3 ms·
It’s not a racist post obviously- but it is false to group people into the American race definitions in a scientific discussion, because it doesn’t hold true an
by crispyporkbites 6y ago
It’s not a racist post obviously- but it is false to group people into the American race definitions in a scientific discussion, because it doesn’t hold true and has been debunked a long time ago as a genetic definition.
It can apply from a socio economic angle, but that applies only in America or a country that uses American racial profiles for systemic racism.
Edit: Aware this is a controversial viewpoint in non-scientific communities, so here's some interesting comments from Wikipedia on the subject:
> Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][3][4]
> Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.[5] Today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete,[6] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[7][8][9][10][11]
> Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21]
- umanwizard 6y agoI’ve gotten blood tests done where the normal range for various parameters was listed as being different for different racial groups. If there is no correlation between genes and “American race definitions”, how is this possible?
- crispyporkbites 6y agohttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen... https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-07... https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-phi... To add a bit more weight it’s worth reading the intro to race on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
- umanwizard 6y agoI’m aware that race is not a strictly defined category, and that racial classification is arbitrary to a large extent. However, this doesn’t answer my question.
- crispyporkbites 6y agoIt demonstrates the logical fallacy - if it's an arbitrary classification, as you say, how can those blood test groupings be accurate? They can, at best, be arbitrary
- umanwizard 6y ago“Arbitrary” doesn’t mean “uniformly random”. Even though the lines are blurred, there is still a strong correlation between being considered part of a particular racial classification in the US and having certain genes.
- hajimemash 6y agoThanks for the interesting first link. Now I understand your earlier comment