5 ms·

There is no race, it's all just brains doing overactive classification. I wish that we got over this as a species already.

by apk-d 9y ago

nyolfen 9y ago
from the article: > It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view. > But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage > The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews. > I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
thathappened 9y ago
Everything is relative and nothing is unique at a large enough spectrum
- ravenstine 9y ago
  Arguments made by people claiming that there's no such thing as race, such as this one, seem to have this underlying premise that while certain thing are relative, other things are objective. Yet they have no possible way of backing this up because their own experience of the world is relative. Ironically, ideas are as close as we can get to real objectivism. When it comes to the mechanics of the universe, everything is fundamentally relative. So claiming that humans making consistent classifications of each other isn't legitimate doesn't make sense.
fouric 9y ago
Prove your statement, please.
bobcostas55 9y ago
I'm afraid this view is completely incompatible with the findings in population genetics. Two papers to get you started: * Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ * Genetic Structure of Human Populations https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf
- klenwell 9y ago
  Glancing at your first citation, nothing in the summary seems to challenge the idea that people of all races see much bigger differences among races (for example, when someone like James Damore start dogwhistling IQ tests in their footnotes) than actually exist genetically. Sure, there are genetic distinctions among groups of people. But as soon as someone mentions black or white people, the discussion isn't about these kind of fine genetic distinctions. They're about stereotypes that are much more social than they are genetic. Now in the political realm, the significance of these terms and the groups is completely different because of the way groups have been treated historically on the basis not of these fine genetic distinctions but rather these crude social racial/ethnic identifications. I'd prefer we avoided using footnotes pointing to scientific publications to oversimplify more complex political discussions or to justify the economic and social marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >justify the economic and social marginalization of historical disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading. This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't measuring economic and social marginalization by outcome, particularly when it comes to systemic bias. If we can't have a sober look at the inputs, I'm afraid we can't say anything meaningful about the outputs.
  - Berobero 9y ago
    I agree with you, but I would also note that the original person being replied to seems to be committing a common colloquial misunderstanding in regards to social constructions; just because something is socially constructed does not mean it's not real. Race is absolutely real, regardless of the degree to which genetics does or doesn't correlate with it, because we make it real in our day to day interactions. But your point is succinct: just because you can group people using genetic markers into clusters that align well with our society's typical social categorization of race does by no means validate a genetic basis for all the other sociocultural baggage that we associate with those categories. The most it seems to do particularly in regards to the social category of race is show that genetic markers useful for identifying kinship (I'd file that under "duh"). It's interesting to note, for me, that the analysis of the first paper works just fine for 2 clusters as well (basically East Asian and everyone else), but those super-racial groupings don't exist in the US to my knowledge.
toasterlovin 9y ago
The fact that there are observable aggregate genetic differences between groups of humans does not endanger the proposition that all human groups have equal moral worth. But denying that race is a real thing sure does give a lot of oxygen to people with bad ideas.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  The issue is semantic, the word "race" when applied to the human species doesn't have the same meaning when applied to other species.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- make3 9y ago
  moral worth and capacities
  - moduspol 9y ago
    Do all races have equal capacity to play professional basketball? If not, what rational basis could one have in claiming all races must have equal capacity in other areas?
    - JBReefer 9y ago
      Fundamentally, creating policy based on racial capacity cannot end in a moral place. Every single time governments/societies start down that path, it ends poorly. Frankly, who gives a shit. It seems better to me to live in a world that's .000005% less efficiently allocated than it is to live in the caste system that always emerges from that path.
      - FeepingCreature 9y ago
        Yeah but you've broken a sanctity to take that 0.00005% away. You've opened the door to instrumentalizing science, formerly the pursuit of truth, for political gain. And I know everybody's doing that already, but there's a difference between everybody doing it and everybody being okay with it. One of those is salvageable, the other isn't.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ars 9y ago
If we were not analyzing ourself the different races would be called different species, never mind races. Butterflies are called different species based on much smaller differences. Or for example the two moths in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Calling different races different species obviously would upset people, so we don't. But let's not pretend the differences don't exist.
- mikeash 9y ago
  “These forms are often accidentally elevated to subspecies status when they appear in literature. Not adding the ‘f.’ (form) or morpha implies that the taxon is a subspecies instead of a form, as in Biston betularia carbonaria instead of Biston betularia f. carbonaria. Rarely forms have been elevated to species status as in Biston carbonaria. Either of these two circumstances might lead to the erroneous belief that speciation was involved in the observed evolution of the peppered moth. This is not the case; individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species.” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species If this criterion were universally applied, there would be very few plant species, and zero microbial species.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Precisely how to classify “species” seems to be a major debate. Regardless, it does not appear that these two kinds of moths are actually considered to be different species.
    - FeepingCreature 9y ago
      Indeed; however, a convenient line of differentiation presents itself: animals, let alone humans, are not plants.
UrukParthian 9y ago
"overactive classification" Let me drop you off at Skid Row down in Los Angeles. A capacity for "overactive classification" will keep you from looking like a weak target and make you alert. If you want to talk about "getting over this as a species", then why not put your money where your mouth is and move to a "diverse" neighborhood? I'm sure your snobbish weariness will slap you back in the face when you realize that you can't leave anything in your vehicle, when you can't leave windows open at night, etc. Now something that should be over, as a species, is the will to annihilate discriminatory thought as a sacrifice to membership in the modern shibboleth of "secular holiness and secular virtue". There is no virtue and no holiness in discarding the innumerable scenarios where being "racist" is a life and death difference. In a way, it's a form of class warfare where rich people, with private security and gates, mock lower classes for not merely getting along "like they should". Think of all the celebrities talking about the evil of guns in an awards ceremony, oblivious to the hundreds of armed personnel protecting the venue! A weird part of "contemporary" thought is the idea of all or nothing. That if one makes judgements on a racial grouping, it automatically means one is utterly incapable of dealing with individual people...as individual people. I'll never move to a black-majority neighborhood but I'll never disrespect an AA as an individual. Yet I've been told how bad that is, even as the same people fumble to "relate" to an AA by trying to imitate greeting stereotypes they saw on TV! Because ultimately it's less about the people they claim to care about and more about having a social holy halo; a mere trinket they affix to their self-worth.

There is no race, it's all just brains doing overactive classification. I wish that we got over this as a species already.

by apk-d 9y ago

There is no race, it's all just brains doing overactive classification. I wish that we got over this as a species already.

nyolfen 9y ago

from the article: > It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view. > But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage > The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews. > I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

thathappened 9y ago

Everything is relative and nothing is unique at a large enough spectrum

ravenstine 9y ago
Arguments made by people claiming that there's no such thing as race, such as this one, seem to have this underlying premise that while certain thing are relative, other things are objective. Yet they have no possible way of backing this up because their own experience of the world is relative. Ironically, ideas are as close as we can get to real objectivism. When it comes to the mechanics of the universe, everything is fundamentally relative. So claiming that humans making consistent classifications of each other isn't legitimate doesn't make sense.

fouric 9y ago

Prove your statement, please.

bobcostas55 9y ago

I'm afraid this view is completely incompatible with the findings in population genetics. Two papers to get you started: * Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ * Genetic Structure of Human Populations https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf

klenwell 9y ago
Glancing at your first citation, nothing in the summary seems to challenge the idea that people of all races see much bigger differences among races (for example, when someone like James Damore start dogwhistling IQ tests in their footnotes) than actually exist genetically. Sure, there are genetic distinctions among groups of people. But as soon as someone mentions black or white people, the discussion isn't about these kind of fine genetic distinctions. They're about stereotypes that are much more social than they are genetic. Now in the political realm, the significance of these terms and the groups is completely different because of the way groups have been treated historically on the basis not of these fine genetic distinctions but rather these crude social racial/ethnic identifications. I'd prefer we avoided using footnotes pointing to scientific publications to oversimplify more complex political discussions or to justify the economic and social marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >justify the economic and social marginalization of historical disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading. This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't measuring economic and social marginalization by outcome, particularly when it comes to systemic bias. If we can't have a sober look at the inputs, I'm afraid we can't say anything meaningful about the outputs.
- Berobero 9y ago
  I agree with you, but I would also note that the original person being replied to seems to be committing a common colloquial misunderstanding in regards to social constructions; just because something is socially constructed does not mean it's not real. Race is absolutely real, regardless of the degree to which genetics does or doesn't correlate with it, because we make it real in our day to day interactions. But your point is succinct: just because you can group people using genetic markers into clusters that align well with our society's typical social categorization of race does by no means validate a genetic basis for all the other sociocultural baggage that we associate with those categories. The most it seems to do particularly in regards to the social category of race is show that genetic markers useful for identifying kinship (I'd file that under "duh"). It's interesting to note, for me, that the analysis of the first paper works just fine for 2 clusters as well (basically East Asian and everyone else), but those super-racial groupings don't exist in the US to my knowledge.

toasterlovin 9y ago

The fact that there are observable aggregate genetic differences between groups of humans does not endanger the proposition that all human groups have equal moral worth. But denying that race is a real thing sure does give a lot of oxygen to people with bad ideas.

jrimbault 9y ago
The issue is semantic, the word "race" when applied to the human species doesn't have the same meaning when applied to other species.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
make3 9y ago
moral worth and capacities
- moduspol 9y ago
  Do all races have equal capacity to play professional basketball? If not, what rational basis could one have in claiming all races must have equal capacity in other areas?
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    Fundamentally, creating policy based on racial capacity cannot end in a moral place. Every single time governments/societies start down that path, it ends poorly. Frankly, who gives a shit. It seems better to me to live in a world that's .000005% less efficiently allocated than it is to live in the caste system that always emerges from that path.
    - FeepingCreature 9y ago
      Yeah but you've broken a sanctity to take that 0.00005% away. You've opened the door to instrumentalizing science, formerly the pursuit of truth, for political gain. And I know everybody's doing that already, but there's a difference between everybody doing it and everybody being okay with it. One of those is salvageable, the other isn't.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ars 9y ago

If we were not analyzing ourself the different races would be called different species, never mind races. Butterflies are called different species based on much smaller differences. Or for example the two moths in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution Calling different races different species obviously would upset people, so we don't. But let's not pretend the differences don't exist.

mikeash 9y ago
“These forms are often accidentally elevated to subspecies status when they appear in literature. Not adding the ‘f.’ (form) or morpha implies that the taxon is a subspecies instead of a form, as in Biston betularia carbonaria instead of Biston betularia f. carbonaria. Rarely forms have been elevated to species status as in Biston carbonaria. Either of these two circumstances might lead to the erroneous belief that speciation was involved in the observed evolution of the peppered moth. This is not the case; individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species.” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species If this criterion were universally applied, there would be very few plant species, and zero microbial species.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Precisely how to classify “species” seems to be a major debate. Regardless, it does not appear that these two kinds of moths are actually considered to be different species.
  - FeepingCreature 9y ago
    Indeed; however, a convenient line of differentiation presents itself: animals, let alone humans, are not plants.

UrukParthian 9y ago

"overactive classification" Let me drop you off at Skid Row down in Los Angeles. A capacity for "overactive classification" will keep you from looking like a weak target and make you alert. If you want to talk about "getting over this as a species", then why not put your money where your mouth is and move to a "diverse" neighborhood? I'm sure your snobbish weariness will slap you back in the face when you realize that you can't leave anything in your vehicle, when you can't leave windows open at night, etc. Now something that should be over, as a species, is the will to annihilate discriminatory thought as a sacrifice to membership in the modern shibboleth of "secular holiness and secular virtue". There is no virtue and no holiness in discarding the innumerable scenarios where being "racist" is a life and death difference. In a way, it's a form of class warfare where rich people, with private security and gates, mock lower classes for not merely getting along "like they should". Think of all the celebrities talking about the evil of guns in an awards ceremony, oblivious to the hundreds of armed personnel protecting the venue! A weird part of "contemporary" thought is the idea of all or nothing. That if one makes judgements on a racial grouping, it automatically means one is utterly incapable of dealing with individual people...as individual people. I'll never move to a black-majority neighborhood but I'll never disrespect an AA as an individual. Yet I've been told how bad that is, even as the same people fumble to "relate" to an AA by trying to imitate greeting stereotypes they saw on TV! Because ultimately it's less about the people they claim to care about and more about having a social holy halo; a mere trinket they affix to their self-worth.