3 ms·

No reasonable scientist would study a correlation between a physical trait (intelligence) and a socio-economic concept (race). It would be like studying if heig

No reasonable scientist would study a correlation between a physical trait (intelligence) and a socio-economic concept (race). It would be like studying if height is correlated with "proper grammar". Edit: race, not "rave"

rosmax_1337 2y ago
Is race a socio-economic concept? Can you explain what you mean by that?
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  Its not genetically mediated. Indians are a "race" someone from Assam, someone from Rajasthan, and someone from Tamil Nadu may differ dramatically in terms of their genetic heritage and even racial appearance, simply because they are defined in terms of associations which are not purely to do with genetic lineage.
  - rosmax_1337 2y ago
    Right, but this doesn't invalidate the idea that genetic groups exist and that heritability can significantly affect traits such as intelligence. It simply moves the question to, which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. The adage that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than outside it comes to mind.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      >which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-empirical in nature. Genetic science =! race science. Race as a concept is almost entirely mediated by social concerns and abstractions from concrete reality.
      - rosmax_1337 2y ago
        You can create groupings in nature. Biologists do it all the time for all animals. The groupings are by some measure arbitrary, yes, unless you mean to suggest that for example crows are in the same grouping as seagulls, and that even these groupings are invalid?
        DiscourseFan 2y ago
        No, in fact I'm not. But nobody is going to go around saying that a crow is a seagull, you know it when you see it. Its because we ourselves are not seagulls or crows. We are not dogs, we are not animals, except in one specific way. And since you, yes you yourself, are part of the thing you are commenting on (race), there is no way to "purify" your assessment of the thing since your own personal history, which you cannot even be fully aware of, factors into your sectioning of the world.
        rosmax_1337 2y ago
        So we are unable to judge, and therefore the null hypothesis must be that humans are genetically similar enough that trait variation is explained by external factors? I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
        DiscourseFan 2y ago
        No, but we cannot make any pure empirical judgements, just ones that we know are inflected by our particular social histories. Of course different humans have different traits, but IQ is not a measure of individual traits, its a mass measurement that correlates far more strongly with social factors such as nutrition and education than genetic heritage, which is what the article is saying
        tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Absolutely, this is a subject that it would make sense to study. It's much harder to study than "race", though, because you need to do genetic studies on your participants or to design cross-cultural IQ tests (relying on geography as a much better proxy for genetics than skin color is). And in fact, no one is doing it in the area of intelligence, while there is a quite a bit of paper written on "race" and intelligence.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Of course. At best it's based on skin color, eye shape, and hair type. But different countries have different notions of what is a race, or what race a person is. And these also vary historically a lot (e.g. Irish people and Italian people used to be considered different races in the USA). And there is nothing objective about the choice of characteristics attributed to "race". And finally and perhaps most importantly, no studies of race ever look at any genetics to define the races, they look at the regular proxies. A black-skinned child of a black-skinned mother and a white-skinned father is typically considered "black" even if they are just as black as they are white, genetically (or even more, if the black-skinned parent also had a white-skinned parent).
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
While “rave” is a misnomer, being applied almost exclusively based on skin color, haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically. It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on, because different genetics found their footing in different areas. Claiming they are based solely on “socio-economic” factors is wildly incorrect and wildly racist. To what authority does someone’s social and economic standing define their genetics?
- hirvi74 2y ago
  > haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics. > It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is? I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    > As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
    - 2y ago

rosmax_1337 2y ago

Is race a socio-economic concept? Can you explain what you mean by that?

DiscourseFan 2y ago
Its not genetically mediated. Indians are a "race" someone from Assam, someone from Rajasthan, and someone from Tamil Nadu may differ dramatically in terms of their genetic heritage and even racial appearance, simply because they are defined in terms of associations which are not purely to do with genetic lineage.
- rosmax_1337 2y ago
  Right, but this doesn't invalidate the idea that genetic groups exist and that heritability can significantly affect traits such as intelligence. It simply moves the question to, which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. The adage that there is more human genetic diversity in Africa than outside it comes to mind.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    >which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-empirical in nature. Genetic science =! race science. Race as a concept is almost entirely mediated by social concerns and abstractions from concrete reality.
    - rosmax_1337 2y ago
      You can create groupings in nature. Biologists do it all the time for all animals. The groupings are by some measure arbitrary, yes, unless you mean to suggest that for example crows are in the same grouping as seagulls, and that even these groupings are invalid?
      - DiscourseFan 2y ago
        No, in fact I'm not. But nobody is going to go around saying that a crow is a seagull, you know it when you see it. Its because we ourselves are not seagulls or crows. We are not dogs, we are not animals, except in one specific way. And since you, yes you yourself, are part of the thing you are commenting on (race), there is no way to "purify" your assessment of the thing since your own personal history, which you cannot even be fully aware of, factors into your sectioning of the world.
        rosmax_1337 2y ago
        So we are unable to judge, and therefore the null hypothesis must be that humans are genetically similar enough that trait variation is explained by external factors? I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
        DiscourseFan 2y ago
        No, but we cannot make any pure empirical judgements, just ones that we know are inflected by our particular social histories. Of course different humans have different traits, but IQ is not a measure of individual traits, its a mass measurement that correlates far more strongly with social factors such as nutrition and education than genetic heritage, which is what the article is saying
        tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Absolutely, this is a subject that it would make sense to study. It's much harder to study than "race", though, because you need to do genetic studies on your participants or to design cross-cultural IQ tests (relying on geography as a much better proxy for genetics than skin color is). And in fact, no one is doing it in the area of intelligence, while there is a quite a bit of paper written on "race" and intelligence.
tsimionescu 2y ago
Of course. At best it's based on skin color, eye shape, and hair type. But different countries have different notions of what is a race, or what race a person is. And these also vary historically a lot (e.g. Irish people and Italian people used to be considered different races in the USA). And there is nothing objective about the choice of characteristics attributed to "race". And finally and perhaps most importantly, no studies of race ever look at any genetics to define the races, they look at the regular proxies. A black-skinned child of a black-skinned mother and a white-skinned father is typically considered "black" even if they are just as black as they are white, genetically (or even more, if the black-skinned parent also had a white-skinned parent).

tourmalinetaco 2y ago

While “rave” is a misnomer, being applied almost exclusively based on skin color, haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically. It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on, because different genetics found their footing in different areas. Claiming they are based solely on “socio-economic” factors is wildly incorrect and wildly racist. To what authority does someone’s social and economic standing define their genetics?

hirvi74 2y ago
> haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics. > It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is? I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  > As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
  - 2y ago