5 ms·

> current scientific evidence there is no evidence for the existence of a race that does not rely on referencing the idea of a race. the idea is self-referenti

> current scientific evidence there is no evidence for the existence of a race that does not rely on referencing the idea of a race. the idea is self-referential. to understand this, you must understand philosophy. another way of saying this is that assigning a person to a race doesn't give us any more information than the information we used to classify him in the first place. > so far the key points made in the book about the genetic existence of race have not even come close to being debunked. ok, I'll bite: what defines a race? what test do I apply to a specimen in order to sort him/her into a race category?

shard972 9y ago
> there is no evidence for the existence of a race that does not rely on referencing the idea of a race. the idea is self-referential. to understand this, you must understand philosophy. Huh? Race is defined by a combination of genetics in the form of phenotypes and culture. I don't see the circular paradox here. > another way of saying this is that assigning a person to a race doesn't give us any more information than the information we used to classify him in the first place. But we can? We can say that Chinese are more likely to be shorter than africans. That asians are more likely to have black hair than blonde hair or that africans are more likely to have higher testosterone than european whites or indians. Ask any doctor or pharmacist and they can list you a few ways they are taught about how to treat people of different races differently because of biological differences. We can even go further and say for instance that ashkenazi jews have a higher average IQ compared to Africans due to a large part their genetic differences and not purely environmental reasons. The bell curve which was published a few decades ago proves many of these kind of claims so I don't know where you get this idea that we cannot determine anything useful from race. > ok, I'll bite: what defines a race? what test do I apply to a specimen in order to sort him/her into a race category? I gave a definition previously which is pretty accepted, for how you test for a race the answer is that's pretty easy, 99% of the time you can just ask someone and they will tell you. We can prove this through cluster analysis, where you take a sample set of people and first ask them what race they are from a set number of selections. They then can read SNPs from each of the participants and hand that to a computer without the self reported data the people provided. What you see is that even with 100 random SNP's you have a near perfect correlation between what people say their race is and the computer correctly grouping them into the race they chose. If you want to see some sources, here is an article that links off and summarizes the studies I am referencing http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/ http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329...
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  > We can say that Chinese are more likely to be shorter than africans. whats a chinese? whats an african? and what is it about those categories that makes it necessary for you to speak in probabilities and not certainties? if those categories accurately described features of reality, and were not mere artifacts that stem from your worldview, you would be able to rigorously tell me a relationship between gene(s) and features. > Race is defined by a combination of genetics in the form of phenotypes and culture. > for how you test for a race the answer is that's pretty easy, 99% of the time you can just ask someone and they will tell you. exactly, its a made up category, i.e. not a real thing. > We can prove this through cluster analysis, where you take a sample set of people and first ask them what race they are from a set number of selections. They then can read SNPs from each of the participants and hand that to a computer without the self reported data the people provided. you can do the same thing for things like "hippie", "biker", "nerd" etc. it doesn't make those categories leave the intersubjective realm.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    > necessary for you to speak in probabilities and not certainties? You're replying to a person who is specifically referencing group stats and not in a deterministic way. Here's one extreme statement: - There is no such thing as race, in that E(X | race) = E(X) for all X that we care about Here's another extreme statement: - Race biologically determines your fate, e.g. E(X | race + C) = E(X | race) for any 'other information' C Both statements as wrong. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Even if you don't think that 'race' is the most salient metric, it doesn't help that our culture sometimes seems to willfully conflate culture, religion, ethnicity, and race in the most uncharitable possible way. Eg. if you say something bad about Islam itself as a religion, one often finds themselves accused of implicit racism—and this is accusation is determined by seeing that one group of people of a certain 'race' seems to follow that religion more, so if you criticize a religion, you must be intending to attack that group of people.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    > do the same thing for things like "hippie", "biker", "nerd" while race is not the correct term to use there, breeding two nerds or two biker isn't likely to produce another nerd or biker, while the result of breeding two people of a common ancestry has a likely outcome. > exactly, its a made up category, i.e. not a real thing. race is a made up category, but you can't just hand wave all of it: > what is it about those categories that makes it necessary for you to speak in probabilities [..] you would be able to rigorously tell me a relationship between gene(s) and features. only because something hasn't been explored in its entirety doesn't make it less convincing of an argument. beside, genetic is rooted in statistics, because of recessive/dominant expressions of traits, so you have to talk in probabilities.

shard972 9y ago

> there is no evidence for the existence of a race that does not rely on referencing the idea of a race. the idea is self-referential. to understand this, you must understand philosophy. Huh? Race is defined by a combination of genetics in the form of phenotypes and culture. I don't see the circular paradox here. > another way of saying this is that assigning a person to a race doesn't give us any more information than the information we used to classify him in the first place. But we can? We can say that Chinese are more likely to be shorter than africans. That asians are more likely to have black hair than blonde hair or that africans are more likely to have higher testosterone than european whites or indians. Ask any doctor or pharmacist and they can list you a few ways they are taught about how to treat people of different races differently because of biological differences. We can even go further and say for instance that ashkenazi jews have a higher average IQ compared to Africans due to a large part their genetic differences and not purely environmental reasons. The bell curve which was published a few decades ago proves many of these kind of claims so I don't know where you get this idea that we cannot determine anything useful from race. > ok, I'll bite: what defines a race? what test do I apply to a specimen in order to sort him/her into a race category? I gave a definition previously which is pretty accepted, for how you test for a race the answer is that's pretty easy, 99% of the time you can just ask someone and they will tell you. We can prove this through cluster analysis, where you take a sample set of people and first ask them what race they are from a set number of selections. They then can read SNPs from each of the participants and hand that to a computer without the self reported data the people provided. What you see is that even with 100 random SNP's you have a near perfect correlation between what people say their race is and the computer correctly grouping them into the race they chose. If you want to see some sources, here is an article that links off and summarizes the studies I am referencing http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/ http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329...

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> We can say that Chinese are more likely to be shorter than africans. whats a chinese? whats an african? and what is it about those categories that makes it necessary for you to speak in probabilities and not certainties? if those categories accurately described features of reality, and were not mere artifacts that stem from your worldview, you would be able to rigorously tell me a relationship between gene(s) and features. > Race is defined by a combination of genetics in the form of phenotypes and culture. > for how you test for a race the answer is that's pretty easy, 99% of the time you can just ask someone and they will tell you. exactly, its a made up category, i.e. not a real thing. > We can prove this through cluster analysis, where you take a sample set of people and first ask them what race they are from a set number of selections. They then can read SNPs from each of the participants and hand that to a computer without the self reported data the people provided. you can do the same thing for things like "hippie", "biker", "nerd" etc. it doesn't make those categories leave the intersubjective realm.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > necessary for you to speak in probabilities and not certainties? You're replying to a person who is specifically referencing group stats and not in a deterministic way. Here's one extreme statement: - There is no such thing as race, in that E(X | race) = E(X) for all X that we care about Here's another extreme statement: - Race biologically determines your fate, e.g. E(X | race + C) = E(X | race) for any 'other information' C Both statements as wrong. As usual, the truth is somewhere in between. Even if you don't think that 'race' is the most salient metric, it doesn't help that our culture sometimes seems to willfully conflate culture, religion, ethnicity, and race in the most uncharitable possible way. Eg. if you say something bad about Islam itself as a religion, one often finds themselves accused of implicit racism—and this is accusation is determined by seeing that one group of people of a certain 'race' seems to follow that religion more, so if you criticize a religion, you must be intending to attack that group of people.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  > do the same thing for things like "hippie", "biker", "nerd" while race is not the correct term to use there, breeding two nerds or two biker isn't likely to produce another nerd or biker, while the result of breeding two people of a common ancestry has a likely outcome. > exactly, its a made up category, i.e. not a real thing. race is a made up category, but you can't just hand wave all of it: > what is it about those categories that makes it necessary for you to speak in probabilities [..] you would be able to rigorously tell me a relationship between gene(s) and features. only because something hasn't been explored in its entirety doesn't make it less convincing of an argument. beside, genetic is rooted in statistics, because of recessive/dominant expressions of traits, so you have to talk in probabilities.