6 ms·

I don't see how that supports your assertion? Dr Morning[1] was arguing that the dichotomy of constructionist vs essentialist (and what you appear to be arguing

I don't see how that supports your assertion? Dr Morning[1] was arguing that the dichotomy of constructionist vs essentialist (and what you appear to be arguing) - is a "blunt tool". And that the at least in the northeast US in 2014, "constructionist" was a minority viewpoint. In fact this seems to contradict your first assertion that science has been "politicized by the state, and its official ideology". I still have no idea how you see the state fitting in here. Unrelated, I have no idea wtf a tector is. That satire account is hilarious but I'd hardly base my world view on it. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380237.2007.10571319 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380237.2007.10... -- I think you may have linked the wrong thing? I can only find the abstract

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Sorry, link fixed. As the abstract points out, the idea of race as a social construct, as of 2007, was a minority viewpoint amongst those biologists and anthropologists that Morning interviewed. This is despite sociologists at the time frequently claiming that scientists as a whole saw race as a social construct: "Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint." This supports the theory that the "the science says race is a social construct" started primarily with sociologists, who naturally see everything through the lens of social constructionism, and falsely attributed this belief to the harder sciences, to create an appeal to scientific authority for the viewpoint. Fast forward to today, where this view is now the official position of the scientific establishment as a whole, despite it being a minority position just 15 years ago. Not seeing how you can't see how the paper supports my position, that this opinion is a result of social pressure to conform with an ideology, and not objective science. Claiming "scientists see race as a social construct" is exactly the kind of social pressure tactic that would be used to bring other scientists into the mold. No one wants to be seen as contradicting a conclusion of the scientific establishment, especially one that superficially, would appear to promote a more equitable world. >>I still have no idea how you see the state fitting in here. This victimhood ideology, that contains within it the idea that racial is a social construct used to perpetuate oppression, rationalizes a set of government policies and laws, e.g. civil rights law, that empowers special interests, and thus ties their economic interests to the perpetuation of these government interventions. Thus this ideology is aggressively pushed by those whose interests are dependent on left-wing-ideology motivated state intervention. See the websites/social-media-pages of the labor unions for the New York Times and Washington Post for just a quick sample: https://nytimesguild.org/ https://nytimesguild.org/ https://twitter.com/postguild https://twitter.com/postguild Sociology majors, incidentally, tend to work in government-funded institutions (e.g. as guidance counselors, social workers, etc), or in professions that largely arose as a result of government intervention (e.g. anti-discrimination lawyers, human resource representatives), etc.
- bytelines 5y ago
  > This supports the theory that the "the science says race is a social construct" started primarily with sociologists. Who? Dr Morning is the only sociologist here. And you're using her to support your argument. You've obviously thought about this a lot and have some pretty strong opinions but I don't see how that aligns with the original article or anything geneticists are talking about? Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race *was* a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology. Genetics are still important. Groups of related ancestors are, too. Take a personal example - I did "23 and me" maybe 10 years ago. I'm half Swedish and half Mexican (mestizo, basque and native). I have genetic markers that predispose me to having high iron in my blood. This is pretty common among Swedish ancestory. How does attributing that to "white" help anything here? And what the hell am I? Am I latino? Am I white? Does any of that fucking matter? Who cares what the hell Johann Friedrich Blumenbach thought about the subject. My ancestory - my mix of Swedish and Mexican ancestors - is really only useful for explaining what I look like. The concept of "race", historically, takes it further to attempt to explain who I am. Am I lazy? Am I superior? Am I worthy of passing on my genes? From there it's a historical slided to the worst parts of our history: that maybe the world would be better off without certain people. Or that some were meant to be superior.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Who? Dr Morning is the only sociologist here. And you're using her to support your argument. According to the paper: The title: "“Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct”: Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race" The first line of the abstract: "Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored." I assume Dr. Morning's characterization is accurate, and could be easily corroborated. I don't see how it's constructive to continue responding to you when you are being obtuse in assessing what I'm providing. Just to clarify: are you claiming that the following assessments of Dr. Morning's, are not credible, or are incorrect: * the dominant viewpoint amongst sociologists, as of 2007, was that "scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed" * as of 2007, most biologists and anthropologists did not, indeed, see race as socially constructed ? >>Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race was a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology. All of this is nonsense. It wasn't a social construct, and its emergence as a recognized concept wasn't motivated by a desire to justify doing horrible things to people. This is just standard victimhood narrative, to give the political left in the academic/scientific establishment moral authority. And using race categories doesn't imply ignoring its limitations, or preclude the use of other ways of categorizing people.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

Sorry, link fixed. As the abstract points out, the idea of race as a social construct, as of 2007, was a minority viewpoint amongst those biologists and anthropologists that Morning interviewed. This is despite sociologists at the time frequently claiming that scientists as a whole saw race as a social construct: "Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint." This supports the theory that the "the science says race is a social construct" started primarily with sociologists, who naturally see everything through the lens of social constructionism, and falsely attributed this belief to the harder sciences, to create an appeal to scientific authority for the viewpoint. Fast forward to today, where this view is now the official position of the scientific establishment as a whole, despite it being a minority position just 15 years ago. Not seeing how you can't see how the paper supports my position, that this opinion is a result of social pressure to conform with an ideology, and not objective science. Claiming "scientists see race as a social construct" is exactly the kind of social pressure tactic that would be used to bring other scientists into the mold. No one wants to be seen as contradicting a conclusion of the scientific establishment, especially one that superficially, would appear to promote a more equitable world. >>I still have no idea how you see the state fitting in here. This victimhood ideology, that contains within it the idea that racial is a social construct used to perpetuate oppression, rationalizes a set of government policies and laws, e.g. civil rights law, that empowers special interests, and thus ties their economic interests to the perpetuation of these government interventions. Thus this ideology is aggressively pushed by those whose interests are dependent on left-wing-ideology motivated state intervention. See the websites/social-media-pages of the labor unions for the New York Times and Washington Post for just a quick sample: https://nytimesguild.org/ https://nytimesguild.org/ https://twitter.com/postguild https://twitter.com/postguild Sociology majors, incidentally, tend to work in government-funded institutions (e.g. as guidance counselors, social workers, etc), or in professions that largely arose as a result of government intervention (e.g. anti-discrimination lawyers, human resource representatives), etc.

bytelines 5y ago
> This supports the theory that the "the science says race is a social construct" started primarily with sociologists. Who? Dr Morning is the only sociologist here. And you're using her to support your argument. You've obviously thought about this a lot and have some pretty strong opinions but I don't see how that aligns with the original article or anything geneticists are talking about? Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race *was* a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology. Genetics are still important. Groups of related ancestors are, too. Take a personal example - I did "23 and me" maybe 10 years ago. I'm half Swedish and half Mexican (mestizo, basque and native). I have genetic markers that predispose me to having high iron in my blood. This is pretty common among Swedish ancestory. How does attributing that to "white" help anything here? And what the hell am I? Am I latino? Am I white? Does any of that fucking matter? Who cares what the hell Johann Friedrich Blumenbach thought about the subject. My ancestory - my mix of Swedish and Mexican ancestors - is really only useful for explaining what I look like. The concept of "race", historically, takes it further to attempt to explain who I am. Am I lazy? Am I superior? Am I worthy of passing on my genes? From there it's a historical slided to the worst parts of our history: that maybe the world would be better off without certain people. Or that some were meant to be superior.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Who? Dr Morning is the only sociologist here. And you're using her to support your argument. According to the paper: The title: "“Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct”: Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race" The first line of the abstract: "Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored." I assume Dr. Morning's characterization is accurate, and could be easily corroborated. I don't see how it's constructive to continue responding to you when you are being obtuse in assessing what I'm providing. Just to clarify: are you claiming that the following assessments of Dr. Morning's, are not credible, or are incorrect: * the dominant viewpoint amongst sociologists, as of 2007, was that "scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed" * as of 2007, most biologists and anthropologists did not, indeed, see race as socially constructed ? >>Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race was a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology. All of this is nonsense. It wasn't a social construct, and its emergence as a recognized concept wasn't motivated by a desire to justify doing horrible things to people. This is just standard victimhood narrative, to give the political left in the academic/scientific establishment moral authority. And using race categories doesn't imply ignoring its limitations, or preclude the use of other ways of categorizing people.