3 ms·

> the concept of ‘race’ is scientifically and socially unsupportable. Just like the concept of "culture". See https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-e

> the concept of ‘race’ is scientifically and socially unsupportable. Just like the concept of "culture". See https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-culture/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/12/does-race-exist-does-c... , here's the kicker: "There were two arguments against race being a real concept: it didn’t cluster nicely, and within-group variation was greater than between group variation. And both of these are equally true of culture. Any mathematical argument considering races as clusters of genes can be used equally well considering cultures as clusters of memes, and will likely return the same results. Yet I can’t imagine someone saying “culture doesn’t exist” or “culture isn’t real”."

aklemm 6y ago
Except that culture is escapable, changeable. Race isn’t. So what is your point exactly?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  The immutability of race is one of the reasons why we ought not discriminate on the basis of race, but the parent is addressing the question of whether or not race is “real” and our inconsistent treatment of race and culture, another social construct.
  - soco 6y ago
    This might be of high interest to scholars, but for the regular Joe on the street the realities are way more important. And my feeling is that the OP is trying to shift the discussion from reality (which can be addressed in a way or another) to philosophical debate (well, good luck with that)
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  That "race" is as real as "culture" is, or "sex", or "gender". So an attempt to abolish identity politics simply by declaring "Those differences don't exist!" won't succeed. They do exist, and sadly, they're considered by some people when making decisions that affect other people's lives and well-being (while, arguably, those shouldn't be considered).
082349872349872 6y ago
It is much easier to change external categorisations of one's "culture" than to change external categorisations of one's "race"[1]. Then again, I think how we treat people ought to be just as independent of our guess as to their "culture" as of our guess as to their "race". All humans, with the exception of Jesus H. Christ, are diploid. That must be what the "H" stands for, and I, for one, would attempt not to treat anyone differently just because they happened to be haploid. [1] difficult, but not impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BsmaoQ3Hu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BsmaoQ3Hu4 or, including a genderswap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwhkUHjleo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwhkUHjleo
Kednicma 6y ago
Are accents cultural or racial? There's plenty of cultural traits which are heritable and measurable. The difference is that there's only one human race, while there's many different cultural memeplexes. Race literally doesn't exist: The partitions that you imagine as dividing people aren't actually backed by any particular observable or experiment. Meanwhile, cultural markers do exist: We can measure what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc. Aside from accents, another good example is that of locally-grown staple foods. Different locales support different crops, so that merely living in a region for a time is sufficient to alter one's diet. Yet it is not due to differences in people, but differences in soil, which determine which crops are grown and eaten where.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > The partitions that you imagine as dividing people aren't actually backed by any particular observable or experiment. Meanwhile, cultural markers do exist: We can measure what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc. I'm having genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around this argument. I don't mean to inflame tempers or anything here, but would we agree that any operational definition of "race" probably needs to include some mix of both cultural and phenotypic attributes (including but certainly not limited to skin color)? If so, then: - aren't the cultural aspects of race just as measurable as you just pointed out -- what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc.? - aren't variations in human bodies (differences in phenotype) arguably even more measurable than that? It's easy for me to determine from a low-res photo that someone is of East Asian descent. It's nigh impossible for me to tell whether they're culturally Chinese, rural Texan, Jamaican, etc. To claim that race "literally" doesn't exist while in the next sentence pointing out that cultural markers exist just seems really dissonant to me, and I'm honestly not sure what part of my model of the world needs changing to become compatible with these two claims. Are you saying that you could chat up a person, maybe interview them, and conclude that they're probably indigenous to Tibet, but phenotypic markers (or whatever your definition of "racial," or even genetic? [1]) are guaranteed to be uninformative toward this conclusion? [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4189 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4189
  - Kednicma 6y ago
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Imagine no more, I do not believe culture - as described in the article - exists. When I talk about culture I talk about the arts and literature of a particular time period, area, language, and social status. If someone talks to me about German culture or even something as narrow as Danish culture I know they are discussing a stereotype or cartoon. Cartoons are of course often useful for rhetorical or humorous effect. That said there is of another difference between the two concepts - race (as described by racists) is something that is considered to not be created by humans but something essential and unchangeable by the person; whereas culture is always something considered to be created by humans. The arguments against race, as well as not clustering nicely and the within group-variation thing, all hinge on race being a social construct - like culture. Perhaps the reason then that race and culture would be so similar is that they are in fact both very much alike in that they are concepts created by humans.

aklemm 6y ago

Except that culture is escapable, changeable. Race isn’t. So what is your point exactly?

throwaway894345 6y ago
The immutability of race is one of the reasons why we ought not discriminate on the basis of race, but the parent is addressing the question of whether or not race is “real” and our inconsistent treatment of race and culture, another social construct.
- soco 6y ago
  This might be of high interest to scholars, but for the regular Joe on the street the realities are way more important. And my feeling is that the OP is trying to shift the discussion from reality (which can be addressed in a way or another) to philosophical debate (well, good luck with that)
Joker_vD 6y ago
That "race" is as real as "culture" is, or "sex", or "gender". So an attempt to abolish identity politics simply by declaring "Those differences don't exist!" won't succeed. They do exist, and sadly, they're considered by some people when making decisions that affect other people's lives and well-being (while, arguably, those shouldn't be considered).

082349872349872 6y ago

It is much easier to change external categorisations of one's "culture" than to change external categorisations of one's "race"[1]. Then again, I think how we treat people ought to be just as independent of our guess as to their "culture" as of our guess as to their "race". All humans, with the exception of Jesus H. Christ, are diploid. That must be what the "H" stands for, and I, for one, would attempt not to treat anyone differently just because they happened to be haploid. [1] difficult, but not impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BsmaoQ3Hu4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BsmaoQ3Hu4 or, including a genderswap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwhkUHjleo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwhkUHjleo

Kednicma 6y ago

Are accents cultural or racial? There's plenty of cultural traits which are heritable and measurable. The difference is that there's only one human race, while there's many different cultural memeplexes. Race literally doesn't exist: The partitions that you imagine as dividing people aren't actually backed by any particular observable or experiment. Meanwhile, cultural markers do exist: We can measure what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc. Aside from accents, another good example is that of locally-grown staple foods. Different locales support different crops, so that merely living in a region for a time is sufficient to alter one's diet. Yet it is not due to differences in people, but differences in soil, which determine which crops are grown and eaten where.

EForEndeavour 6y ago
> The partitions that you imagine as dividing people aren't actually backed by any particular observable or experiment. Meanwhile, cultural markers do exist: We can measure what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc. I'm having genuine difficulty wrapping my mind around this argument. I don't mean to inflame tempers or anything here, but would we agree that any operational definition of "race" probably needs to include some mix of both cultural and phenotypic attributes (including but certainly not limited to skin color)? If so, then: - aren't the cultural aspects of race just as measurable as you just pointed out -- what people wear, speak, trade, value, etc.? - aren't variations in human bodies (differences in phenotype) arguably even more measurable than that? It's easy for me to determine from a low-res photo that someone is of East Asian descent. It's nigh impossible for me to tell whether they're culturally Chinese, rural Texan, Jamaican, etc. To claim that race "literally" doesn't exist while in the next sentence pointing out that cultural markers exist just seems really dissonant to me, and I'm honestly not sure what part of my model of the world needs changing to become compatible with these two claims. Are you saying that you could chat up a person, maybe interview them, and conclude that they're probably indigenous to Tibet, but phenotypic markers (or whatever your definition of "racial," or even genetic? [1]) are guaranteed to be uninformative toward this conclusion? [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4189 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/16/4189
- Kednicma 6y ago

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

Imagine no more, I do not believe culture - as described in the article - exists. When I talk about culture I talk about the arts and literature of a particular time period, area, language, and social status. If someone talks to me about German culture or even something as narrow as Danish culture I know they are discussing a stereotype or cartoon. Cartoons are of course often useful for rhetorical or humorous effect. That said there is of another difference between the two concepts - race (as described by racists) is something that is considered to not be created by humans but something essential and unchangeable by the person; whereas culture is always something considered to be created by humans. The arguments against race, as well as not clustering nicely and the within group-variation thing, all hinge on race being a social construct - like culture. Perhaps the reason then that race and culture would be so similar is that they are in fact both very much alike in that they are concepts created by humans.