3 ms·

I was addressing your comment on equality of outcome: And if you see that the gap is caused by the distribution of the type of work, for example, raceX is more

I was addressing your comment on equality of outcome: And if you see that the gap is caused by the distribution of the type of work, for example, raceX is more likely to do work that pays more than raceZ. Well that's also an issue, because we value equal opportunity between races, and the assumption is if opportunity was truly equal, the data should not show a big gap in the choices of work made between races

didibus 5y ago
Oh I see. Well in that case I think you're probably referring to the study of twin grown appart, for which in a large number of cases both twins turned out to have ended up doing very similar work? I think it's a big leap to assume that the genes that are similar between twins and which are responsible for such similar outcomes would also be similar between individuals of the same skin color. For example, even once the study looked into non-identical twin, the similarities in outcomes drastically started to drop. I'm not denying the possibility, when you still don't have a sure explanation lots of things are still a possibility. But I think you're jumping ahead with your conclusion a little too hastily, and in my opinion, I still think the data is surprising and that we don't really know why this difference in distribution really exists. Furthermore, I'll add that modern genetic research is really putting in question our traditional categorization of "race". > In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim. -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-... What modern availability of large scale genetic data tells us, is that what we call "black", "white" and "asian" actually have very little genetic variance and uniqueness, and that it's actually possible some white people are closer genetically to some black people than they'd be to other white people. Which would mean that if you grouped by traditional notion of race, like skin color, you might not be grouping by genetic similarities at all. That would reinforce the possibility then that the difference in the distribution is not genetic, but possibly socio-cultural.
- notshift 5y ago
  From your article: there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded. It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions. The title is is not representative of what the article is saying; no serious scientist is making the claim that race is a social construct. They're just saying we shouldn't make medical or other assumptions about individuals based on race, which is of course true. The idea that races don't exist is a postmodern rejection of science based on a political agenda, and you should be skeptical of folks pushing it. If you study biology or evolution at any reasonable length the notion is just silly.

didibus 5y ago

Oh I see. Well in that case I think you're probably referring to the study of twin grown appart, for which in a large number of cases both twins turned out to have ended up doing very similar work? I think it's a big leap to assume that the genes that are similar between twins and which are responsible for such similar outcomes would also be similar between individuals of the same skin color. For example, even once the study looked into non-identical twin, the similarities in outcomes drastically started to drop. I'm not denying the possibility, when you still don't have a sure explanation lots of things are still a possibility. But I think you're jumping ahead with your conclusion a little too hastily, and in my opinion, I still think the data is surprising and that we don't really know why this difference in distribution really exists. Furthermore, I'll add that modern genetic research is really putting in question our traditional categorization of "race". > In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim. -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-... What modern availability of large scale genetic data tells us, is that what we call "black", "white" and "asian" actually have very little genetic variance and uniqueness, and that it's actually possible some white people are closer genetically to some black people than they'd be to other white people. Which would mean that if you grouped by traditional notion of race, like skin color, you might not be grouping by genetic similarities at all. That would reinforce the possibility then that the difference in the distribution is not genetic, but possibly socio-cultural.

notshift 5y ago
From your article: there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded. It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions. The title is is not representative of what the article is saying; no serious scientist is making the claim that race is a social construct. They're just saying we shouldn't make medical or other assumptions about individuals based on race, which is of course true. The idea that races don't exist is a postmodern rejection of science based on a political agenda, and you should be skeptical of folks pushing it. If you study biology or evolution at any reasonable length the notion is just silly.