3 ms·

Two counterpoints: First is that there are plenty of environmental factors to consider, especially with regards to 3rd world countries. In rural parts of Afric

Two counterpoints: First is that there are plenty of environmental factors to consider, especially with regards to 3rd world countries. In rural parts of Africa where people are predominantly subsistence farmers, there is a very high rate of prenatal and neonatal malnutrition. And that can cause mental retardation. And so can getting malaria and a variety of other infectious diseases in infancy. Second point is that you are assuming that race is a well-defined genetic construct. But it isn't, it's largely a social construct. Population genetics for humans is a continuum, and we just arbitrarily draw the lines.

fastball 7y ago
I'm not sure how you can claim race is a largely social construct if black people have black kids, white people have white kids, and asians have asian kids. Seems super genetic to me. There is literally nothing more genetic than race, as far as I'm aware. Two tall people aren't guaranteed to have a tall kid. Two intelligent people aren't guaranteed to have an intelligent kid. Two empathetic people aren't guaranteed to have an empathetic kid. Two white people are pretty much guaranteed to have a white kid.
- openasocket 7y ago
  There's a lot of research on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics which probably serves as a better rebuttal than the paragraph I'll write. Basically, if you try to divide people up into broad categories of race, you will find individuals in race A that are more genetically similar to some individuals in race B than other individuals in race A. You can define race in terms of the handful of genes controlling skin color, eyes, hair etc, but all the other genetic differences between people won't generally fall into that same pattern
- runarberg 7y ago
  When people talk about race, they are usually talking about a population or a set of traits commonly found within a population. For example, populations with a high degree of Irish descendants have a higher then average set of a few noticeable traits like red hair, pale skin, the O+ blood type, etc. These traits also exist in other populations and someone that has 100% Irish ancestry for the last few dozens of generations is not guaranteed to have all of them. When using the more accurate definition of race, people are usually talking about different but highly related species. For example Chimpanzees and Bonobos are different races. African and Indian elephants are different races. The Neanderthals was a different race of humans. With this understanding there is currently only one race of humans. Claiming the existence of some Irish race (and let alone white race) is at best confusing, but usually wrong.
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    > For example, populations with a high degree of Irish descendants have a higher then average set of a few noticeable traits like red hair, pale skin, the O+ blood type, etc. These traits also exist in other populations and someone that has 100% Irish ancestry for the last few dozens of generations is not guaranteed to have all of them. Genuinely curious: isn't this an example of cherry-picking outliers in an attempt to refute the overarching rule? So what if it's technically possible to find a minority of non-Irish who exhibit some traits that are much more common among Irish people, and it's possible to find Irish people who are phenotypic outliers? In general, the fact that clusters in a dataset are fuzzy and imperfect doesn't imply that the clusters are meaningless.
    - runarberg 7y ago
      > Isn't this an example of cherry-picking outliers in an attempt to refute the overarching rule? I don’t believe that is the case. I think all we need to do is show that a race categorization is neither necessary nor sufficient in order to demonstrate the uselessness aspect of it. And we do that by showing that there exists a non-irish person that has enough traits generally regarded as belonging to the Irish race (not necessary), and that there exist a person of Irish heritage that doesn’t nearly all of these traits (not sufficient). But regardless of it being guilty of cherry-picking. As long as the dataset is fuzzy, I think the opposite opinion will necessarily have to be arbitrary to define which traits, how many, and how consistently they inherit in order to be defined as a race. I know the technical definition is also arbitrary (when are two populations distinct species?) but at least the arbitrariness is consistent with how we view the rest of the natural world. That is we don’t consider gray wolfs with darker coats to be a separate race from gray wolfs with lighter coats. We correctly differentiate them as belonging to separate populations. Applying this only to humans is arbitrary.

fastball 7y ago

I'm not sure how you can claim race is a largely social construct if black people have black kids, white people have white kids, and asians have asian kids. Seems super genetic to me. There is literally nothing more genetic than race, as far as I'm aware. Two tall people aren't guaranteed to have a tall kid. Two intelligent people aren't guaranteed to have an intelligent kid. Two empathetic people aren't guaranteed to have an empathetic kid. Two white people are pretty much guaranteed to have a white kid.

openasocket 7y ago
There's a lot of research on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics which probably serves as a better rebuttal than the paragraph I'll write. Basically, if you try to divide people up into broad categories of race, you will find individuals in race A that are more genetically similar to some individuals in race B than other individuals in race A. You can define race in terms of the handful of genes controlling skin color, eyes, hair etc, but all the other genetic differences between people won't generally fall into that same pattern
runarberg 7y ago
When people talk about race, they are usually talking about a population or a set of traits commonly found within a population. For example, populations with a high degree of Irish descendants have a higher then average set of a few noticeable traits like red hair, pale skin, the O+ blood type, etc. These traits also exist in other populations and someone that has 100% Irish ancestry for the last few dozens of generations is not guaranteed to have all of them. When using the more accurate definition of race, people are usually talking about different but highly related species. For example Chimpanzees and Bonobos are different races. African and Indian elephants are different races. The Neanderthals was a different race of humans. With this understanding there is currently only one race of humans. Claiming the existence of some Irish race (and let alone white race) is at best confusing, but usually wrong.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  > For example, populations with a high degree of Irish descendants have a higher then average set of a few noticeable traits like red hair, pale skin, the O+ blood type, etc. These traits also exist in other populations and someone that has 100% Irish ancestry for the last few dozens of generations is not guaranteed to have all of them. Genuinely curious: isn't this an example of cherry-picking outliers in an attempt to refute the overarching rule? So what if it's technically possible to find a minority of non-Irish who exhibit some traits that are much more common among Irish people, and it's possible to find Irish people who are phenotypic outliers? In general, the fact that clusters in a dataset are fuzzy and imperfect doesn't imply that the clusters are meaningless.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    > Isn't this an example of cherry-picking outliers in an attempt to refute the overarching rule? I don’t believe that is the case. I think all we need to do is show that a race categorization is neither necessary nor sufficient in order to demonstrate the uselessness aspect of it. And we do that by showing that there exists a non-irish person that has enough traits generally regarded as belonging to the Irish race (not necessary), and that there exist a person of Irish heritage that doesn’t nearly all of these traits (not sufficient). But regardless of it being guilty of cherry-picking. As long as the dataset is fuzzy, I think the opposite opinion will necessarily have to be arbitrary to define which traits, how many, and how consistently they inherit in order to be defined as a race. I know the technical definition is also arbitrary (when are two populations distinct species?) but at least the arbitrariness is consistent with how we view the rest of the natural world. That is we don’t consider gray wolfs with darker coats to be a separate race from gray wolfs with lighter coats. We correctly differentiate them as belonging to separate populations. Applying this only to humans is arbitrary.