6 ms·

Here is the thing. There are probably innate differences between different men and women. There are probably also innate differences between different races. H

Here is the thing. There are probably innate differences between different men and women. There are probably also innate differences between different races. However, this doesn't say anything about individuals. A group of people might be more likely to have trait X, but it doesn't say that any member of that group has that trait. The problem is that people are not very good at thinking probabilistically, so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Why even say this? Everyone with an IQ over 65 knows that this is obviously true. Does anyone really think that when people say things like men are stronger than women, they believe that literally every single man is stronger than every single woman?
- prutschman 7y ago
  I don't think most people literally believe every man is stronger than every woman. I think it's much more common that someone will say "of course there are some women who are stronger than most men" then go back to tending to, for example, hire men over women for a job requiring the ability to lift 60 lbs, without bothering to strength-test female applicants.
  - ma2rten 7y ago
    Exactly, this phenomenon is also known as unconscious bias.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    But if you really reflect on that statement, it becomes apparent that the level of irony in what you just said is off the charts.
    - prutschman 7y ago
      Apparently the irony is over my head. Could you explain?
the8472 7y ago
> However, this doesn't say anything about individuals That is an often-repeated line but as an absolute statement it is not true. Statistical differences do have predictive power. It's just that they are weak predictors and trumped by concrete information. But you don't always have that information at hand and in that case those heuristics may be better than nothing. The problems arise when people stick to their heuristics (stereotypes) even when better information is available. > so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups. Yes, that may be a problem. But denying the existence of heuristics and demanding that every single person you ever interact with should be treated as a carefully analyzed individual seems unrealistic.
tchaffee 7y ago
> There are probably also innate differences between different races. That's highly unlikely aside from a few genes having to do with appearance. Race is determined by society, and is not a grouping of similar genetic populations. A Kenyan can have far more in common genetically with an Irish person than that Kenyan does with a Pygmy. But according to society, the Kenyan and the Pymgy both belong to the same race and the Irish person is a different race. If you want to say there are innate differences between different genetic populations, then sure. But genetic populations must be far smaller than anything we would call race to start to see interesting differences. For example, many of the world's best runners come from one Kenyan tribe.[1] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/...
- naasking 7y ago
  > Race is determined by society, and is not a grouping of similar genetic populations Sure, and "species" is defined by taxonomists, but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties. In both cases, such arbitrary divisions can still serve as useful analytical tools.
  - tchaffee 7y ago
    > but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties Actually it often is. For example one way to determine species is as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. That's a far more rigorous and biologically based definition than race is. And taxonimists are looking at actual genes now. That is a formal, rigorous, analytical division based on intrinsic properties. So already there it is a poor comparison. Species is far more useful as an analytical tool because it is based in biology. Scientists (in biology related fields) don't use race anymore as a category because it is an outdated and failed model of ancestry differences in the human population. In fact, race often gets the biology completely wrong. Because society, not science, determines someone's race. Race is mostly useful to society and so will reflect the various motivations and ideologies of a society. People who choose to continue to use a failed scientific model as a useful analytical tool most often are pushing an ideology, and very often a racist one. The choice to use a failed model over more accurate categorization should always be suspect. So the comparison to species is a very poor one. Taxonomists are broadly not ideologically motivated in their decisions like society is. And taxonomists continually refine their categorizations based on new scientific information, including genetic information. So species categorizations continue to get more and more accurate and increasingly based in science. That's why species continues to be a useful analytical tool. It is largely based in science and society has no say. Race is the opposite.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

Why even say this? Everyone with an IQ over 65 knows that this is obviously true. Does anyone really think that when people say things like men are stronger than women, they believe that literally every single man is stronger than every single woman?

prutschman 7y ago
I don't think most people literally believe every man is stronger than every woman. I think it's much more common that someone will say "of course there are some women who are stronger than most men" then go back to tending to, for example, hire men over women for a job requiring the ability to lift 60 lbs, without bothering to strength-test female applicants.
- ma2rten 7y ago
  Exactly, this phenomenon is also known as unconscious bias.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  But if you really reflect on that statement, it becomes apparent that the level of irony in what you just said is off the charts.
  - prutschman 7y ago
    Apparently the irony is over my head. Could you explain?

the8472 7y ago

> However, this doesn't say anything about individuals That is an often-repeated line but as an absolute statement it is not true. Statistical differences do have predictive power. It's just that they are weak predictors and trumped by concrete information. But you don't always have that information at hand and in that case those heuristics may be better than nothing. The problems arise when people stick to their heuristics (stereotypes) even when better information is available. > so emphasizing differences between groups will lead people to make unwarranted assumptions about members of those groups. Yes, that may be a problem. But denying the existence of heuristics and demanding that every single person you ever interact with should be treated as a carefully analyzed individual seems unrealistic.

tchaffee 7y ago

> There are probably also innate differences between different races. That's highly unlikely aside from a few genes having to do with appearance. Race is determined by society, and is not a grouping of similar genetic populations. A Kenyan can have far more in common genetically with an Irish person than that Kenyan does with a Pygmy. But according to society, the Kenyan and the Pymgy both belong to the same race and the Irish person is a different race. If you want to say there are innate differences between different genetic populations, then sure. But genetic populations must be far smaller than anything we would call race to start to see interesting differences. For example, many of the world's best runners come from one Kenyan tribe.[1] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/...

naasking 7y ago
> Race is determined by society, and is not a grouping of similar genetic populations Sure, and "species" is defined by taxonomists, but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties. In both cases, such arbitrary divisions can still serve as useful analytical tools.
- tchaffee 7y ago
  > but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties Actually it often is. For example one way to determine species is as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. That's a far more rigorous and biologically based definition than race is. And taxonimists are looking at actual genes now. That is a formal, rigorous, analytical division based on intrinsic properties. So already there it is a poor comparison. Species is far more useful as an analytical tool because it is based in biology. Scientists (in biology related fields) don't use race anymore as a category because it is an outdated and failed model of ancestry differences in the human population. In fact, race often gets the biology completely wrong. Because society, not science, determines someone's race. Race is mostly useful to society and so will reflect the various motivations and ideologies of a society. People who choose to continue to use a failed scientific model as a useful analytical tool most often are pushing an ideology, and very often a racist one. The choice to use a failed model over more accurate categorization should always be suspect. So the comparison to species is a very poor one. Taxonomists are broadly not ideologically motivated in their decisions like society is. And taxonomists continually refine their categorizations based on new scientific information, including genetic information. So species categorizations continue to get more and more accurate and increasingly based in science. That's why species continues to be a useful analytical tool. It is largely based in science and society has no say. Race is the opposite.