Mikemikev

Human variation is not a continuum. If it was I would agree division would be arbitrary (but still valid as a operationalization of a spectrum). Is this a continuum? http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html Your 97% rule for species is irrelevant. That's based on creating a manageable number of names. Race is a scalable infra subspecific concept to describe variation. Do you have a better one?

The boundaries are inherent in the definition. It seems like you've just caught the "received wisdom" that race is a wooly concept, without actually thinking it through. By definition individuals will share more or less ancestry and can be classified into discrete groups.

Why would it it have arbitrary quantitative thresholds? Would that make it more informative or predictive? The sine qua non of a scientific concept. Let's take your Fst 0.2 for example. Why would you arbitrarily make that a requirement? You know several species would fail that? Taxa defined by descent are meaningless? You really want to claim this? Not at all. All individuals in one race must share more ancestry versus all individuals in another race. Its really quite simple. What's the true number of taxa for all living things? Clearly it varies by level of analysis. The subjectivity is in your question.

That's a complete lie. You asked what the 5 races were. This is the result of applying a definition . I told you there is no true level of analysis and no fixed number. I guess I excpectd people to have the initiative to google "tang 2005 race". Maybe they did and are just wasting my time. Please don't be too surprised why I no longer respond to you. Nonsense

That's just semantics. I'll call them races (populations define by descent or similarity), you use the PC superset euphemism "populations" (any grouping), whatever. Can you answer my question?

Tang used 18 SIRE ethnic groups which clustered into 4 major races under genetic analysis. The poster above fails to understand hierarchical taxonomy, ie. subclusters in superclusters. Great. Can you show how race according my definition fails this?

No I don't think so. Thanks for the links. You know I get criticized for making point without references. But its better than providing references without making a point. Could you summarize how this supersedes earlier concepts? What does this even mean? I defined race by ancestry. Can you explain why it is not 100% effective? What does that mean? Can subspecies or genus be 100% effective? Can anything? What does it mean to be effective in this context? So all concepts in science must always give predictions with absolute certainty with perfect mapping between definition and measurement? Are you just setting up absurd standards that would have you laughed out of the room for any other subject? Classifying by descent isn't biology now?

Off topic.

That isn't a definition it's a result. Excuse me but I will not have you criticising me then telling me I can't respond. Any references will be provided on request. I can reference Darwin and Mayr. This was not requested so I assumed it was known and accepted. I referenced Tang 2005 on request. The definitions given were 100% precise. Explain how they were not.

That's exactly what happened.

I was just wondering what you meant by unspecific. Was it just a meaningless term of disparagement?

It was one of two definitions I repeated many times. It can also infer ancestry, the other. Very small. More precise than measuring height. Is height an invalid concept?

Your tone argument is of no interest or relevance, and your attempt to justify your personal attack is frankly pathetic. You think it makes sense to psychoanalyse your opponent when discussing group IQ differences? Don't be so absurd.

Can you explain what you mean? No, that would be stupid.

Why must I repeat myself? Genomic similarity is a good way. You know how they can look at DNA and infer ancestry? Genomic similarity in itself is Mayr's definition. Or self report. Visual inspection. Phenetic methods such as forensics or just visual inspection. You do understand the difference between a precise definition and a measurement error? Do you know the measurement error for genomic similarity?

No it isn't. Actually the definition is the same and the assignment becomes easier. Because, why?

I posted Darwin's and Mayr's definitions. They are both quite simple. Which definitions are you thinking of? No, I don't. How does assigning race by shared ancestry or genomic similarity pre select groups? The groups fall out due to natural similarities. Nothing socially constructed about it. Unspecific? My definition is absolutely specific. It appears you make these accusations based on nothing. Yes, I know there are hybrid races. How does this make my definition unspecific? Mixed individuals will cluster with major races or separately depending on the level of analysis. Eg Ethiopians, Hazara or Uyghurs. Race can be as fine grained as you want. African diversity is a myth and after Africans , Caucasoids split next when clustering. None of my definitions reference "skin color". I agree though, that genetic similarity taxonomies are not informative for non genetic traits. Is that meant to be surprising to someone? What more precise terms? Haplotypes aren't more precise. They are just something else. Contrast the predictivity of race with haplotype. Race is more predictive. You mean easier to measure. You want to throw out a concept because of negative associations? Hey, let's pretend uranium doesn't exist. Africans and non-Africans split first, followed by Caucasoids, then I'm not sure whether Australoids or Native Americans split from East Asians first. So threre isn't a fixed number. It depends on the grain of analysis. You can split off the Japanese or whatever. So long as your groups are more similar to each other versus other groups. Even siblings can be a race. And, yes.

This thread is about the unfair closure of the other thread. You can open another thread on the validity of IQ.

True. We should all go into minority safe spaces rather than face biological facts.

No worries. I just get bored stating what seems obvious to me. I'll be back later.

I'm going to take a break. I'll answer your trivial questions later. Meantime you could look it up. It's very basic stuff.

Well why do vertebrates subdivide into 5? It minimizes between group variation at that point. It's because of the Sahara and the Himalayas. Then you can subdivide. The divisions minimize variation between groups. This is basic taxonomy. You can't cut a division including South Asians and South East Asians. South Asians are more similar to Europeans. Self informed race and ethnicity.

You are either lying or fail to understand what I wrote. We can count races. There are 5 at one level, 30 at another. I've repeated to you definitions change. Why do you continue to lie otherwise? Professors can be pseudoscientists. Welcome to not parroting authorities. SIRE seems to correspond well to genetic clusters, which match ancestry. You don't need to operationalize with 100% precision to do science. Ideally we'd use genomic ancestry. That's coming. I was called a troll. Stop lying.

I think the real question is why you are focussing on the details of my behavior when your members were questioning my personal psychology to provoke this. Is there some kind of ideological bias in the mod staff? Like would they call consensus academic psychology facts "ridiculous"? Let's try to be honest here shall we.

Depends on the level of analysis. Categories subdivide. There is no true level of analysis. Obviously racial assignment depends on specifics in each case. It sounds like they would be hybrids roughly equidistant between major clusters.