3 ms·

Which is a hilarious fact in itself. A common refrain among non religious people is that religion is false, self contradictory, or something similar. And yet

Which is a hilarious fact in itself. A common refrain among non religious people is that religion is false, self contradictory, or something similar. And yet the large overlap between these people and anti-racists cannot face the evidence that evolution applies to humans, and that genetic differences can have measurable effects. This becomes a core tenent of their (un)beliefs, that somehow we are all equal in construction, AND that evolution is real. Two completely incompatible beliefs (or concepts, if you can't stand such a word). Prevalence of the MAOA gene is quite interesting indeed. To expand upon that a bit, one deeply held belief is that Racism is wrong, not just morally but factually, that we are all exactly equal in nature. That our only differences come from nurture. The other belief (or "non-skeptically accepted prospect") is that humanity has evolved, first from africa, then in disparate populations spread over the entire land area of the earth, being subject to many varied natural environments and thus selections. Such natural selections MUST select for different traits, often wildly different. Such traits cannot be contained to "skin color only" a meaningless, arbitrary restriction.

Cornbilly 2y ago
> To expand upon that a bit, one deeply held belief is that Racism is wrong, not just morally but factually, that we are all exactly equal in nature. I’m not sure how “racism is bad” requires the idea that “we are all equal by nature”. “Racism is bad” means that the law should treat us equally and that you should not treat people differently based solely on their skin color.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  You're referring to the normal and reasonable view, but I think most are targeting this weird new(ish) concept, heavily intertwined into politics, that any and all differences between groups are due to biases or other environmental factors. So if you see that e.g. one group is lagging behind in math then that is taken at face value as evidence that 'math is racist.' A search for that exact phrase will turn up a million hits, pushed by some very big entities, if you want to go down this rabbit hole. But if you don't already know about this stuff - just don't. The amount of stupidity and transparent divide+conquer politics in it all is just nauseating. On the other hand it does have contemporary relevance as a lot of the funding for this stuff is being scrapped, and it's nice to understand what we're 'losing.'
  - Cornbilly 2y ago
    I’ve read a few of those “math is racist” takes and I feel a lot of them make decent points about why math education is lacking in the US. But the ties to racism do seem inane and more to do with outrage culture becoming the norm after the social media explosion. It’s unfortunate.
t43562 2y ago
There'd be no hilarity whatsoever if people discriminated against you based on something they said you could not change. Anyone doing actual science cannot determine whether you are worth hiring based on your DNA - all they can do is point to some correlations which don't tell them about you individually. It is quite possible for such research to be discredited in future by other studies. It's not even well defined what are all the characteristics that make a good "X" to then discriminate about because people of all kinds end up doing things we didn't expect them to be able to. What is intelligence and how many ways are there of measuring it and what kind does a certain job require anyhow? So it is factually and morally wrong to discriminate on DNA. It might be pointless to say this though, as I notice that to convert a prejudiced person into an anti-racist all you have to do is make them think they're being discriminated against.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  The fact that it’s morally wrong (and IMHO objectively evil) does not mean that it wouldn’t be an efficient policy purely from a strict utilitarian angle. Assuming we could actually identify the genetic markers that signal a higher likelihood of preferable traits even if on the whole it would only be e.g. 80% accurate that might still be useful. Individual outliers could just be ignored at minimal cost.
  - t43562 2y ago
    Of course it would be inefficient because it is an extreme oversimplification of what is desirable (which is arguable) and whether or not certain markers would achieve it. The big mistake that racists and bigots make is in overvaluing whatever they think their own strengths are and undervaluing strengths they don't have.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      True. But there are some “low hanging fruits” e.g. if not outright eradicating then at least significantly reducing the prevalence of congenital diseases. Of course giving the government the right to prevent some individuals from having children is an extremely slippery slope. States that are willing and capable of engaging in such things e.g. ( Communist China back in the 70s ) also tend to be run by extremely misguided and delusional people.
542354234235 2y ago
>This becomes a core tenent of their (un)beliefs, that somehow we are all equal in construction, AND that evolution is real. This is a strawman of the real understanding that humans, as a species, have extremely low genetic diversity. Along with that, variations within a population are larger than variations between populations. In addition, there are countless confounding factors that play a larger role. Lastly, teasing out actual cause and effect is incredibly difficult. “Anti-racist” scientists simply understand to not take simplistic, reductive interpretations and jump to conclusions trying to get easy answers to complex situations.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  > within a population are larger than variations between populations That doesn’t really change anything, though. That low variance still might allow (and well.. obviously does) enough space for significant genetics differences (that impact everything ranging from physical properties to intelligence) between individuals or subgroups to manifest themselves. In theory we could certainly produce a “breed” of extremely physically fit “super-humans”. Same probably applies to other traits. Not that anyone should be ever allowed under any circumstances to try something like that. With modern understanding of genetics eugenics would be more or less scientifically sound on paper (of course a dystopian society which regulates human breeding would be a horrible place to exist in even if it was made up of objectively “genetically superior” individuals)
  - transcriptase 2y ago
    Exactly. A single base pair out of 3 billion can cause blonde hair, sickle cell, dwarfism, and a million other things that aren’t necessarily even negative. People from two different continents differing at hundreds of thousands of sites in addition to millions of within-population variants says nothing about phenotypic differences.
  - jl6 2y ago
    Screening for Down syndrome is an example of modern eugenics.
tokinonagare 2y ago
It's less hilarious when whole country policies are made on those assumptions thus ruining it economically (notably), and voicing any concerns is threatened with legal force. In France the official dogma of the educated is that every difference is cultural, and races don't exist. My father for example strongly held and defend those beliefs. Somehow he gets very angry when I ask why there is wide academic achievement difference between his children despite growing in the same environment, or how Japanese people could instantly guess I'm a foreigner while not uttering a single words. I think that deep down all those people know the truth but they don't want to admit it, nor admit it to other for fear of the social consequences.
- Timon3 2y ago
  > why there is wide academic achievement difference between his children despite growing in the same environment Why are there wide academic achievement differences between children who have the same "race" who grow up in the same environment? According to you, this should not be the case. > how Japanese people could instantly guess I'm a foreigner while not uttering a single words Do you think they can do so for any given person? I guarantee you there are foreign people who Japanese people don't guess are foreign, and non-foreign people who Japanese people guess are foreign. How can this be? I can sympathize with your father getting angry. Considering how trivial it is to come up with counter arguments, it must be frustrating to have this brought up more than once.
  - dani__german 2y ago
    For the education example, the answer is quite simple: Sexual reproduction produces varied offspring even among the same two mates. Same environment, different genes = educational performance gap.
- Cornbilly 2y ago
  > races don't exist Do they exist in a scientifically viable way? Most of the definitions around race are tied to a subjective view of a person’s physical appearance. Is Obama (the son of a black Kenyan man and a white American woman) black or white? If neither, what is this new race to be called? Would he be a different race if his father was also mixed race? I find that often times asking people this question leads us back to something akin to the one-drop rule and I don’t see any value in that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Cornbilly 2y ago

> To expand upon that a bit, one deeply held belief is that Racism is wrong, not just morally but factually, that we are all exactly equal in nature. I’m not sure how “racism is bad” requires the idea that “we are all equal by nature”. “Racism is bad” means that the law should treat us equally and that you should not treat people differently based solely on their skin color.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]
ANewFormation 2y ago
You're referring to the normal and reasonable view, but I think most are targeting this weird new(ish) concept, heavily intertwined into politics, that any and all differences between groups are due to biases or other environmental factors. So if you see that e.g. one group is lagging behind in math then that is taken at face value as evidence that 'math is racist.' A search for that exact phrase will turn up a million hits, pushed by some very big entities, if you want to go down this rabbit hole. But if you don't already know about this stuff - just don't. The amount of stupidity and transparent divide+conquer politics in it all is just nauseating. On the other hand it does have contemporary relevance as a lot of the funding for this stuff is being scrapped, and it's nice to understand what we're 'losing.'
- Cornbilly 2y ago
  I’ve read a few of those “math is racist” takes and I feel a lot of them make decent points about why math education is lacking in the US. But the ties to racism do seem inane and more to do with outrage culture becoming the norm after the social media explosion. It’s unfortunate.

t43562 2y ago

There'd be no hilarity whatsoever if people discriminated against you based on something they said you could not change. Anyone doing actual science cannot determine whether you are worth hiring based on your DNA - all they can do is point to some correlations which don't tell them about you individually. It is quite possible for such research to be discredited in future by other studies. It's not even well defined what are all the characteristics that make a good "X" to then discriminate about because people of all kinds end up doing things we didn't expect them to be able to. What is intelligence and how many ways are there of measuring it and what kind does a certain job require anyhow? So it is factually and morally wrong to discriminate on DNA. It might be pointless to say this though, as I notice that to convert a prejudiced person into an anti-racist all you have to do is make them think they're being discriminated against.

wqaatwt 2y ago
The fact that it’s morally wrong (and IMHO objectively evil) does not mean that it wouldn’t be an efficient policy purely from a strict utilitarian angle. Assuming we could actually identify the genetic markers that signal a higher likelihood of preferable traits even if on the whole it would only be e.g. 80% accurate that might still be useful. Individual outliers could just be ignored at minimal cost.
- t43562 2y ago
  Of course it would be inefficient because it is an extreme oversimplification of what is desirable (which is arguable) and whether or not certain markers would achieve it. The big mistake that racists and bigots make is in overvaluing whatever they think their own strengths are and undervaluing strengths they don't have.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    True. But there are some “low hanging fruits” e.g. if not outright eradicating then at least significantly reducing the prevalence of congenital diseases. Of course giving the government the right to prevent some individuals from having children is an extremely slippery slope. States that are willing and capable of engaging in such things e.g. ( Communist China back in the 70s ) also tend to be run by extremely misguided and delusional people.

542354234235 2y ago

>This becomes a core tenent of their (un)beliefs, that somehow we are all equal in construction, AND that evolution is real. This is a strawman of the real understanding that humans, as a species, have extremely low genetic diversity. Along with that, variations within a population are larger than variations between populations. In addition, there are countless confounding factors that play a larger role. Lastly, teasing out actual cause and effect is incredibly difficult. “Anti-racist” scientists simply understand to not take simplistic, reductive interpretations and jump to conclusions trying to get easy answers to complex situations.

wqaatwt 2y ago
> within a population are larger than variations between populations That doesn’t really change anything, though. That low variance still might allow (and well.. obviously does) enough space for significant genetics differences (that impact everything ranging from physical properties to intelligence) between individuals or subgroups to manifest themselves. In theory we could certainly produce a “breed” of extremely physically fit “super-humans”. Same probably applies to other traits. Not that anyone should be ever allowed under any circumstances to try something like that. With modern understanding of genetics eugenics would be more or less scientifically sound on paper (of course a dystopian society which regulates human breeding would be a horrible place to exist in even if it was made up of objectively “genetically superior” individuals)
- transcriptase 2y ago
  Exactly. A single base pair out of 3 billion can cause blonde hair, sickle cell, dwarfism, and a million other things that aren’t necessarily even negative. People from two different continents differing at hundreds of thousands of sites in addition to millions of within-population variants says nothing about phenotypic differences.
- jl6 2y ago
  Screening for Down syndrome is an example of modern eugenics.

tokinonagare 2y ago

It's less hilarious when whole country policies are made on those assumptions thus ruining it economically (notably), and voicing any concerns is threatened with legal force. In France the official dogma of the educated is that every difference is cultural, and races don't exist. My father for example strongly held and defend those beliefs. Somehow he gets very angry when I ask why there is wide academic achievement difference between his children despite growing in the same environment, or how Japanese people could instantly guess I'm a foreigner while not uttering a single words. I think that deep down all those people know the truth but they don't want to admit it, nor admit it to other for fear of the social consequences.

Timon3 2y ago
> why there is wide academic achievement difference between his children despite growing in the same environment Why are there wide academic achievement differences between children who have the same "race" who grow up in the same environment? According to you, this should not be the case. > how Japanese people could instantly guess I'm a foreigner while not uttering a single words Do you think they can do so for any given person? I guarantee you there are foreign people who Japanese people don't guess are foreign, and non-foreign people who Japanese people guess are foreign. How can this be? I can sympathize with your father getting angry. Considering how trivial it is to come up with counter arguments, it must be frustrating to have this brought up more than once.
- dani__german 2y ago
  For the education example, the answer is quite simple: Sexual reproduction produces varied offspring even among the same two mates. Same environment, different genes = educational performance gap.
Cornbilly 2y ago
> races don't exist Do they exist in a scientifically viable way? Most of the definitions around race are tied to a subjective view of a person’s physical appearance. Is Obama (the son of a black Kenyan man and a white American woman) black or white? If neither, what is this new race to be called? Would he be a different race if his father was also mixed race? I find that often times asking people this question leads us back to something akin to the one-drop rule and I don’t see any value in that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]