Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

desunit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 424 posts

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#411

Post by redcobra762 »

marcusverus wrote: post #406
redcobra762 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NIH is not a scientific source? The Human Genome Project isn't a scientific source? The journal literally called Science? Duke University? Science Direct? The American Medical Association? The Experimental Physiology Journal? That's a tough thing to read on HN, I have to be honest.

The NIH site is hosting an editorial. An editorial from what appears to be the journal of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. No, it is not a valid source in support of your claim. The fact that you not only shared it but defended it , purely based on the hosting URL, is... revealing. How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible tha…

They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race.

Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions.

The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph:

> In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” The statement continues: “... The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries... Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.”

How you could deny this as not the scientific consensus, or not a full rejection of race as a biological concept fascinates me.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#412

Post by marcusverus »

redcobra762 wrote: post #411
marcusverus wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NIH site is hosting an editorial. An editorial from what appears to be the journal of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. No, it is not a valid source in support of your claim. The fact that you not only shared it but defended it , purely based on the hosting URL, is... revealing. How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible tha…

They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race. Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph: > In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists i…

> Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions.

The races are visually distinguishable. This is possible because there are genetic (i.e. biological) differences between the groups, which are expressed as differences in skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. These genes aren't what defines race per se, they're merely proof that race--commonly understood in terms of membership in a geographically defined population--cannot be said to be some arbitrary social distinction with no basis in biology.

The paragraph you cite is a rhetorical slight of hand. They argue that that "pure races... do not exist". But nobody argues that "pure races" exist. This is the strawman fallacy in its most basic form.

I'm equally fascinated by your position! After a bit of thought, I might understand where we're getting mixed up.

It's possible that our disagreement comes down to a difference in what we mean when we say that race is/isnt "a biological concept". If the differences between races are insignificant compared to those between genus or species (I have no idea if this is true for all species distinctions, but i'll concede the point), and there is no existing concept in biology to account for such trifling differences as our racial differences, the it can be reasonably asserted that "race is not a biological concept". Another way to say this is "there are biological (genetic) differences between human racial populations, but they are so small that there is no analogous concept in biology/taxonomy."

Thus defined, the idea that "race is not a biological concept" is a narrow and purely semantic assertion. The problem arises when you conflate this semantic assertion with unrelated ideas like "race is meaningless" or "race isn't real". It was your use of the phrase in this latter manner that prompted my response.

Original comment:

> This is a White America thing and it is why we are in the situation we are in as a country but people want to pretend that race and culture doesn't play any role in anything.

Your response:

> It's not a White America thing to reject race as a biological concept, it's consistent with scientific study.

So you're saying the words "race is not a biological concept", but are you saying it in the narrow semantic sense in which it is true? It doesn't seem like it--an assertion about biology nomenclature would make little sense in context! It sounds like what you meant was something like "race is meaningless." But that is an entirely different assertion which (as I have been vainly arguing in previous comments) is not proven nor directly asserted by the papers you linked.

I suppose I'm trying to say that even though "race isn't a biological concept" is true in a narrow sense, it doesnt support your (apparent) assertion that race is meaningless.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#413

Post by redcobra762 »

marcusverus wrote: post #412
redcobra762 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race. Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph: > In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists i…

> Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The races are visually distinguishable. This is possible because there are genetic (i.e. biological) differences between the groups, which are expressed as differences in skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. These genes aren't wh…

Ah yes, this is what I presumed was taking place, I just needed you to say it.

Race is absolutely real, in that it is a social construct. Race is not, as you say, a biological concept. There are no sets of genetic traits that mark someone as of one race or another, but race has been loosely defined by various groups at various times to include traits that are heritable, such as skin tone and facial structure. Almost always, the group defining race are doing so in an effort to subjugate or stratify others in contrast with themselves, so usually racial classifications are done ignorantly and hatefully.

But, as a biological concept that can be defined, you're right that race does not exist. Though you argue this is semantics and therefore unimportant, which I find odd.

You don't consider semantic issues to be important. Wild! Words seem very important to me and to the people I talk to, I've not really ever met someone in my life who didn't think what words meant was important.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#414

Post by redcobra762 »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #392
redcobra762 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a White America thing to reject race as a biological concept, it's consistent with scientific study.

The author is talking about social thing though. Raising ones' children which is a social and cultural. Bringing in race is completely valid.

The point is that race is entirely made up (that's what a social construct is) and can change in an instant, so trying to lock it down by calling it a "White America" thing is wrong.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#415

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #399
rayiner wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents adopted the western practice and gave us his last name, which he doesn’t share with anyone else in his family. It’s Arabic not Hebrew, but I imagine the words are related. My wife’s last name is in the Domesday book, and they have extensive record of their family’s activities in the U.S.—which is a cool thing you can do when you have surnames! I feel somewhat guilty that the west coast line of the name wil…

I don't think they're related, but the name is a very big deal in Islam, albeit with a different (and very interesting) etymology.

It’s almost means the English phrase it superficially sounds like lol.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#416

Post by marcusverus »

redcobra762 wrote: post #413
marcusverus wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions. The races are visually distinguishable. This is possible because there are genetic (i.e. biological) differences between the groups, which are expressed as differences in skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. These genes aren't wh…

Ah yes, this is what I presumed was taking place, I just needed you to say it. Race is absolutely real, in that it is a social construct. Race is not, as you say, a biological concept. There are no sets of genetic traits that mark someone as of one race or another, but race has been loosely defined by various groups at various times to include traits that are heritable, such as skin tone and facial structure. Almost…

At this point i'm not sure whether you're trolling or simply refusing to engage in good faith, so I'm going to bow out :)

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#417

Post by thatcat »

redcobra762 wrote: post #367
thatcat wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science still backs a genetic component for things like happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct and yet can still effect things like social behavior and cultural adaptations to the environment.

> In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/

Right, there is .1 % variation in genetics which, although seems like small number, manages create differences that lead to social effects. no correlation with race required, not surprising really since race is self chosen and non specific.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#418

Post by thatcat »

tremon wrote: post #382
thatcat wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science still backs a genetic component for things like happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct and yet can still effect things like social behavior and cultural adaptations to the environment.

That genetic component is between parents and children, not between neighbours who serendipitously share the same skin colour. happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct Which one of those is not a social construct, you'd say? Happiness -- which relies on self-reporting, or IQ -- for which a person can change their score by 10-20 points by studying test preps?

depression is based on self reported information, is that a social construct? anyway my point is that personality predisposition has a genetic component.

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#419

Post by redcobra762 »

marcusverus wrote: post #416
redcobra762 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, this is what I presumed was taking place, I just needed you to say it. Race is absolutely real, in that it is a social construct. Race is not, as you say, a biological concept. There are no sets of genetic traits that mark someone as of one race or another, but race has been loosely defined by various groups at various times to include traits that are heritable, such as skin tone and facial structure. Almost…

At this point i'm not sure whether you're trolling or simply refusing to engage in good faith, so I'm going to bow out :)

You could have done that without replying, and in my experience the folks who feel the need to announce their departure from a conversation are the ones who tend to be the trolls…

Doubly so when the topic is race and the position is that race is biological (you’re not even the first, sadly).

Re: Why young parents should focus on building trust with their kids

#420

Post by redcobra762 »

thatcat wrote: post #417
redcobra762 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/

Right, there is .1 % variation in genetics which, although seems like small number, manages create differences that lead to social effects. no correlation with race required, not surprising really since race is self chosen and non specific.

No. You missed the rest of the statement: "there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them."
Post reply on HN