4 ms·

Genome-wide clustering algorithms that are run with no a priori assumptions about population structure end up discovering human population groups that match alm

by fdsaaf 10y ago

Genome-wide clustering algorithms that are run with no a priori assumptions about population structure end up discovering human population groups that match almost perfectly with self-identified "race". The claim that race doesn't exist is simply false. We can talk about whether or not it's useful to make policy decisions based on race, but if we're respecting the data, we can't say that there are no coherent human population groupings smaller than homo sapiens or that these groups do not align with traditionally-understood "race". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ It's incredibly frustrating to see well-intentioned people just flatly deny facts about the world. The mistrust and resentment this denial causes makes it much more difficult to get useful messages across.

smt88 10y ago
Again, there is no scientific consensus on how to define race, and many scientists see it as an impossible or meaningless taxonomy[1]. That's the core problem. You've chosen to use a purely genetic definition. My assertion is that everyone is a mixture, which is true. People exist on a continuum of race without discrete borders[2]. 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-c... 2. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
- PeterisP 10y ago
  The position on that continuum of race is just as correlated with the same metrics as the self-identified classification. The issue 'race is correlated with X' is not materially affected by how exactly race (especially its borders) is defined and taxonomical problems - it's important in it's own regard, but in this regard, it's not the core problem, it's a red herring distracting from the core question of "does race affect X'; and that question is the same, with the same answers, no matter if in your analysis you choose to model race as discrete borders or as a continuum.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Hmm, yes those popular racial categories of "European/West Asians" and "Hispanic". If your test can accurately group "Hispanics" which no-one actually claims is a race, then it doesn't prove that any other grouping it finds is a "race", however that is defined.

by fdsaaf 10y ago

smt88 10y ago

Again, there is no scientific consensus on how to define race, and many scientists see it as an impossible or meaningless taxonomy[1]. That's the core problem. You've chosen to use a purely genetic definition. My assertion is that everyone is a mixture, which is true. People exist on a continuum of race without discrete borders[2]. 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-c... 2. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

PeterisP 10y ago
The position on that continuum of race is just as correlated with the same metrics as the self-identified classification. The issue 'race is correlated with X' is not materially affected by how exactly race (especially its borders) is defined and taxonomical problems - it's important in it's own regard, but in this regard, it's not the core problem, it's a red herring distracting from the core question of "does race affect X'; and that question is the same, with the same answers, no matter if in your analysis you choose to model race as discrete borders or as a continuum.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

Hmm, yes those popular racial categories of "European/West Asians" and "Hispanic". If your test can accurately group "Hispanics" which no-one actually claims is a race, then it doesn't prove that any other grouping it finds is a "race", however that is defined.