3 ms·

> The average european person and the average east asian person are a little bit different genetically, but way less different than any two real europeans or tw

by ralfd 6mo ago

> The average european person and the average east asian person are a little bit different genetically, but way less different than any two real europeans or two east-asians are to one another. This is always touted as an “racism-is-not-only-immoral-it-is-scientifically-wrong” argument, but it is a fallacy. Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is 6’0 feet (183 cm) and the average height of Philippine men is 5’4 (163 cm). This means the height difference between these two groups is 20 cm. And it is obvious that the difference inside one group MUST be larger, for example there are 6’4 Dutch basketballers but also certainly Dutch 5’2 horse riding jockeys. And depending on context both of these insights are useful. For example if you manage a basketball team it is much more effective to consider people as individuals, simplified you should hire very tall people (regardless if they are Dutch or Philippines) who can throw precisely a ball into a basket. But the diversity between population groups points to real information too! If you sell shoes to both countries you shouldn’t provide the same one-size-fits-all and assume to catch the same percentage of the market. Plus the overlap in one metric is expanding into separable clusters the more dimensions are used: https://i.sstatic.net/r6cWd.jpg https://i.sstatic.net/r6cWd.jpg Take a Dutch and Philippine who have the exact same height: Their own respective brothers (heck, even twins) will not be the same perfect match, instead being a bit taller or smaller. But the more variables you consider (weight, muscle composition, leg length, head radius, hand size, form of earlobe .. etc) you will find that holistically seen two brothers truly are much more similar to each other than to a stranger.

daveguy 6mo ago
None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And from that you make an argument about relative distributions of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a stranger in no way implies the similarity or difference of entire populations? Even the traits you mention are just a handful of physical traits. There are about 20,000 protein encoding genes and 180,000 non-encoding. Protein encoding genes code for the structures in our body. The other 180,000 genes code for all kind of dynamics -- the rna that turns genes to proteins, how proteins are expressed in different cells to make them different cells, how relative expression levels change in response to external stimulus, etc. So, the set of genes to consider is clearly all 200,000 genes and not just the 20,000 protein encoding genes much less the handful of protein encoding genes responsible for something like eye color. Unfortunately for racists but fortunately for the vast majority, the world is a great big melting pot with all the different ethnicities producing all kinds of variety. So much that the blend complexity long ago surpassed any tiny set of visible trait uniformity. I honestly don't know how so many people fall for these simplistic illogical racist arguments. But it makes me happy to know that racists are about 200,000 years to late to shove the entire human race into tiny little boxes based on physical traits.
- pfdietz 6mo ago
  > None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. Note, however, that this does not imply there are not significant genetic differences between different ethnicities. Differences that are selected for will be cloaked in a sea of non-significant differences.
  - daveguy 6mo ago
    Definitely. I'm not saying there aren't average differences. We literally see different physical traits. But physical traits are a minute fraction of all the complexity that is the human genome. And all of those physical traits are always mixing fluidly between and within groups. My point is, there are clearly wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with any other ethnicity compared to what may be the average of a broad distribution. Humans are inherently mosaic. Personally I believe it's why our species is so resilient. But that's a stronger statement, so just a belief.
    - pfdietz 6mo ago
      Yes, and there are also wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with other species. But it would be senseless to propose we're the same as chimpanzees. The point is it doesn't take much in the way of genetic differences, as a fraction of the total genome, to make a very large difference in phenotype.
      - daveguy 6mo ago
        Well, if the phenotype or trait due to any random gene was the differentiation between race, species, or anything else besides that specific trait, you might have a point in support of OP. But unfortunately for racist ducks there are so many differences, and similarities, that have nothing to do with hair color or height. Any given swath is it's own mosaic of combinations, no matter what we label it.
masfuerte 6mo ago
A few hundred years ago Europeans were very much shorter too. The Chinese have increased in height within just the last couple of generations. In both cases this isn't because their genes changed, it's because their diets changed. Diet also explains the difference between the Netherlands and the Philippines.
- adrianN 6mo ago
  Are people of Philippine decent that are born and raised in the Netherlands statistically the same height as native Dutch?
- bilbo0s 6mo ago
  The height thing is a bad example. Generally in genetics you like to focus on things without so many confounding factors. That's why the article focuses on attributes like baldness, MS, and lactose intolerance.
Mr_Minderbinder 6mo ago
> Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is... I would not give too much credence to the various figures often given for the average height of men and women in x country without careful research, since they have highly variable degrees of support. For years I had heard repeatedly that the average height of a man in Indonesia was 158 cm or 5ft and 2 inches. This seemed so absurd to me and provoked enough scepticism that I eventually attempted to track down the source of that figure. It turned out to be from Wikipedia and the citation was a study that measured the heights of the elderly yet all of those repeating that figure neglected to mention, or were in all likelihood entirely ignorant of, that detail. I am similarly sceptical of some of the claims made about the average height of the Dutch, the subject of which seems to be a particular favourite among height myth-mongers. With respect to young adult men I have found that figures based on measurements obtained as part of fitness screenings for mandatory military service are the most reliable due to their large sample size (at least an order of magnitude larger than the largest academic studies) and overwhelming lack of selection and sampling bias. A minority of nations have such systems and fewer still publish the data obtained in public. Yet even this would not answer the question for the whole population.

by ralfd 6mo ago

daveguy 6mo ago

None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And from that you make an argument about relative distributions of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a stranger in no way implies the similarity or difference of entire populations? Even the traits you mention are just a handful of physical traits. There are about 20,000 protein encoding genes and 180,000 non-encoding. Protein encoding genes code for the structures in our body. The other 180,000 genes code for all kind of dynamics -- the rna that turns genes to proteins, how proteins are expressed in different cells to make them different cells, how relative expression levels change in response to external stimulus, etc. So, the set of genes to consider is clearly all 200,000 genes and not just the 20,000 protein encoding genes much less the handful of protein encoding genes responsible for something like eye color. Unfortunately for racists but fortunately for the vast majority, the world is a great big melting pot with all the different ethnicities producing all kinds of variety. So much that the blend complexity long ago surpassed any tiny set of visible trait uniformity. I honestly don't know how so many people fall for these simplistic illogical racist arguments. But it makes me happy to know that racists are about 200,000 years to late to shove the entire human race into tiny little boxes based on physical traits.

pfdietz 6mo ago
> None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. Note, however, that this does not imply there are not significant genetic differences between different ethnicities. Differences that are selected for will be cloaked in a sea of non-significant differences.
- daveguy 6mo ago
  Definitely. I'm not saying there aren't average differences. We literally see different physical traits. But physical traits are a minute fraction of all the complexity that is the human genome. And all of those physical traits are always mixing fluidly between and within groups. My point is, there are clearly wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with any other ethnicity compared to what may be the average of a broad distribution. Humans are inherently mosaic. Personally I believe it's why our species is so resilient. But that's a stronger statement, so just a belief.
  - pfdietz 6mo ago
    Yes, and there are also wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with other species. But it would be senseless to propose we're the same as chimpanzees. The point is it doesn't take much in the way of genetic differences, as a fraction of the total genome, to make a very large difference in phenotype.
    - daveguy 6mo ago
      Well, if the phenotype or trait due to any random gene was the differentiation between race, species, or anything else besides that specific trait, you might have a point in support of OP. But unfortunately for racist ducks there are so many differences, and similarities, that have nothing to do with hair color or height. Any given swath is it's own mosaic of combinations, no matter what we label it.

masfuerte 6mo ago

A few hundred years ago Europeans were very much shorter too. The Chinese have increased in height within just the last couple of generations. In both cases this isn't because their genes changed, it's because their diets changed. Diet also explains the difference between the Netherlands and the Philippines.

adrianN 6mo ago
Are people of Philippine decent that are born and raised in the Netherlands statistically the same height as native Dutch?
bilbo0s 6mo ago
The height thing is a bad example. Generally in genetics you like to focus on things without so many confounding factors. That's why the article focuses on attributes like baldness, MS, and lactose intolerance.

Mr_Minderbinder 6mo ago

> Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is... I would not give too much credence to the various figures often given for the average height of men and women in x country without careful research, since they have highly variable degrees of support. For years I had heard repeatedly that the average height of a man in Indonesia was 158 cm or 5ft and 2 inches. This seemed so absurd to me and provoked enough scepticism that I eventually attempted to track down the source of that figure. It turned out to be from Wikipedia and the citation was a study that measured the heights of the elderly yet all of those repeating that figure neglected to mention, or were in all likelihood entirely ignorant of, that detail. I am similarly sceptical of some of the claims made about the average height of the Dutch, the subject of which seems to be a particular favourite among height myth-mongers. With respect to young adult men I have found that figures based on measurements obtained as part of fitness screenings for mandatory military service are the most reliable due to their large sample size (at least an order of magnitude larger than the largest academic studies) and overwhelming lack of selection and sampling bias. A minority of nations have such systems and fewer still publish the data obtained in public. Yet even this would not answer the question for the whole population.