81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?
If we go with this argument how much of biology becomes humanities?
> 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…
The problem is that the concept isn't precise enough. You'll find striking differences within a given "racial group" once you break it down into more useful descriptors. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... Look at Native Americans, where the median household income is almost double for some subgroups compared to others. For Asians, the income difference is more than doubl…
That said, your example about Native American income groups isn't the argument you likely think it is. That has been investigated pretty thoroughly and found to be nearly entirely based on shared tribal ownership of businesses like casinos or oil fields, which pay out to the entire tribe. Overall Native Americans in the US are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to non-NA populations, primarily because they are in largely undeveloped (from a business/economic perspective) areas of the country, which are not considered targets of development. They suffer from both ethnic disparities as well as the same disparities that generally affect rural vs urban populations.
> 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…
A really good example in how poorly race represents what it seems to represent is that the two ethnic groups with the most genetic distance from each other are both "black." In fact there are dozens if not hundreds of african ethnicities with as much difference between them as, for example, irish and japanese have. But since they all have the dark skin phenotype, they all register as one "race." It's just not a usefu…
“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…
Because ethnicity is commonly understood and has been defined fron the beginning as a social category (that’s what, historically, differentiates it from race.) So using it to describe a social category doesn't have the problem that using race for that purpose does.
> And, can people choose their ethnicity or is it determined at birth?
That’s a false dichotomy, and the answer is “not exactly” to both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.
If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?
Example: in the past, "rho factor" was a magical component in a test tube that had a well-defined activity but nobody knew "what" rho was (hence the term "factor"). Eventually, rho factor was isolated and purified to the point where molecular characterization determined it was a protein with a specific function. but that didn't stop people from studying it as a "thing" that had no real "definition" other than the visible activity of its function.
We can determine what race you are, with extremely high probability, from your DNA sequence.
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…
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.
The correct response is, “well junior you’re just seeing things. Please stop making such observations.”
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.
So when a 5 year old sees a crowded street in Tokyo and remarks “daddy why does everyone have black hair?” The correct response is, “well junior you’re just seeing things. Please stop making such observations.”
Your example would make more sense if the kid was asking why 1% of people have red hair. And we can answer that without inventing a ginger race, and with much more interesting science based answers that involve actual genetics:
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…
I feel like I’m being gas lighted by these explanations that race doesn’t exist. A five year old can plainly see race but grownups must pretend it doesn’t exist? It’s a bit Orwellian (a bit like 2+2=5)
I'm guessing you're older than five, so you probably should adjust to the shock and make an attempt to advance your understanding of the world beyond the level of a child who can't even tie their shoes.