Race is a human/social construct.

[bpesta22]

Compelling or not, it is an error in scientific process to take data and make it fit a conclusion. The blood group is merely a single example. There have been other examples presented in this thread. You keep finding ways to dismiss the examples but you're missing the forest for the trees.

Disagree. data are data. Suppose they fit some prediction from a theory, yet you'd never even heard of the theory before you got the data. That invalidates the fit?

It could be I'm avoiding the smoking gun examples posted above (where were these again?) or I just don't find the examples compelling.

 

[lomiller]

But it doesn't satisfy one side. Some people here are determined to carry on using the word "race" despite it having no scientific meaning and lots of "racist" baggage. Then they complain that the other side is implying that they are racist, when it is their obsession with the worthless word "race" that is implying the racism.

It's like the loony on the CT boards who says everything is a Jewish conspiracy and then complains about being called a Nazi. There's no moral high ground in adopting an evidence-free position that you have in common with scumbag racists. If they are determined to keep using the word "race" then they need to explain why the word is so important to them when other words, such as "ethnicity", work just as well or better and without the apartheid and fascist overtones.

Agreed, but you left out one thing. Not only are they committed to keeping the term race they are committed to it having some biological meaning.

IOW they refuse to let go of the notion that there are meaningful biological and genetic differences between the so called races and at least one person has said they think these differences are important in understanding the social problems associated with these different races. When you cut though all the denials what I think we are really seeing is people who want to attribute things like poverty rates and crimes rates between these “races” to biological differences rather than social/economic issues.

 

[bpesta22]

Agreed, but you left out one thing. Not only are they committed to keeping the term race they are committed to it having some biological meaning.

IOW they refuse to let go of the notion that there are meaningful biological and genetic differences between the so called races and at least one person has said they think these differences are important in understanding the social problems associated with these different races. When you cut though all the denials what I think we are really seeing is people who want to attribute things like poverty rates and crimes rates between these “races” to biological differences rather than social/economic issues.

I said the differences may be important. It's an empirical question and we don't know the answer. Suppose biological differences indeed explained some of these. Wouldn't that be important to know, assuming one wanted to fix them?

"want to" is loaded. Social/economic explanations fail miserably in my area, so I want to figure out why. But I want to not because I can then boast to my white inbred nascar-loving colleagues at a racial purity rally over some PBRs.

 

[lomiller]

I said the differences may be important. It's an empirical question and we don't know the answer. Suppose biological differences indeed explained some of these. Wouldn't that be important to know, assuming one wanted to fix them?

You don’t prove negatives. There is no evidence that social/economic problems have a genetic basis and until evidence of such is presented there is no need to consider the possibility. What’s interesting here is why some people refuse to let go of that “possibility” even though there is no supporting evidence.

I could add that the possibility seems unlikely because of the limited genetic variation in our species, but in truth this would be chasing a red herring. It’s up to the people who think social/economic problems have a biological/genetic basis to provide evidence for their views and under now accounts does “well you haven’t proven it’s not!” count as evidence.

 

[DC]

I said the differences may be important. It's an empirical question and we don't know the answer. Suppose biological differences indeed explained some of these. Wouldn't that be important to know, assuming one wanted to fix them?

"want to" is loaded. Social/economic explanations fail miserably in my area, so I want to figure out why. But I want to not because I can then boast to my white inbred nascar-loving colleagues at a racial purity rally over some PBRs.

what explanations are those? and in what regard do they fail?

 

[bpesta22]

You don’t prove negatives. There is no evidence that social/economic problems have a genetic basis and until evidence of such is presented there is no need to consider the possibility. What’s interesting here is why some people refuse to let go of that “possibility” even though there is no supporting evidence.

That seems pretty dumb, as it translates to: "we have no evidence of gene involvement and so we shouldn't study gene involvement (i.e., consider the possibility) until evidence is presented...".

What about the paper cited above showing haplogroups predict income levels across nations? I suspect you dismiss it entirely because it's not smoking-gun enough for you. Ignoring race, the literature on the genetic contribution to important social outcomes for individuals is vast.

It's only recently-- with the advent of the clustering studies-- that one can potentially provide evidence that's less than indirect. Which un-tenured (or even tenured) scientist will tackle the problem with thought police like you? It's a serious question given what's happened to the careers of many who dared look in this area.

I could add that the possibility seems unlikely because of the limited genetic variation in our species, but in truth this would be chasing a red herring. It’s up to the people who think social/economic problems have a biological/genetic basis to provide evidence for their views and under now accounts does “well you haven’t proven it’s not!” count as evidence.

Never said this, but what about the following thought process: Among individuals, the strong heritability of things is impressive, from job satisfaction, to divorce rates, to intelligence. I wonder if groups of similar humans might also show this pattern. That's a red herring?

 

[bpesta22]

what explanations are those? and in what regard do they fail?

Except for JREF trimming stuff, there's literally 10 years of posts here on nature versus nurture and IQ. Search and bump if you want to discuss.

 

[DC]

That seems pretty dumb, as it translates to: "we have no evidence of gene involvement and so we shouldn't study gene involvement (i.e., consider the possibility) until evidence is presented...".

What about the paper cited above showing haplogroups predict income levels across nations? I suspect you dismiss it entirely because it's not smoking-gun enough for you. Ignoring race, the literature on the genetic contribution to important social outcomes for individuals is vast.

It's only recently-- with the advent of the clustering studies-- that one can potentially provide evidence that's less than indirect. Which un-tenured (or even tenured) scientist will tackle the problem with thought police like you? It's a serious question given what's happened to the careers of many who dared look in this area.



Never said this, but what about the following thought process: Among individuals, the strong heritability of things is impressive, from job satisfaction, to divorce rates, to intelligence. I wonder if groups of similar humans might also show this pattern. That's a red herring?

haplogroups do not predict income levels.

 

[DC]

Except for JREF trimming stuff, there's literally 10 years of posts here on nature versus nurture and IQ. Search and bump if you want to discuss.

so you are not able to explain what you meant?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Disagree. data are data. Suppose they fit some prediction from a theory, yet you'd never even heard of the theory before you got the data. That invalidates the fit?

And omitted relevant data is omitted relevant data which often invalidates an hypothesis.

It could be I'm avoiding the smoking gun examples posted above (where were these again?) or I just don't find the examples compelling.

Blondes and brunettes, freckles, brown eye color, blood groups, sickle-cell trait, height, weight, GP6D, CCR5 deletion ....

Where does variation within a population become a 'race'? I've already said that in the Mary-Claire King lecture, King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies within any certain race by the same degree as the difference between individuals from the group and one outside the group.

You can choose any different difference or group of differences and call it a race.

"Within" versus "between group variation"

The F(ST) or "genetic variation between versus within groups" for human races is approximately 0.15. This is ample to satisfy taxonomic significance. The F(ST) for humans and chimpanzees is 0.18.[40] The attempt to claim F(ST) invalidates the human race concept is known as "Lewontin's Fallacy".[41] However, Witherspoon et al. 2007 concluded that Lewontin's "Fallacy" is only a fallacy if one assumes the populations that individuals can be assigned to are "races". They concluded the ability to assign an individual to a specific population cluster with enough markers considered is perfectly compatible with the fact it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster whilst still being capable of being traced back to specific regions.[42]

[42] * Witherspoon, D. J.; Wooding, S.; Rogers, A. R.; Marchani, E. E.; Watkins, W. S.; Batzer, M. A.; Jorde, L. B. (2007). "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations". Genetics 176 (1): 351–9. DOI:10.1534/genetics.106.067355. PMC 1893020. PMID 17339205.

 

[bpesta22]

haplogroups do not predict income levels.

They do in the paper I cited above:

"The haplogroups were also correlated with nutritional quality (mean r=|.24|),
wealth (r=|.38|), HDI (r=|.39|) and latitude (r=|.46|)."

 

[bpesta22]

And omitted relevant data is omitted relevant data which often invalidates an hypothesis.

Blondes and brunettes, freckles, brown eye color, blood groups, sickle-cell trait, height, weight, GP6D, CCR5 deletion ....

We seem to be rehashing the same crap, unless you're claiming these variables all co-vary?

Where does variation within a population become a 'race'? I've already said that in the Mary-Claire King lecture, King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies within any certain race by the same degree as the difference between individuals from the group and one outside the group.

So what?! I don't remember if it was this thread or a related one, but even a small mean difference may have profound effects at the aggregate. Even an effect size considered large (.60) would have more variability between versus within groups.

It baffles me why people still use this argument. From what I read, the difference between chimp and human DNA is very small (between group variance much smaller than within. Woot!). Surely the difference though is meaningful?

 

[bpesta22]

so you are not able to explain what you meant?

Not in this thread because it'd would be rehashing 10 years of rehashing debates about a peripheral topic.

Instead I offer you this: I have 100s of variables using the 50 US states as the unit of analysis. Unfortunately, %black in each state correlates strongly (inversely) with state IQ. Suggest any environmental third variable (or combo of third variables) that explain why, and I will generate a new regression analysis here showing it doesn't work. I will do this even by (unfairly) assuming that none of the variance with the third variable and IQ is caused by IQ.

ETA my state database is rather vast. Even have data on penis size; number of teeth, and starbucks to walmart ratios.

 

[DC]

Not in this thread because it'd would be rehashing 10 years of rehashing debates about a peripheral topic.

Instead I offer you this: I have 100s of variables using the 50 US states as the unit of analysis. Unfortunately, %black in each state correlates strongly (inversely) with state IQ. Suggest any environmental third variable (or combo of third variables) that explain why, and I will generate a new regression analysis here showing it doesn't work. I will do this even by (unfairly) assuming that none of the variance with the third variable and IQ is caused by IQ.

ETA my state database is rather vast. Even have data on penis size; number of teeth, and starbucks to walmart ratios.

maybe you might be able to show a correlation but you claimed a causation.

 

[RandFan]

It baffles me why people still use this argument. From what I read, the difference between chimp and human DNA is very small (between group variance much smaller than within. Woot!). Surely the difference though is meaningful?

You missed part of the argument. The differences between any two random individuals (humans) of different groups will vary roughly as much as any two random individuals within a group. The same cannot be said of chimp and humans. Chimp anatomy does not favor it walking upright most of the time. THAT is meaningful. That is something that doesn't vary between both groups of chimps and groups of people. If you had such differences where most if not all of the individuals of a group of humans shared a trait that, very few if any of those differences, were shared by a different group of individuals then that would be a point in your favor. It's not.

When talking about the traits that delineates "race", we are talking about things that "tend" to be different. Not things that always are different. Part of that is due to mixing of races through interbreeding.

 

[bpesta22]

You missed part of the argument. The differences between any two random individuals (humans) of different groups will vary roughly as much as any two random individuals within a group. The same cannot be said of chimp and humans. Chimp anatomy does not favor it walking upright most of the time. THAT is meaningful. That is something that doesn't vary between both groups of chimps and groups of people. If you had such differences where most if not all of the individuals of a group of humans shared a trait that, very few if any of those differences, were shared by a different group of individuals then that would be a point in your favor. It's not.

When talking about the traits that delineates "race", we are talking about things that "tend" to be different. Not things that always are different. Part of that is due to mixing of races through interbreeding.

I'll concede that if by "differences" you mean genetic and not behavioral. Otherwise, a small difference in genes produces massive differences in behavior (and anatomy, etc). That was my point.

Perhaps more relevant (maybe not?), what's the ratio of between to within group dna differences for people with Down's Syndrome?

 

[RandFan]

I'll concede that if by "differences" you mean genetic and not behavioral.

The question does not make sense. There is a genetic component of behavior. You are in effect trying to delineate a distinction between flight and airplane wings. The distinction is there it's just not very helpful.

Otherwise, a small difference in genes produces massive differences in behavior (and anatomy, etc). That was my point.

If I read this right then you are saying that I need only give you a description of the behavior of any two individuals and you can tell me their race?

Perhaps more relevant (maybe not?), what's the ratio of between to within group dna differences for people with Down's Syndrome?

So, let me see if I understand the question. People with Down's syndrome are all of the same race? What are you getting at?

 

[DC]

They do in the paper I cited above:

"The haplogroups were also correlated with nutritional quality (mean r=|.24|),
wealth (r=|.38|), HDI (r=|.39|) and latitude (r=|.46|)."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We seem to be rehashing the same crap, unless you're claiming these variables all co-vary? ...

It baffles me why people still use this argument. From what I read, the difference between chimp and human DNA is very small (between group variance much smaller than within. Woot!). Surely the difference though is meaningful?

We are discussing biologically distinct genetic groups in humans that can be considered subspecies on the basis of their genes.

Your confirmation bias is leading you to falsely rationalize why the fact one could use blood groups to determine subspecies isn't valid.

And you keep ignoring, "Say you only had the genome sequencing and you knew a little about populations but nothing whatsoever about what individuals looked like, and you made groupings of individuals based on the genomic data, what do you think the groups would look like?"

 

[bpesta22]

The question does not make sense. There is a genetic component of behavior. You are in effect trying to delineate a distinction between flight and airplane wings. The distinction is there it's just not very helpful.

If I read this right then you are saying that I need only give you a description of the behavior of any two individuals and you can tell me their race?

So, let me see if I understand the question. People with Down's syndrome are all of the same race? What are you getting at?

You are misreading me, perhaps due to poor writing on my part, or perhaps because I misinterpreted the similarity of chimp and human dna.

My only point was that a small mean difference has significant practical value when aggregated to groups. So, claiming that a difference is trivial because between group variance is larger than within is just wrong.

I won't defend the Down's example except I thought it might be illustrative.