4 ms·

Like, people's self-identified race is virtually always consistent with their ancestry, except when they're mistaken, unhinged, or taking advantage of lower sta

Like, people's self-identified race is virtually always consistent with their ancestry, except when they're mistaken, unhinged, or taking advantage of lower standards for non-whites. 23andme's proprietary algorithm might be bad at predicting whether Elizabeth Warren calls herself native american or white, even if it it caught that 1/2^n wisp of DNA, but her self-identification is made on the basis of ancestry. > Say I change my mind about what race I am due to it being typically poorly defined. But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'. You're trying to use some college definition of race, and I don't know what sort of indoctrination made you that way, but that's not what people actually mean by race. Like, middle easterners who are Republican might call themselves white, while politically involved Democrats might call themselves "people of color". I know two siblings who probably split down this divide. But even if they do, they're actually the same race, because they have the same parents.

notch656a 5y ago
OK, so define to me then the algorithm by which I can identify each race, if it is not poorly defined as you claim. What are the 'races' and precisely how can I categorize each person in them in a well defined way. >But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'. This is circular reasoning. My race is a combination of my parents' <race>. So my race is my parents' combined race? The fact that you resort to this fallacy makes a great case that race ISN'T well defined. Using your own (recursive) definition (which eventually recurses all the way up to the first reproducing organism from which we came), if humans all have a common ancestor (such as some single-cellular organism), then we're all the race of whatever that common parent is. Following our 'parents' all the way up, we should finally come to the first organism(s) to exist. We'd all be the same 'race'. >You're trying to use some college definition of race, and I don't know what sort of indoctrination made you that way, but that's not what people actually mean by race. I'm trying to understand how I can determine what race someone is. You mention 'middle easterner.' How can I determine with 99.9999% accuracy who is a 'middle easterner.' Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy, specious anti-academic attack designed to negatively portray something perceived as an educated opinion. This is coming completely out of left field and seems to be a lashing out for some sort of internal axe you have to grind. >Like, middle easterners who are Republican might call themselves white, while politically involved Democrats might call themselves "people of color". I know two siblings who probably split down this divide. But even if they do, they're actually the same race, because they have the same parents. This comment seems to work against the notion that self-reported race is 99.9999% predictable by DNA.
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be. > OK, so define to me then the algorithm Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate. > Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy, Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from? It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from? What statement are you referring to me 'regurgitating'? I'm college educated but in the field of engineering, I don't recall having a discussion of this sort in college. Your statement is coming completely out of left field and frankly perplexing, again it seems you have some weird axe to grind about higher education. >It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense. If I can 'know' my 'racial background' (which seems to mean race, otherwise this is just a red herring statement) in an 'objective sense', why would the bar be whatever I 'think' myself to be (your first sentence). Objective would mean my own opinions and personal feelings are irrelevant, thus someone else can make the call equally as well as myself with same available facts. Otherwise you would put the word 'subjective' here. What 'objective' facts are we using to determine my race? That is: >They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be. Contradicts >virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense. The second thing I learn from your first statement is that you seem to be saying race is what you(they) 'think themselves to be', and race is determined by self-selection. I honestly don't know what my race is from an 'objective' sense, that's why I'm asking you to provide a clear definition of what the races are and how to place each person in those buckets in an objective and fully defined way. >Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate. When pressed you clearly fail to either cite an algorithm that predicts self-selected race with 99.9999% parity, nor are you going to 'waste your time doing that.' So it's a completely unsubstantiated claim, along with virtually every other subjective opinion you offer. Presenting completely unsubstantiated claims as fact and then refusing to cite evidence nor 'waste your time' creating it, is precisely why I believe persons such as yourself are engaging in 'pseudo-science.'

notch656a 5y ago

OK, so define to me then the algorithm by which I can identify each race, if it is not poorly defined as you claim. What are the 'races' and precisely how can I categorize each person in them in a well defined way. >But it isn't poorly defined. Your race is the combination of your parents'. This is circular reasoning. My race is a combination of my parents' <race>. So my race is my parents' combined race? The fact that you resort to this fallacy makes a great case that race ISN'T well defined. Using your own (recursive) definition (which eventually recurses all the way up to the first reproducing organism from which we came), if humans all have a common ancestor (such as some single-cellular organism), then we're all the race of whatever that common parent is. Following our 'parents' all the way up, we should finally come to the first organism(s) to exist. We'd all be the same 'race'. >You're trying to use some college definition of race, and I don't know what sort of indoctrination made you that way, but that's not what people actually mean by race. I'm trying to understand how I can determine what race someone is. You mention 'middle easterner.' How can I determine with 99.9999% accuracy who is a 'middle easterner.' Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy, specious anti-academic attack designed to negatively portray something perceived as an educated opinion. This is coming completely out of left field and seems to be a lashing out for some sort of internal axe you have to grind. >Like, middle easterners who are Republican might call themselves white, while politically involved Democrats might call themselves "people of color". I know two siblings who probably split down this divide. But even if they do, they're actually the same race, because they have the same parents. This comment seems to work against the notion that self-reported race is 99.9999% predictable by DNA.

SamReidHughes 5y ago
They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be. > OK, so define to me then the algorithm Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate. > Your comment about 'college' 'indoctrination' is purely ad hominem fallacy, Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from? It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Are you not regurgitating something you learned in college? Then where are you regurgitating it from? What statement are you referring to me 'regurgitating'? I'm college educated but in the field of engineering, I don't recall having a discussion of this sort in college. Your statement is coming completely out of left field and frankly perplexing, again it seems you have some weird axe to grind about higher education. >It's fair to say you're regurgitating indoctrination because virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense. If I can 'know' my 'racial background' (which seems to mean race, otherwise this is just a red herring statement) in an 'objective sense', why would the bar be whatever I 'think' myself to be (your first sentence). Objective would mean my own opinions and personal feelings are irrelevant, thus someone else can make the call equally as well as myself with same available facts. Otherwise you would put the word 'subjective' here. What 'objective' facts are we using to determine my race? That is: >They would be correctly identified as their middle eastern ethnicities that they think themselves to be. Contradicts >virtually everybody else, unlike you, knows their racial background in an objective sense. The second thing I learn from your first statement is that you seem to be saying race is what you(they) 'think themselves to be', and race is determined by self-selection. I honestly don't know what my race is from an 'objective' sense, that's why I'm asking you to provide a clear definition of what the races are and how to place each person in those buckets in an objective and fully defined way. >Lol, like I'm going to waste my time doing that. Trace back ancestry until the family trees circle in on themselves. Identify and pick out the clusters and subclusters as finely as you think appropriate. When pressed you clearly fail to either cite an algorithm that predicts self-selected race with 99.9999% parity, nor are you going to 'waste your time doing that.' So it's a completely unsubstantiated claim, along with virtually every other subjective opinion you offer. Presenting completely unsubstantiated claims as fact and then refusing to cite evidence nor 'waste your time' creating it, is precisely why I believe persons such as yourself are engaging in 'pseudo-science.'