3 ms·

> For example, he believes that the study of race and IQ is not a "legitimate matter for scientific inquiry". Define "race" in a way that is scientifically rig

> For example, he believes that the study of race and IQ is not a "legitimate matter for scientific inquiry". Define "race" in a way that is scientifically rigorous and whose members can be classified in an objective, non-arbitrary way. To save you the trouble, after mucking around with measuring skull shapes etc. you'd eventually find the only objective classifications were based on the genes themselves and gene expression anyway, and none of the resulting classifications of people looked like your original notion of "race" anyway. It's probably possible to study "race" scientifically, but you probably don't learn much by doing so.

barry-cotter 15y ago
Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
- huxley 15y ago
  One major factor to consider when talking about race isn't how YOU self-identify, but how other's identify you. So perhaps "self-identification" will correspond more closely to the markers than if I was to identify the racial category. As well, that study looked at the US population which is clumped by historical factors in ways that may not apply worldwide.
  - barry-cotter 15y ago
    On self versus other identification I would expect differences to exist, and that those differences would depend on society, culture and environment but within a pretty small range. Here's another study on distinguishing ancestry by continent An ancestry informative marker set for determining continental origin: validation and extension using human genome diversity panels: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/39 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/39 It only uses 93 SNPs and is also reliable, except for distinguishing South Asians from West Eurasians.

barry-cotter 15y ago

Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

huxley 15y ago
One major factor to consider when talking about race isn't how YOU self-identify, but how other's identify you. So perhaps "self-identification" will correspond more closely to the markers than if I was to identify the racial category. As well, that study looked at the US population which is clumped by historical factors in ways that may not apply worldwide.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  On self versus other identification I would expect differences to exist, and that those differences would depend on society, culture and environment but within a pretty small range. Here's another study on distinguishing ancestry by continent An ancestry informative marker set for determining continental origin: validation and extension using human genome diversity panels: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/39 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/39 It only uses 93 SNPs and is also reliable, except for distinguishing South Asians from West Eurasians.