Race is a human/social construct.

DC said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't remember claiming cause. Help me out? You said income was not predicted by haplogroups. I just showed it was (by referencing the thing that measures predictability, a correlation).
 
bpesta22 said:
I don't remember claiming cause. Help me out? You said income was not predicted by haplogroups. I just showed it was (by referencing the thing that measures predictability, a correlation).
Click to expand...

must be a language issue then, what do you mean by predicted?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Despite me offering the same arguments as answers, you keep asking the same questions. I asked why race must = subspecies to have genetic utility. Unless I missed it, no one addressed that.

I mentioned that various (versus single!) traits cluster in ways that define race. Hair color, handedness and blood groups (afaik) do not do this. That's why people aren't grouped based on some combination of these features. There is no category where blond, lefty, O has utility. That would seem to support my argument. You disagree. Fine.

It's the bundle of traits that define race, which all map to geographic isolation as illustrated by unique points in the genome (in exactly the way one might predict if races were real...). That evidence sways me; your counters do not. I proposed a do-able experiment that I think can settle the issue (control the social to see what the genetics might still explain). So I've at least expressed a mechanism that would falsify my world view.

You keep pointing to single traits to argue that the bundle is arbitrary. I think that's neither compelling nor logical.

It's obvious we don't agree. It's not at all obvious-- to me-- where the confirmation bias (or other fallacy) lies. Could it be you filter evidence to protect a world view that races don't exist?

Why do haplogroups predict IQ at the level of a nation (where one level up equals race)? The effect existed when controlling for income, health and human development (seems to be a measure of education in that paper).
 
DC said:
must be a language issue then, what do you mean by predicted?
Click to expand...

It could be; I was not trying to be evasive.

Y = a + b(x)

Y = predicted IQ
a = where the prediction line hits the IQ axis
b = the correlation between haplogroup presence / absence and a nation's IQ
x = value on haplogroup for the nation whose IQ you want to predict.
 
I guess my argument is this:

If race, as identified by haplogroups, is arbitrary and meaningless, then such a measure should not predict anything important.

Race does predict important things (therefore, modus tollens).

But, it's also possible the correlation is spurious. The authors realized this and so controlled for some (not all) third variables. These variables are Gouldian favorites as "explanations" for group IQ differences: education, nutrition, income.

Despite these controls, haplogroups still predicted.

Possibly other third variables-- not tested in this study-- show the correlation is spurious. But we do have some evidence, now, that an arbitrary grouping based on haplotypes nonetheless predicts the most important variable in social science.
 
eta, can you show me that a classification based on some combination of hair color, handedness and blood groups does this? I'd guess not, as combining these traits into a category seems arbitrary.
 
bpesta22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, so I think you are saying that human behavior is a complex dynamic that is sensitive to initial conditions (of butterflies and storms), correct?

If so then I don't understand your point. If the dynamics of human behavior and human societies magnify small genetic differences then what should we infer from that (your point seem ad hoc in order to rescue some part of your theory)?
 
Last edited:
bpesta22 said:
eta, can you show me that a classification based on some combination of hair color, handedness and blood groups does this? I'd guess not, as combining these traits into a category seems arbitrary.
Click to expand...
And what pray tell is the non-arbitrary basis for classification? If there is a *gradient of difference between one group and another where do you draw the line. It all strikes me as arbitrary.




*range, scale, etc..
 
RandFan said:
Okay, so I think you are saying that human behavior is a complex dynamic that is sensitive to initial conditions (of butterflies and storms), correct?

If so then I don't understand your point. If the dynamics of human behavior and human societies magnify small genetic differences then what should we infer from that (your point seem ad hoc in order to rescue some part of your theory)?
Click to expand...

Not really. An often used counterargument is that race differences are too trivial / too small to have any real-world meaning anyway (the implication is that therefore only racists are interested in identifying such differences).

Tom and Tim are white; Bob and Bill are black. Tom and Tim differ more on average than do Tom and Bob. Ergo, race differences are trivial.

I assert "that the differences are trivial" is false, especially in a population of millions of Tom's and Bob's, and when looking at group level outcomes.

That was my only point. Where I got into trouble was using the chimp/human and Down's examples.
 
RandFan said:
And what pray tell is the non-arbitrary basis for classification? If there is a *gradient of difference between one group and another where do you draw the line. It all strikes me as arbitrary.




*range, scale, etc..
Click to expand...

Correlation (i.e., data)! That's been my point throughout. Factor analysis (correlating correlations) is uniquely suited to not only classify but to test hypotheses that propose a classification is valid. Using FA here to classify would not at all be arbitrary.
 
bpesta22 said:
Not really. An often used counterargument is that race differences are too trivial / too small to have any real-world meaning anyway (the implication is that therefore only racists are interested in identifying such differences).
Click to expand...
To point out the straw here:

"too trivial / too small to have any real-world meaning"

is not the same as:

Race is a social construct and doesn't meet the scientific biological definition of a subspecies. At the gene level, humans are not significantly different.



bpesta22 said:
Where I got into trouble was using the chimp/human and Down's examples.
Click to expand...
Yes because pointing out, people with Down's syndrome met your definition of race, tripped you up. ;)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
To point out the straw here:

"too trivial / too small to have any real-world meaning"

is not the same as:

Race is a social construct and doesn't meet the scientific biological definition of a subspecies. At the gene level, humans are not significantly different.



Yes because pointing out, people with Down's syndrome met your definition of race, tripped you up. ;)
Click to expand...

Omg!

Why does race have to equal subspecies (don't answer, though, since I never answered your hypothetical. We can just call it even).

People with DS don't meet my definition.
 
bpesta22 said:
You may, but blood group is just one trait. Find me traits that co-vary with blood groups where the combination does this?

Here for example is a bundle of traits the correlate with human "race," whatever that means:
Click to expand...

I'd still like a source and possibly THEIR sources for this vague table.

ETA: And I seem to be too dumb to find the study you cited on the correlation of haplogroups and IQ. Could I get a link to that too?
 
Last edited:
Moss said:
I'd still like a source and possibly THEIR sources for this vague table.

ETA: And I seem to be too dumb to find the study you cited on the correlation of haplogroups and IQ. Could I get a link to that too?
Click to expand...

Fair. I didn't provide the source because I often derail threads with IQ talk, and that's where the source is from. The vague stuff in the table is a summary; references to the actual studies that allow for the summary are provided in text.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf

(anyone ad homming Rushton or Jensen needs to also explain why an APA journal accepted their article for publication. Conversely, I agree that just because it's published in an APA journal doesn't make it true).
 
from the article, fwiw:

Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo
question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate &
Audette, 2001). However, we believe these constructs are meaningful because the
empirical findings documented in this article have been confirmed across cultures
and methodologies for decades. The fuzziness of racial definitions does not negate
their utility. To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks
(Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe;
and East Asians (Orientals, Mongoloids) have most of their ancestors from
Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza,
1994; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although
he eschewed the term race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially
supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to
population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are
individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.

Not sure if this adds anything new to this thread, but curious what the bio people here think of the definition.
 
bpesta22 said:
It could be; I was not trying to be evasive.

Y = a + b(x)

Y = predicted IQ
a = where the prediction line hits the IQ axis
b = the correlation between haplogroup presence / absence and a nation's IQ
x = value on haplogroup for the nation whose IQ you want to predict.
Click to expand...

the problem seems not to be language, but actually that you just switched haplogroups for race, which is nonsense.
 
bpesta22 said:
Correlation (i.e., data)! That's been my point throughout. Factor analysis (correlating correlations) is uniquely suited to not only classify but to test hypotheses that propose a classification is valid. Using FA here to classify would not at all be arbitrary.
Click to expand...
That doesn't at all address my question. Where do you draw lines? What is your basis for those lines? And keep in mind my point about gradient (range) of differences. Correlate to what exactly?
 
bpesta22 said:
Omg!

Why does race have to equal subspecies (don't answer, though, since I never answered your hypothetical. We can just call it even).

People with DS don't meet my definition.
Click to expand...
You can call it subspecies, you can call it something less. That all goes to making it a social construct, chosen arbitrarily for any number of reasons, some legit, some not.

You can't make up your personal version of standard biology science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom