3 ms·

They can also distinguish at a much finer level than the typical black, white, asian races. It's a social construct because the cutoff for being one or the oth

by nverno 5y ago

They can also distinguish at a much finer level than the typical black, white, asian races. It's a social construct because the cutoff for being one or the other is determined by whatever matters to people in a society, not because science can distinguish them.

jevoten 5y ago
That the precise cutoffs are socially constructed does not imply the categorization itself is not biological. It's simply a coarse clustering based on kinship, that can be reproduced without reference to any society. Edit: To the replies claiming the categorization is arbitrary and mostly cultural - that does not appear to be the case. In fact, it almost perfectly corresponds to genotype principal component plot clusters, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29669918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29669918 noted: https://youtu.be/iegYpOG6mQI https://youtu.be/iegYpOG6mQI I.e. the categorization corresponds to what you get when you consider all/many genes, and not a few arbitrarily chosen ones, like those that determine eye or hair color.
- nverno 5y ago
  You could group people by hair color or eye color as well, without reference to any society. But, the social importance of that grouping could vary greatly between societies. Eg. not many people care about who is an Ionian or an Achaean in modern society. The racial distinctions (at least today in the west) are associated with biological traits, and specifically the ones that are visually obvious. But, I think those biological traits are used socially to distinguish groups that are considered different for other reasons (values, beliefs, etc.).
- ofTheFountain 5y ago
  The categorisation isn't fully biological though, it's far heavier in the cultural camp. And even when it is biological, it's mainly phenotypic, which isn't adequate for genetic research.
esyir 5y ago
So is ancestry. All Phylogenetic histories with any form of categorization is by definition a social construct. Social constructs, however, are not useless.

by nverno 5y ago

jevoten 5y ago

That the precise cutoffs are socially constructed does not imply the categorization itself is not biological. It's simply a coarse clustering based on kinship, that can be reproduced without reference to any society. Edit: To the replies claiming the categorization is arbitrary and mostly cultural - that does not appear to be the case. In fact, it almost perfectly corresponds to genotype principal component plot clusters, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29669918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29669918 noted: https://youtu.be/iegYpOG6mQI https://youtu.be/iegYpOG6mQI I.e. the categorization corresponds to what you get when you consider all/many genes, and not a few arbitrarily chosen ones, like those that determine eye or hair color.

nverno 5y ago
You could group people by hair color or eye color as well, without reference to any society. But, the social importance of that grouping could vary greatly between societies. Eg. not many people care about who is an Ionian or an Achaean in modern society. The racial distinctions (at least today in the west) are associated with biological traits, and specifically the ones that are visually obvious. But, I think those biological traits are used socially to distinguish groups that are considered different for other reasons (values, beliefs, etc.).
ofTheFountain 5y ago
The categorisation isn't fully biological though, it's far heavier in the cultural camp. And even when it is biological, it's mainly phenotypic, which isn't adequate for genetic research.

esyir 5y ago

So is ancestry. All Phylogenetic histories with any form of categorization is by definition a social construct. Social constructs, however, are not useless.