3 ms·

> 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? I alr

> 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? I already answered that race is generally defined as a combination of genetics and culture. I don't see what your argument is, some kind of no true scotsman where because the definition of race isn't some set in stone definition that you can perfect attain with a genetic test it's completely useless as a grouping mechanic without something else to replace it. The reason i'm speaking in probabilities is because that is what the facts are, that we have more variance within races than between. Which is to say there is no reason you can't have an african who is the shortest person in the world, or a chinese man could be the tallest just because the mean bears out the opposite. > 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. You are demanding a standard of evidence that is beyond reason, do you not believe in evolution because there are gaps in the fossil knowledge? There is no reason you require to know every specific gene that influences height to determine that africans are genetically predisposed to be taller. Not only can we deduce that genes play a predictive role in attributes like height and IQ through twin studies, but we have already begun to find genes that can predict physical attributes like height. > exactly, its a made up category, i.e. not a real thing. Category theory is made up, does that make it not real? Something that has no value whatsoever? I really don't understand the argument, because you seem to believe race is subjective (even though we can prove it isn't based on what i previously said regarding cluster analysis) to the point it has 0 predictive value. Is that your argument? > you can do the same thing for things like "hippie", "biker", "nerd" etc. it doesn't make those categories leave the intersubjective realm. And guess what, we can make predictions based on this knowledge. We can say that a self proclaimed hippie is more likely to smoke weed than a self proclaimed Muslim or Christian. Do you believe we cannot do this? Because if you believe we can do this with subjective social groups, I would say again based on the cluster analysis work i linked to previously, we can say that what people see as race almost perfectly corresponds to what a computer would sort them into based on purely genetics. Race isn't some wavy concept where you have asians thinking of themselves as africans, or japanese thinking they are chinese. Sure you can point to exceptions but they are just that, not even 1% of the people in these studies when using more than just a dozen SNPs

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> The reason i'm speaking in probabilities is because that is what the facts are, that we have more variance within races than between. thank you, exactly. > africans are genetically predisposed to be taller. "african" is not a category that has any meaningful genetic definition. > genes play a predictive role in attributes like height and IQ through twin studies, but we have already begun to find genes that can predict physical attributes like height. none of which means that "race" has any meaningful existence. >Category theory is made up, does that make it not real? Something that has no value whatsoever? it has value in organizing information. another system of organizing information might be harmful. suppose you had a system of organizing information that weighted irrelevant data and disregarded relevant data. would it have positive value or negative value? > you seem to believe race is subjective race is intersubjective, as is language and culture. > to the point it has 0 predictive value what are you trying to predict? either the trait that you select for when you delineate a sub-population is connected to the variable you predict, in that case you define the category by the specific trait, not some giant bag the size of a continent; or the trait you select for when you delineate the sub-population IS NOT connected to the variable you predict, so you're spouting nonsense. there is no third option. > we can say that what people see as race almost perfectly corresponds to what a computer would sort them into based on purely genetics. the computer is just doing what the programmer told it to do based on a bunch of genetic categories that are artificially constructed. you get a guy's genes. what makes you say that guy is asian? oh thats right, a hand wavy mix of phenotypes and culture. thats entirely objective, dont know what I was thinking. > We can say that a self proclaimed hippie is more likely to smoke weed than a self proclaimed Muslim or Christian. Do you believe we cannot do this? you're going to classify him as a hippie because he smokes weed and predict that he smokes weed based on the fact that he is a hippie. and you dont see the circularity? > Race isn't some wavy concept where you have asians thinking of themselves as africans actually it is much more fluid than you seem to think. parts of africa and asia are geographically close, and have mingled for millennia. > Sure you can point to exceptions but they are just that, not even 1% of the people in these studies when using more than just a dozen SNPs thats more an artifact of the limitations of your studies, if you know anything at all about this subject you should know just how genetically diverse the human species is.
- 9y ago

tensor_rank_0 9y ago

> The reason i'm speaking in probabilities is because that is what the facts are, that we have more variance within races than between. thank you, exactly. > africans are genetically predisposed to be taller. "african" is not a category that has any meaningful genetic definition. > genes play a predictive role in attributes like height and IQ through twin studies, but we have already begun to find genes that can predict physical attributes like height. none of which means that "race" has any meaningful existence. >Category theory is made up, does that make it not real? Something that has no value whatsoever? it has value in organizing information. another system of organizing information might be harmful. suppose you had a system of organizing information that weighted irrelevant data and disregarded relevant data. would it have positive value or negative value? > you seem to believe race is subjective race is intersubjective, as is language and culture. > to the point it has 0 predictive value what are you trying to predict? either the trait that you select for when you delineate a sub-population is connected to the variable you predict, in that case you define the category by the specific trait, not some giant bag the size of a continent; or the trait you select for when you delineate the sub-population IS NOT connected to the variable you predict, so you're spouting nonsense. there is no third option. > we can say that what people see as race almost perfectly corresponds to what a computer would sort them into based on purely genetics. the computer is just doing what the programmer told it to do based on a bunch of genetic categories that are artificially constructed. you get a guy's genes. what makes you say that guy is asian? oh thats right, a hand wavy mix of phenotypes and culture. thats entirely objective, dont know what I was thinking. > We can say that a self proclaimed hippie is more likely to smoke weed than a self proclaimed Muslim or Christian. Do you believe we cannot do this? you're going to classify him as a hippie because he smokes weed and predict that he smokes weed based on the fact that he is a hippie. and you dont see the circularity? > Race isn't some wavy concept where you have asians thinking of themselves as africans actually it is much more fluid than you seem to think. parts of africa and asia are geographically close, and have mingled for millennia. > Sure you can point to exceptions but they are just that, not even 1% of the people in these studies when using more than just a dozen SNPs thats more an artifact of the limitations of your studies, if you know anything at all about this subject you should know just how genetically diverse the human species is.

9y ago