pay attenition right?

At some point, our culture will absolutely have to deal with such issues. I think we'll do it as well as it can be done. But the information will eventually change things no matter how much we plug our ears.

Agreed yet again.

If it is in fact true that there are significant differences between the races, I think that once this becomes general knowledge it will completely affect people's reactions to other people's race. For example, I believe whites will become at least somewhat more deferential to asians over time. Especially as China rises and 'proves' the 'rule'. Ugh.

These subconscious reactions will have a positive feedback loop that will outsize the true significance of the truth. For example, Asians will have it internalized that they are on average superior, and Whites will believe that, too. They will both reinforce each other's convictions. We can point to the fact of people's insecurities and egos for the source of the force behind this feedback dynamic.

Furthermore, some people seem to be expecting everyone to internalize

X is ON AVERAGE superior to Y.

But, I don't think things get internalized this way. I think they get simplified, in our subconscious mind's relentless simplification of complexity, to something more like

X is on average SUPERIOR to Y.

I love that you bring up gambling: What a perfect example of an actually relatively simple concept of which the mind just doesn't tend to accept the truth!! Even this points to the fact that our minds don't really permit us to readily internalize abstractions!!

 

[mbig]

Again, you think I was talking about other population studies. I wasn't. I was speculating about what the future studies might show. Insert 10%, 50% or whatever turns your crank. The argument presented by the paragraph still stands.

But if you knew of the other studies, your plugging in of "2%" was a clear attempt to minimize- consistently following your PC premise.

BTW: I didn't think this thread was going to be about all the existing studies. You have brought up the existing studies and seem to want to focus on those. Have you already determined that the information being talked about in The Economist will confirm the prior studies? How did you do this? Can you provide me with a specific quote that specifically confirms prior studies? The article indicates that the new information seems to show that there are differences in intelligence based on race, but it doesn't say how much, whether it confirms or contradicts what has seemed to be indicated earlier, etc.

This thread/release was Most probably going be about the Genetic Basis for the other previous studies coming up with the numbers they consistently do.

Well, I'll just say that I disagree, since I don't want to go further away from the topic that you presented in the OP.

'No' is Not 'debatingpolitics'

Oh, but I can. I am perfectly capable of being persuaded by evidence. Even of things that I think will be misused. Even of things that I simply don't like. I am perfectly willing to be wrong. You on the other hand: I doubt it.

On the contrary. Immediately above you were incapable of debating and wanted to just leave it at disagreeing with no counterargument.
In fact you want to drop the whole topic--- FAR from accepting anything.

So am I, because I trust myself to use information properly. I am not always thrilled for the general public to know the truth of things because I don't trust them.....

Well we know YOU can handle it and not everyone else. So maybe they should just release the results to you- the only trustworthy one.
I think, like evolution, and the Earth not being the center of the universe (or solar system), we should let everyone know the Truth.
Despite you being the only one who can deal with information!%&%^$#%^$%.
Like Copernican/Galilean revelations, many people probably suspect the truth already.

 

[d0gbreath]

I must cry bunk! I can't believe that some folks here actually think that these studies might turn out to be correct and usable.

There must be a gene in the aforementioned group that makes them dumber than dirt. Oops!

 

[ricksfolly]

New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.
Research which had a medical motivation, will instead reveal some very un-PC news.
All hell may break loose when we find out why 'White men can't jump' or some even more controversial differences in mental abilities.

The looming crisis in human genetics
Nov 13th 2009
Premium content | Economist.com
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - The looming crisis in human genetics

I'll wait for the movie to come out. I, like millions of other non scientists, have to see or feel it to believe it.

ricksfolly

 

[The Giant Noodle]

New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.
Research which had a medical motivation, will instead reveal some very un-PC news.
All hell may break loose when we find out why 'White men can't jump' or some even more controversial differences in mental abilities.

The looming crisis in human genetics
Nov 13th 2009
Premium content | Economist.com
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - The looming crisis in human genetics

I thought common sense told people there were differences!
Black people dont run quicker because they are most all lucky. :roll:

 

[mbig]

I thought common sense told people there were differences!
Black people dont run quicker because they are most all lucky. :roll:

"Common sense" is obviously correct.
but "PC" dictates you can only talk Physical differences, not mental ones.
You Can say "white man can't jump".....

 

[Alyssa]

Genetics and environment likely play and equal role, and both are interconnected in such a way that they cannot easily be separated for study.

 

[nonpareil]

Let's not get Diverted by the more difficult 'class', which may be more explainable and small after-the-fact. Rather stick with more easily apparent race and ethnicity until results are released.

The fact that there are differences in, ie, Race and IQ is well known. Only the explanations/rationalizations are different.
For a century or more, anyone suggesting so has been branded a Racist, Eugenecist, etc.
This is a political Nuke. H-bomb in fact.

Careers/reputations were severely damaged in the case of 'The Bell Curve' for documenting what should be evolutionarily obvious. Though these results will probably exonerate them somewhat from the PC attackers.

-

They are branded "racist" because they jump on to the race factor at the expense of other possible (and to me more nuanced and logical) explanations. IQ is affected by many factors - childhood education, nutrition, healthcare, home environment etc all play an important role in our intellectual development. Because of humanity's history, racial group as a whole have different access to those things. On average, African have less access to good education, nutrition, or healthcare than whites. So when we find that on average blacks have lower IQ than whites, I think it's jumping to conclusion to say that race is the cause of the difference. So I have to ask, why is that person so quick to jump to the conclusion that race must be the reason why black are not as smart as white?

If genetic studies actually find a gene that plays a role in increasing intelligence (like we have found for diabetes, cancer etc) and further found that this gene is more likely to be found in Jew/Asian than White and then Black. I would say that study is valid and that difference in intelligence is down to genetic factor. So far I've only come across that claim for Jews, and I'm perfectly fine with accepting it. So until there's actual evidence from genetic studies to prove the premise, I would question anyone who jump to the conclusion that race is a cause of intellectual difference given humanity's history.

 

[Slartibartfast]

New Genetic studies will reveal there ARE genetic mental and physical differences among the Races/Ethnicities.
Research which had a medical motivation, will instead reveal some very un-PC news.
All hell may break loose when we find out why 'White men can't jump' or some even more controversial differences in mental abilities.

The looming crisis in human genetics
Nov 13th 2009
Premium content | Economist.com
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - The looming crisis in human genetics

The most worrying aspect, if this is true, is that we may fall into the trap of telling people that they cannot do this or that because of group averages. We need to never ghettoize people or make second class citizens.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Race is a myth. The actual link is to the right-wing rag the economist. The creationist hacks have infiltrated evolutionary biology to try and discredit it. Read and learn...

Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans

 

[Baralis]

Seeing how this thread has been resurrected I thought I would post something I ran across the other day.

Gene expression is a complex quantitative trait partially regulated by genetic variation in DNA sequence. Population differences in gene expression could contribute to some of the observed differences in susceptibility to common diseases and response to drug treatments. We characterized gene expression in the full set of HapMap lymphoblastoid cell lines derived from individuals of European and African ancestry for 9156 transcript clusters (gene-level) evaluated with the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Exon 1.0 ST Array. Gene expression was found to differ significantly between these samples for 383 transcript clusters. Biological processes including ribosome biogenesis and antimicrobial humoral response were found to be enriched in these differential genes, suggesting their possible roles in contributing to the population differences at a higher level than that of mRNA expression and in response to environmental information. Genome-wide association studies for local or distant genetic variants that correlate with the differentially expressed genes enabled identification of significant associations with one or more single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), consistent with the hypothesis that genetic factors and not simply population identity or other characteristics (age of cell lines, length of culture, etc.) contribute to differences in gene expression in these samples. Our results provide a comprehensive view of the genes differentially expressed between populations and the enriched biological processes involved in these genes. We also provide an evaluation of the contributions of genetic variation and nongenetic factors to the population differences in gene expression.

ScienceDirect - The American Journal of Human Genetics : Evaluation of Genetic Variation Contributing to Differences in Gene Expression between Populations

In genetics, gene expression is the most fundamental level at which the genotype gives rise to the phenotype. The genetic code stored in DNA is "interpreted" by gene expression, and the properties of the expression give rise to the organism's phenotype.

Phenotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A phenotype is an organism's observable characteristics or traits: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two

So If I am understanding this correctly they are saying that behavioral traits can vary based on gene expressions which vary significantly among different ethnic groups. So in short, different races may have a genetic reason for acting differently.