Race is a human/social construct.

[RandFan]

Oddly enough...

In fact, if the idea behind the OP had been (A)"race is almost biologically meaningless except in some very limited circumstances involving medicine", I would have agreed.

From the OP:

... and invite arguments to rebut the idea that race is anything more than human based classifications for the purpose of anthropological understanding of genetics/health/populations or plain old garden variety racism.

Perhaps I didn't word that well. What is the distinction in your mind that I failed to convey?

(B)"Race does not exist at all, it's a construct, it's biologically meaningless" since I think it overstates it almost making it an untruth.

I do not now nor have I ever held that position. I apologize if that was not clear. Race IS a construct. It isn't biologically meaningless the lines we draw to include or exclude traits to define a race are A.) Arbitrary and B.) largely insignificant due to mixing of populations.

 

[Zelenius]

From the OP:

Perhaps I didn't word that well. What is the distinction in your mind that I failed to convey?

I do not now nor have I ever held that position. I apologize if that was not clear. Race IS a construct. It isn't biologically meaningless the lines we draw to include or exclude traits to define a race are A.) Arbitrary and B.) largely insignificant due to mixing of populations.

First of all Happy Birthday! And I hope you have many many more!

I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps I did misunderstand, but then it seemed like due to some individuals, the thread was going in the direction of arguing for race not existing at all or at least implying it. Perhaps they disagree with your OP then. If that is what you always meant, then we are mostly in agreement, and any further argument on my part is pointless.

I personally believe they should do away with "race" and call it "hereditary population" from now on.

Again, Happy Birthday!

 

[RandFan]

First of all Happy Birthday! And I hope you have many many more!

I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps I did misunderstand, but then it seemed like due to some individuals, the thread was going in the direction of arguing for race not existing at all or at least implying it. Perhaps they disagree with your OP then. If that is what you always meant, then we are mostly in agreement, and any further argument on my part is pointless.

Again, Happy Birthday!

Thanks. Yeah, I think part of the problem exists in that people are at some points arguing at cross purposes. Race is a squishy concept.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks. Yeah, I think part of the problem exists in that people are at some points arguing at cross purposes. Race is a squishy concept.

Conflating a number of concepts is how I'd describe it.

Happy Birthday friend. Hope you leg has recovered.

 

[bpesta22]

What exactly is a race realist? Is that a stormfront buzz word for someone who believes races differ substantially in ability at the genetic level to rationalize or explain continued social inequality? Rushton truly believes Africans are functionally retarded because of IQ scores without acknowledging the state of the education system in Africa. What an idiot!

Can't put words in his mouth, but I don't think he thinks this, nor do I think he's ignorant of how IQ and education co-vary somewhat.

 

[RandFan]

Conflating a number of concepts is how I'd describe it.

Happy Birthday friend. Hope you leg has recovered.

Good point. Thanks SG.

 

[Juniversal]

Can't put words in his mouth, but I don't think he thinks this, nor do I think he's ignorant of how IQ and education co-vary somewhat.

I bothered to watch a presentation by Rushton a few years back on youtube and he clearly believes Africans are functionally retarded. I couldn't take anything he said seriously after that (not that I did before).

 

[DC]

Can't put words in his mouth, but I don't think he thinks this, nor do I think he's ignorant of how IQ and education co-vary somewhat.

just watched a speach he was giving to a group



well i don't see how anyone that wants to make his case for race from a non racist perspective would go anywhere close to this guy.

but i found it funny how he prevented to go into details and technical stuff, propably because he knew he was talking to a bunch of dumb racists.

 

[DC]

I bothered to watch a presentation by Rushton a few years back on youtube and he clearly believes Africans are functionally retarded. I couldn't take anything he said seriously after that (not that I did before).

what i just saw was how lousy sourced his stuff is compared to other scientific presentations. very hard to do fact checking on his claims.

 

[Jono]

Let me pose a question. Let's say theoretically we can conclusively show that race exist. What's the significance beyond the medicinal consequences?

I know I got shot in the gut, but what is it that is aching in my stomache? This is how your question comes across to me, Juniversal. I just don't understand it. Let's say species exist more or less accurately as we depict them, what is the significance of that? If something has medicinal consequences, then it is because it has largely genetical basis for it yes? So, let's find out more. And what do you know, we have and do find out more each year. In its chest it is a scientific process, concerned with what groupings naturally come across through a multitude of ancestral-lineage markers, which in turn provides evolutionary explainations why, for example, polynesians have a notably high frequency of developing diabetes. This isn't the red race/heredity/nature denial era of the 70's and 80's mind you, that's over and done with I hope. Of course, like E.O Wilson said only God can forbid us to rationally look at differences above the neck, and he doesn't exist. As it is we do not have all the answers, and perhaps "race" isn't even an alltogether perfect term. It is however notably a deep, active, genetic reality more than a socio-economic/skin-deep/superficial idea. It doesn't need to be grandly important for everything, it just is. I recognize this, do you?

 

[Jono]

what i just saw was how lousy sourced his stuff is compared to other scientific presentations. very hard to do fact checking on his claims.

I wouldn't know, I haven't read any of his books. I think I caught some articles a few years ago but that would be it.

 

[DC]

haplogroups provide an already much better tool for medical research thann race does. so i don't see the significance of this race thing. especially if it comes from people that seem to believe that haplogroups are actually race. how they call it will not make a difference.

 

[RandFan]

just watched a speach he was giving to a group



well i don't see how anyone that wants to make his case for race from a non racist perspective would go anywhere close to this guy.

but i found it funny how he prevented to go into details and technical stuff, propably because he knew he was talking to a bunch of dumb racists.

Really disgusting.

 

[Jono]

haplogroups provide an already much better tool for medical research thann race does. so i don't see the significance of this race thing. especially if it comes from people that seem to believe that haplogroups are actually race. how they call it will not make a difference.

Haplogroups is a manner of tracing racial ancestry, as such it would be expected to be more precise because it is defined by specific markers and... low and behold, for the eleventh time the primary racial classifications of old and haplogroups of today more or less match up and this is no coincidence. Medicinally the term "race", as has been explained earlier, seems particulary die-hard, as it is within forensic science of identifying human bodies. These match up with the given haplogroups as well. Hell, it's as if "race" in the scientific context actually corresponds to the T with haplogroups within the sub-groups of the given species. And... what do you know, it does. This doesn't make the terms interchangable, however we can either way accept that both of the given terms are fundamentally genetic/biological and not social. End of story.

 

[DC]

I wouldn't know, I haven't read any of his books. I think I caught some articles a few years ago but that would be it.

i didnt talk about nooks, merely the presenteation i linked to. the presentation he did, its almost impossible to see any sources oon the slides with data he presented. i find this always a bit strange, this is something i see from creationists and climate deniers.

 

[Jono]

I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps I did misunderstand, but then it seemed like due to some individuals, the thread was going in the direction of arguing for race not existing at all or at least implying it. Perhaps they disagree with your OP then. If that is what you always meant, then we are mostly in agreement, and any further argument on my part is pointless.

RandFan actually started this thread because of a pm I sent him where I asked;

Hey R.F, I was browsing some old threads and came across a comment you wrote about five years ago which read; "There is no statistical genetic difference between humans based on class, race, etc".

Perhaps you worded that statement poorly, or it was what you believed at the time, 'cause I think we both know, today, taking it at face-value that statement isn't entirely correct.

He felt the issue of his point should be addressed here, and so it went.

 

[Jono]

i didnt talk about nooks, merely the presenteation i linked to. the presentation he did, its almost impossible to see any sources oon the slides with data he presented. i find this always a bit strange, this is something i see from creationists and climate deniers.

No specified sources on the slides? No idea wether that is common or not for pop-scientist presentations.

 

[bpesta22]

No specified sources on the slides? No idea wether that is common or not for pop-scientist presentations.

Doesn't seem like an academic conference, but for those I've been to, it's not unusual to leave references off power point slides. Usually, presenters have hard or electronic copies with references.

 

[Jono]

Doesn't seem like an academic conference, but for those I've been to, it's not unusual to leave references off power point slides. Usually, presenters have hard or electronic copies with references.

I do remember watching Pinker's lecture "Chalking up the Blank Slate" or something. The slides were a bit fuzzy to read so I do not recall if sources were routinely included and properly given or not. Since I have the book "The Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature" in both swedish and english, I guess I never bothered to really check the slides as it seemed like an unimportant detail to look for.

 

[RandFan]

I know I got shot in the gut, but what is it that is aching in my stomache? This is how your question comes across to me, Juniversal. I just don't understand it. Let's say species exist more or less accurately as we depict them, what is the significance of that? If something has medicinal consequences, then it is because it has largely genetical basis for it yes? So, let's find out more. And what do you know, we have and do find out more each year. In its chest it is a scientific process, concerned with what groupings naturally come across through a multitude of ancestral-lineage markers, which in turn provides evolutionary explainations why, for example, polynesians have a notably high frequency of developing diabetes. This isn't the red race/heredity/nature denial era of the 70's and 80's mind you, that's over and done with I hope. Of course, like E.O Wilson said only God can forbid us to rationally look at differences above the neck, and he doesn't exist. As it is we do not have all the answers, and perhaps "race" isn't even an alltogether perfect term. It is however notably a deep, active, genetic reality more than a socio-economic/skin-deep/superficial idea. It doesn't need to be grandly important for everything, it just is. I recognize this, do you?

I've no problem accepting the facts and any consequences that result from those facts. That said, I've no idea what "deep, active, genetic reality" is even supposed to mean. It's not that we can't generalize from groups. We can. The problem in my opinion is two fold. A.) The gradient (cline) B.) The degree of variation between any two members of a group is roughly the same as any two non-members. What does it mean that there are differences? What does it mean that there are shared traits? Yes, we can identify stereotypical differences between groups. But how significant are those differences and do those differences break down as we move from the macro to micro level?

I'm fine with classification. If we determine that all people who are under 58" tall are more likely to suffer from certain medical conditions and we want to give them a label and then study and identify the genetic basis for their small stature, I don't mind that at all. And if you say that such little people or "dwarfs" are a "deep active genetic reality" I guess I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't even personally mind if you called little people a race (even though that would not be correct by any definition I know of) so long as you conceded that the delineation is an arbitrary one based on the advantages of such a classification (we will not advance our understanding of the underlying genetic factors of little people by studying NBA players).