3 ms·

I'm sorry, you misunderstand -- the people we label as "Chinese" do not share similar physical/genetic traits. Common misconception that they do, but there is

by dimino 11y ago

I'm sorry, you misunderstand -- the people we label as "Chinese" do not share similar physical/genetic traits. Common misconception that they do, but there is very little genetic consistency across cultural boundaries, and when such a thing does exist, it's quite noteworthy.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
> the people we label as "Chinese" do not share similar physical/genetic traits. This statement is utterly and completely incorrect. It is a common myth in the social sciences. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Population_genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Population_ge... first paragraph from above page: "The relationship between race and genetics is relevant to the controversy concerning race. In everyday life many societies classify populations into groups based on phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry and socio-economic status - these are the groups we tend to call "races". Because the patterns of variation of human genetic traits are clinal, with a gradual change in trait frequency between population clusters, it is possible to statistically correlate clusters of physical traits with individual geographic ancestry. The frequencies of alleles tend to form clusters where populations live closely together and interact over periods of time. This is due to endogamy within kin groups and lineages or national, cultural or linguistic boundaries. This causes genetic clusters to correlate statistically with population groups when a number of alleles are evaluated. Different clines align around the different centers, resulting in more complex variations than those observed comparing continental groups." In short it's saying genetic traits can be statistically correlated with population groups (race) but variations of traits that are different within population groups can actually be more complex than those observed when compared with people outside of their race. This is literally exactly my argument. Supported by wikipedia at the very least.
- dimino 11y ago
  I do not accept the given definition of race from this page, as it presumes the term "race" is in any way scientific or rigorously defined when in actuality it is not. What we "tend to call" race is not defined, despite this wiki page's attempt to do so.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    This wiki page is the reflection of the general opinions of the scientific community. You can redefine any word to have any definition that fits your universe, but when communicating with other people, we must go with general consensus.
    - dimino 11y ago
      > This wiki page is the reflection of the general opinions of the scientific community. It isn't. The concept of "race" is not rigorously defined.
      - crimsonalucard 11y ago
        A word not having a rigorous definition does not make the concept non-existent among scientists. "Life" is not rigorously defined.
        dimino 11y ago
        Life is very rigorously defined, however it's not unequivocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions A word not having a rigorous definition means it cannot be discussed scientifically. Hence the actual problem of studying the existence of life, e.g. is a virus alive?
        crimsonalucard 11y ago
        please note. Unequivocal and rigorous are synonyms. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unequivocal/4 http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unequivocal/4 >A word not having a rigorous definition means it cannot be discussed scientifically. Life is discussed scientifically in many contexts yet it is not unequivocally or rigorously defined. In fact there's an entire field based on the study of life. It's called biology, aka the study of life. If a scientific field can stem from a word that does not have a rigorous or unequivocal definition, then it can be discussed scientifically.

by dimino 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago

> the people we label as "Chinese" do not share similar physical/genetic traits. This statement is utterly and completely incorrect. It is a common myth in the social sciences. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Population_genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Population_ge... first paragraph from above page: "The relationship between race and genetics is relevant to the controversy concerning race. In everyday life many societies classify populations into groups based on phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry and socio-economic status - these are the groups we tend to call "races". Because the patterns of variation of human genetic traits are clinal, with a gradual change in trait frequency between population clusters, it is possible to statistically correlate clusters of physical traits with individual geographic ancestry. The frequencies of alleles tend to form clusters where populations live closely together and interact over periods of time. This is due to endogamy within kin groups and lineages or national, cultural or linguistic boundaries. This causes genetic clusters to correlate statistically with population groups when a number of alleles are evaluated. Different clines align around the different centers, resulting in more complex variations than those observed comparing continental groups." In short it's saying genetic traits can be statistically correlated with population groups (race) but variations of traits that are different within population groups can actually be more complex than those observed when compared with people outside of their race. This is literally exactly my argument. Supported by wikipedia at the very least.

dimino 11y ago
I do not accept the given definition of race from this page, as it presumes the term "race" is in any way scientific or rigorously defined when in actuality it is not. What we "tend to call" race is not defined, despite this wiki page's attempt to do so.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  This wiki page is the reflection of the general opinions of the scientific community. You can redefine any word to have any definition that fits your universe, but when communicating with other people, we must go with general consensus.
  - dimino 11y ago
    > This wiki page is the reflection of the general opinions of the scientific community. It isn't. The concept of "race" is not rigorously defined.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      A word not having a rigorous definition does not make the concept non-existent among scientists. "Life" is not rigorously defined.
      - dimino 11y ago
        Life is very rigorously defined, however it's not unequivocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions A word not having a rigorous definition means it cannot be discussed scientifically. Hence the actual problem of studying the existence of life, e.g. is a virus alive?
        crimsonalucard 11y ago
        please note. Unequivocal and rigorous are synonyms. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unequivocal/4 http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/unequivocal/4 >A word not having a rigorous definition means it cannot be discussed scientifically. Life is discussed scientifically in many contexts yet it is not unequivocally or rigorously defined. In fact there's an entire field based on the study of life. It's called biology, aka the study of life. If a scientific field can stem from a word that does not have a rigorous or unequivocal definition, then it can be discussed scientifically.