51–60 of 100 posts
For such a flimsy concept, race is surprisingly stubborn and resilient. Already a few people saying yeah it's not perfect but it's a rough approximation. No, that's the whole point, it's not. It's astrology level science. There's no there there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't even make sense. Nobody believes that "race" is the cause of phenotypic differences between groups, it's the outcome of it. It's a useful, albeit broad, term to distinguish distinct populations of people who, over many generations, have genetically converged within their own group and genetically diverged from others. Why must they lie?
That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups. There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which make…
Does skin color not diverge between racial groups, or is it not a significant genetic divergence?
If skin color seems too trivial to be genetically "significant", then what about racial differences that confer an advantage or disadvantage to malarial resistance?
> Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. Would it not be correct to state that "race" is a social construction intended as a stand-in to identify sets of interconnected factors which impact a particular population, such as historical, social, and biological? Is the issue that the word "race" has too much bagg…
Race is a proxy measure that weakly correlates with genetic history. Seems easier to just use the direct measure which can be determined with high accuracy (identity by descent through DNA sequencing). I think the problem is that race is so deeply embedded in people's minds that even scientists who try to be objective struggle to disentangle theories from their preconcieved notions.
This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups have different risks and complications. This article describes how members of different ethnic groups have different complications in pregnancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7290488/ Here is a review about how race affects Adverse Drug Experiences (In response to commonly prescribed drugs), published in the j…
> However, few of these studies were specifically designed to evaluate racial or ethnic disparities, lacking a standardized approach to racial/ethnic categorization as well as control for potential confounders.
The NIH study that the article is about provides concrete recommendations that would help alleviate the precise concerns expressed by your article.
You seem like you might be responding to the headline rather than the underlying content of the NIH study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you quantify how significant the fuzziness has to be before it should not be subject to analysis? Species is a lot fuzzier than you think.
> Species is a lot fuzzier than you think. As someone who, as a child, read books on the history of taxonomy and how taxonomy has changed over the centuries, I would love to hear you list what mistaken beliefs about species you claim that I have. Seriously, though. I am not interested in being the topic of conversation, so please do not make me the subject of your comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't even make sense. Nobody believes that "race" is the cause of phenotypic differences between groups, it's the outcome of it. It's a useful, albeit broad, term to distinguish distinct populations of people who, over many generations, have genetically converged within their own group and genetically diverged from others. Why must they lie?
That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups. There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which make…
Yet show me a picture of any of them and I am confident I could roughly point to the region in Europe where their ancestors have toiled for the last thousand generations. Put them and a dozen Congolese in a group and a 5 year old could easily separate them into their two respective racial groups.
There is clearly a common genetic 'core' among people of the same racial group. There may be much diversity within it, too, but to use that to deny the existence of this shared heritage is downright subversive and disingenuous.
Race is in the eye of the viewer. You can choose your race, but it has no value unless other people recognize it. Ultimately, though, race is defined by skin color, which is a quick way to identify people. This article seems to be creating an argument, where one was never needed. Sometimes society does things to help organize itself.
No, it's not; a couple of them have names that refer to that trait.
This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups have different risks and complications. This article describes how members of different ethnic groups have different complications in pregnancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7290488/ Here is a review about how race affects Adverse Drug Experiences (In response to commonly prescribed drugs), published in the j…
> This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups.. Emphasis added. Race != ethnicity; TFA argues against using the former and suggests using the latter (with other things). > Some of the key recommendations focus on getting rid of the use of race and instead focusing on what the report terms "population descriptors." These can be things like ethnicity, region of residenc…
One of the drugs has a greater risk of nasty side affects for the black patient.
Which drug do you give the patient?
Should the research that tells you which drug to give be banned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups. There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which make…
> there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups. Does skin color not diverge between racial groups, or is it not a significant genetic divergence? If skin color seems too trivial to be genetically "significant", then what about racial differences that confer an advantage or disadvantage to malarial resistance? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704235/
One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless. It would be difficult to come up with some kind of genetic basis for that category that is somehow useful to science, somehow includes most black people, and somehow excludes most non-black people.
It is more useful to talk about genetics in terms of (recent) ancestry. Ancestry is reasonably useful for things like screening for genetic conditions. You want to screen for sickle-cell anemia? Recent African ancestry is a reasonable thing to look for; blackness is a poor proxy. Recall that skin pigmentation is more about what latitude your ancestors are from, and not about what specific part of the world they are from.
(I’ve used the term “African ancestry” to refer both to long-term ancestry and more recent ancestry here, I hope that the usage is clear from context.)