Is race a social construct? [ANSWERED: YES!]

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

This disingenuous garbage is used as a stick to beat White people, e.g. the AAA statement in the OP where it is claimed the race concept was developed to justify slavery. Disgusting anti-White fabrication.

So that's the point of this thread, you just want a stick of your own.

[Prometheus]

12 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience

I'm not sure sociologists would agree with that. For instance when biologists talk about evolution via genetics they mean it is something 'real'. When sociologists talk about evolution via memetics they aren't using the term as an analogy, they are making a claim every bit as real as genetic evolution.

 

15 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

This disingenuous garbage is used as a stick to beat White people, e.g. the pseudoscientific AAA statement in the OP where it is claimed the race concept was developed to justify slavery. Disgusting anti-White fabrication

I just asked why you're a little emotional, which is now very much evident, and i get accused of being racist. It's not racist to debate the issue of race. I'm not sure what in particular i have said you may construe as racist - i didn't make the AAA statement and have agreed by your broad definition race can be considered a biological concept.

 

19 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

The fact that concepts in oncology have different definitions is just totally irrelevant and I don't know why you keep bringing it up

I bring it up to support my point, the same way you brought up genus to support your case. Maybe it is irrelevant but you won't even explore the notion so you don't actually know - unless you have studied oncology before hand and really do know?

[Stevie Wonder]

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Black hair is the most common hair color in the world. It is found on all continents and all human carry genes for it. Predicting one has black hair is not a useful. I can predict a Chinese person will have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one brain, one heart, and etc. 

No you're wrong. It's useful.

Quote

You keep referencing "shared ancestry" but then ignoring that fact all humans have shared ancestry. A person has 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, and etc. By the 10th generation one has over a thousand direct great grandparents and that's just going back a couple hundred years.  Just within those thousand/couple hundred years the diversity is enormous. Your point about "shared ancestry" isn't nearly specific enough to be useful when all humans are basically cousins.

LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

Quote

The data one would use in 2018 in genetics. Kant, Blumenbach, and Darwin weren't geneticists. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

Where is the data from 2018 you are looking at that contradicts me? *doesn't hold breath*

Especially since I've already referenced modern genetic clustering studies which corroborate early divisions. You are arguing with your imagination. Just an ad nauseam refusal to address what I present.

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I'm not sure sociologists would agree with that. For instance when biologists talk about evolution via genetics they mean it is something 'real'. When sociologists talk about evolution via memetics they aren't using the term as an analogy, they are making a claim every bit as real as genetic evolution.

When sociologists (and rarely biologists) claim race is a "social construct", they are claiming that it does not have validity in biology. That is why they present spurious and ill understood biological arguments like Lewontin's fallacy and clines. If you are trying to claim sociologists mean race is biological when they call it a social construct then no, this is not what they mean. You've gone off into your own little world of sophistry rather than look at what the people you represent are actually saying.

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I just asked why you're a little emotional, which is now very much evident, and i get accused of being racist. It's not racist to debate the issue of race. I'm not sure what in particular i have said you may construe as racist - i didn't make the AAA statement and have agreed by your broad definition race can be considered a biological concept.

I didn't accuse you of being racist. If I am emotional it's because of your endless sophistry and lies rather than the subject matter. I am not even particularly emotional, this is just some "y u mad tho" lame ad hominem nonsense.

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I bring it up to support my point, the same way you brought up genus to support your case. Maybe it is irrelevant but you won't even explore the notion so you don't actually know - unless you have studied oncology before hand and really do know?

It doesn't support your point. For the last time, it's irrelevant. I know it's irrelevant because it's obviously irrelevant. That some concepts in oncology have different definitions is irrelevant to the meaning of a biological concept, since the concepts you refer to are not disputed as being biological concepts. There is nothing to explore. Explore it yourself because nobody could have any understanding of how one would explore what you are talking about in a way that is relevant to this thread. Please go ahead and show us how exploring concepts in oncology could have any bearing on what we are talking about. If you cannot it will be obvious that you are simply trying to waste people's time with deliberate red herrings, which would be a disgusting indictment upon you.

The fact that you deny race defined by ancestry is biological because it falls under the discipline of "history" (LOL) while genus doesn't, is an obvious flaw in your logic. It's just so transparently false that anyone who would be so obviously wrong isn't worth responding to.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[Prometheus]

21 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

You've gone off into your own little world of sophistry rather than look at what the people you represent are actually saying.

I'm only representing myself. All i was saying is that the classifications sociologists make are as real as those biologists make in response to your claim that

'But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience'. 

The classification of species, and indeed genus, and in oncology, are all made for human convenience. One is not more 'real' than another. What we call things and how we classify them matters to how we make sense on the world but doesn't change the world.

 

29 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

I didn't accuse you of being racist. If I am emotional it's because of your endless sophistry and lies rather than the subject matter. I am not even particularly emotional, this is just some "y u mad tho" lame ad hominem nonsens

Given your little rant about AAA being racist was in direct response, and indeed quoted me, you can understand how made that association, no?

But, yes it is ad hominem and so too are accusations of these 'social' race classifications being based on PC. 

It is nothing to do with the point, i'm just interested why you are so emotionally invested in this - and you must see that rant did display quite a bit of emotion. 

 

35 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

t doesn't support your point. For the last time, it's irrelevant. I know it's irrelevant because it's obviously irrelevant. That some concepts in oncology have different definitions is irrelevant to the meaning of a biological concept, since the concepts you refer to are not disputed as being biological concepts. 

Thank you for at last agreeing to talk to me about this. 

First we would need to agree on whether classifying something, in this case a disease, based on only pragmatic considerations such as the distribution of resources within a hospital is social or biological. What would you say? 

 

39 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

The fact that you deny race defined by ancestry is biological...

But i don't deny this. By a definition that includes divisions by sport as biologically valid, i accept that so too race would be biologically valid. 

[Stevie Wonder]

7 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I'm only representing myself. All i was saying is that the classifications sociologists make are as real as those biologists make in response to your claim that

'But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience'. 

The classification of species, and indeed genus, and in oncology, are all made for human convenience. One is not more 'real' than another. What we call things and how we classify them matters to how we make sense on the world but doesn't change the world.

Quote

But the usual meaning of "social construct" is something created arbitrarily for human convenience, with no reference to natural phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

7 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Thank you for at last agreeing to talk to me about this. 

First we would need to agree on whether classifying something, in this case a disease, based on only pragmatic considerations such as the distribution of resources within a hospital is social or biological. What would you say? 

Ad nauseam. PRATT.

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Ad nauseam. PRATT.

Ah, i see. I thought we had agreed to talk about this sensibly. Nevermind then. If you don't want to discuss something on a discussion forum, there is nothing that can be said, other than good day to you. 

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Given your little rant about AAA being racist was in direct response, and indeed quoted me, you can understand how made that association, no?

But, yes it is ad hominem and so too are accusations of these 'social' race classifications being based on PC. 

It is nothing to do with the point, i'm just interested why you are so emotionally invested in this - and you must see that rant did display quite a bit of emotion.

It's also rather revealing that my post goes unanswered. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Where is the data from 2018 you are looking at that contradicts me? *doesn't hold breath*

Especially since I've already referenced modern genetic clustering studies which corroborate early divisions. You are arguing with your imagination. Just an ad nauseam refusal to address what I present.

You repeatedly ignore the information. Genetic differences between individuals within the same population and all populations are as great. You have defined race as being ancestry then disregard that that we (Humans) are a continues interbreeding species and all have interconnected ancestry. You are attempting to argue that Blumenbach's measures of skull is the superior genetic research, it is nonsensical. 

Quote

 

Homo sapiens is a relatively young species and has not had as much time to accumulate genetic variation as have the vast majority of species on earth, most of which predate humans by enormous expanses of time. Nonetheless, there is considerable genetic variation in our species. The human genome comprises about 3 × 109 base pairs of DNA, and the extent of human genetic variation is such that no two humans, save identical twins, ever have been or will be genetically identical. Between any two humans, the amount of genetic variation—biochemical individuality—is about .1 percent. This means that about one base pair out of every 1,000 will be different between any two individuals. Any two (diploid) people have about 6 × 106 base pairs that are different, an important reason for the development of automated procedures to analyze genetic variation.

The most common polymorphisms (or genetic differences) in the human genome are single base-pair differences. Scientists call these differences SNPs, for single-nucleotide polymorphisms. When two different haploid genomes are compared, SNPs occur, on average, about every 1,000 bases. Other types of polymorphisms—for example, differences in copy number, insertions, deletions, duplications, and rearrangements—also occur, but much less frequently.

Notwithstanding the genetic differences between individuals, all humans have a great deal of their genetic information in common. These similarities help define us as a species. Furthermore, genetic variation around the world is distributed in a rather continuous manner; there are no sharp, discontinuous boundaries between human population groups. In fact, research results consistently demonstrate that about 85 percent of all human genetic variation exists within human populations, whereas about only 15 percent of variation exists between populations (Figure 4). That is, research reveals that Homo sapiens is one continuously variable, interbreeding species.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/

 

 

[Stevie Wonder]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You repeatedly ignore the information. Genetic differences between individuals within the same population and all populations are as great. You have defined race as being ancestry then disregard that that we (Humans) are a continues interbreeding species and all have interconnected ancestry. You are attempting to argue that Blumenbach's measures of skull is the superior genetic research, it is nonsensical. 

No, I've addressed these points ad nauseam and you simply keep repeating yourself and have failed to respond to my request to apply these standards of "variation within groups" and "zones of hybridity" to non-human species. Both of these features are not unique to humans, and are in fact normal among subspecies in other species. They are applied to human races ad hoc. Really at this point you're just chanting "variation within groups" and "clines" like a mantra and completely failing to contrast this with other species. If you did, you would see that these characteristics are normal. 

Lewontin's fallacy, continuum fallacy.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[dimreepr]

Nausea does seem to be the link in this thread.

[Stevie Wonder]

On 07/04/2018 at 3:27 PM, Stevie Wonder said:

This seems to be a bit of an appeal to authority without much analysis of the arguments. For example this:

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. 

Is that unique to human races? I didn't see any contrast with divisions in other species.

In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. 

Again does that invalidate divisions in other species?

Also aren't you contradicting yourself by agreeing that race isn't a valid concept then using that concept to make statements about group differences in disease susceptibility?

Right here in post 3. What's going on here? Did you miss this? Did you forget? It seems odd that somebody would have their point questioned and then go on repeating the same point again and again as if nothing had happened. Can you please explain what's going on? Is this the standard of discussion allowed on this board?

[iNow]

Just now, Stevie Wonder said:

Can you please explain what's going on?

In short, you've joined with an obvious axe to grind and, regardless of the multiple valid counter points provided, you continue to proceed as if your original assertions have been unchallenged and you keep repeating points already debunked. Instead of addressing reasonable criticisms intelligently, you lash out like a troll and try to make things personal with respondants. Does that help clarify?

[Stevie Wonder]

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

In short, you've joined with an obvious axe to grind and, regardless of the multiple valid counter points provided, you continue to proceed as if your original assertions have been unchallenged and you keep repeating points already debunked. Instead of addressing reasonable criticisms intelligently, you lash out like a troll and try to make things personal with respondants. Does that help clarify?

This is pure hypocrisy. Disgraceful. It's evident right in the post above yours that this is exactly what my opponents are doing. They assert Lewontin's fallacy and the continuum fallacy, I ask them to contrast that with other species, and they simply repeat the same fallacies without doing that. "Trying to make things personal"? You mean like asking me why I'm getting so emotional (which I'm not) and falsely accusing me of calling posters racists? You mean like what you're doing? Getting personal and failing to address the subject? This is truly disturbing dishonesty and I hope a member of staff can sanction you for this.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[dimreepr]

Do you understand the irony, Stevie Wonder, of those that can't see?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

This is truly disturbing dishonesty and I hope a member of staff can sanction you for this.

I guess it's time to Godwin the thread

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I guess it's time to Godwin the thread

I'm sure that hurt...

[iNow]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I'm sure that hurt...

More of an objective statement, meta comment really, than an intended infliction of pain.

[Stevie Wonder]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

I guess it's time to Godwin the thread

 

Quote

I was unable to find anything resembling this quote in either German or English.

The closest quote is one from the Nurenberg rally in 1934:

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.

 

How ironic.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

How ironic.

Interesting that you didn't bother sharing a link to your source (which is basically just another forum), which added to the part you quoted:

"this isn't proof that Goebbels didn't also say the quote in question"

Sure, it's probably paraphrased. The core message and it's application here remain unaffected.

[Stevie Wonder]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Interesting that you didn't bother sharing a link to your source (which is basically just another forum), which added to the part you quoted:

"this isn't proof that Goebbels didn't also say the quote in question"

Sure, it's probably paraphrased. The core message and it's application here remain unaffected.

Interesting how it applies to what you are doing isn't it?

I guess defending the on-topic false claims your forum buddies repeat ad nauseam (Lewontin's fallacy, clines) is not possible for you, so you have to resort to false accusations that I am repeating claims while failing to defend them, in order to change the subject

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Locked pending staff review. 

 

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

No, I've addressed these points ad nauseam and you simply keep repeating yourself and have failed to respond to my request to apply these standards of "variation within groups" and "zones of hybridity" to non-human species. Both of these features are not unique to humans, and are in fact normal among subspecies in other species. They are applied to human races ad hoc. Really at this point you're just chanting "variation within groups" and "clines" like a mantra and completely failing to contrast this with other species. If you did, you would see that these characteristics are normal. 

Lewontin's fallacy, continuum fallacy.

Repeat ad nauseam.

Subspecies come in lots of forms and there  different ways to study them. The 2 cited below are ones you have reference genetic differentiation and ancestry. I recommend reading the link through prior to another reply where you insist your pertinent questions aren't being addressed.

Quote

A race or subspecies requires a degree of genetic differentiation that is well above the level of genetic differences that exist among local populations. One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997). A common measure used to quantify the degree of differentiation is a statistic known as pairwise fst. The pairwise fst statistic in turn depends upon two measures of heterozygosity. The frequency with which two genes are different alleles given that they have been randomly drawn from the two populations pooled together is designated by Ht, the expected heterozygosity of the total population. Similarly, Hs is the average frequency with which two randomly drawn genes from the same subpopulation are different alleles. Then, fst=(Ht-Hs)/Ht. In many modern genetic studies, the degree of DNA sequence differences between the randomly drawn genes is quantified, often with the use of a model of mutation, instead of just determining if the two DNA sequences are the same or different. When this done, the analysis is called an Analysis of MOlecular VAriation (AMOVA), and various measures of population differentiation analogous to fst exist for different mutation models. Regardless of the specific measure, the degree of genetic differentiation can be quantified in an objective manner in any species.

Quote

A second definition defines races as distinct evolutionary lineages within a species. An evolutionary lineage is a population of organisms characterized by a continuous line of descent such that the individuals in the population at any given time are connected by ancestor/descendent relationships. Because evolutionary lineages can often be nested together into a larger, more ancestral evolutionary lineage, the evolutionary lineages that are relevant for defining subspecies in conservation biology are the smallest population units that function as an evolutionary lineage within a species. The phylogenetic species concept elevates all evolutionary lineages to the status of species (Cracraft, 1989), but most species concepts allow for multiple lineages to exist within a species. For example, the cohesion species concept defines a species as an evolutionary lineage that maintains its cohesiveness over time because it is a reproductive community capable of exchanging gametes and/or an ecological community sharing a derived adaptation or adaptations needed for successful reproduction (Templeton, 1989, 2001). Two or more evolutionary lineages nested within an older lineage that are capable of exchanging gametes and/or share the same adaptations necessary for successful reproduction are considered lineages nested within a single cohesion species. The biological species concept only uses the criterion of gamete exchangeability and is a proper logical subset of the cohesion concept (Templeton, 1998b; Templeton, 2001).

Quote

 

Assuming for now that the five major geographical groups are the meaningful populations, do these groups satisfy the quantitative threshold definition of race? Table 2 shows the AMOVA results for these five human groups, along with a comparable analysis of the three races of chimpanzees that satisfy both the threshold and lineage definitions of race. Table 2 shows how the genetic variation is partitioned into differences among individuals within the same local population, differences between local populations within the same “race”, and between “races”. Table 2 confirms the reality of race in chimpanzees using the threshold definition, as 30.1% of the genetic variation is found in the among-race component, a result expected from the pairwise analysis shown in Table 1. In contrast to chimpanzees, the five major “races” of humans account for only 4.3% of human genetic variation – well below the 25% threshold. The genetic variation in our species is overwhelmingly variation among individuals (93.2%).

 

Quote

On a time scale of tens of thousands of years (the temporal resolution of the ML-NCPA studies), there is not one statistically significant inference of splitting during the last 1.9 million years. Hence, the null hypothesis of a single human lineage is not rejected, so there is no evidence forlineage races in humans. Furthermore, ML-NCPA strongly rejects the null hypotheses of no gene flow and no admixture under the null hypothesis that isolated lineages did exist, so there is strong evidence againstlineage races in humans. Hence, there are no races in humans under the lineage definition.

 

[Stevie Wonder]

40 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Subspecies come in lots of forms and there  different ways to study them. The 2 cited below are ones you have reference genetic differentiation and ancestry. I recommend reading the link through prior to another reply where you insist your pertinent questions aren't being addressed.

I've already read it. It's Templeton. He's again applying "variation within groups" in the context of denying human races. I asked you to find some cases where this argument is made to test the validity of non-human subspecies, i.e. this being applied in biology outside the context of denying human race. Like show me a paper doing an Fst on some subspecies of worm and then claiming it's not a subspecies because it's under some arbitrary value, with no reference to human races.

Quote

One commonly used threshold is that two populations with sharp boundaries are considered to be different races if 25% or more of the genetic variability that they collectively share is found as between population differences (Smith, et al., 1997).

Templeton fabricates the 25% rule here. The rule referenced in Smith refers to the 75% rule which is for morphological identification reliability in hybridisation zones. It has nothing to do with Fst. Smith made up the "25% Fst" to deny race. It is used nowhere else in biology. Find it being used or referenced anywhere in paper that are not concerned with denying human race. So this is just more fake science.

Here's what Smith actually said:

Quote

“The non-discrete nature of subspecies is evident from their definition as geographic segments of any given gonochoristic (bisexually reproducing) species differing from each other to a reasonably practical degree (e.g., at least 70-75%), but to less than totality. All subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric [with contiguous ranges], except for cases of circular overlap with sympatry); sympatry is conclusive evidence (except for cases of circular overlap) of allospecificity (separate specific status). Parapatric subspecies interbreed and exhibit intergradation in contact zones, but such taxa maintain the required level of distinction in one or more characters outside of those zones. Dichopatric populations are regarded as subspecies if they fail to exhibit full differentiation (i.e., exhibit overlap in variation of their differentiae up to 25-30%), even in the absence of contact (overlap exceeding 25-30% does not qualify for taxonomic recognition of either dichopatric populations or of parapatric populations ….

…..The use of multivariate statistical procedures can provide approaches that are reasonably objective and not dependent on preconceptions about taxonomic membership. Nonetheless, the discriminatory power of such methods depends critically on the quality of the characters being analyzed and, in addition, the adopted standard for level of differentiation required for taxonomic recognition. Multivariate analyses (Thorpe 1987) are useful techniques for substantiation of subspecific validity, with revival of the now generally neglected 75% (or similar) rule (idem:7) (Smith et al., 1997. Subspecies and Classification)

Nothing to do with Fst.

And how do you explain this:

Edited April 9, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

I've already read it. It's Templeton. He's again applying "variation within groups" in the context of denying human races. I asked you to find some cases where this argument is made to test the validity of non-human subspecies, i.e. this being applied in biology outside the context of denying human race. Like show me a paper doing an Fst on some subspecies of worm and then claiming it's not a subspecies because it's under some arbitrary value, with no reference to human races.

Rather than just continuing this game of demanding evidence of your preference from others how about you just provide some of your own? I have supplied peer reviewed research. You don't agreed with it and that is your prerogative. How about you go ahead  provide whatever proof it is you have that show race is a true biologically relevant thing in humans. Imagine how much easier that would be than just demanding answers from other. So for all you have attempted to cite is Kant, Dawrin, and Blumenbach all of whom used outdated methods. New doesn't equal better in but genetics is a superior method of determining species and copious amounts of information has been learn since there time. I think everyone in this discussion have asked you to going ahead and lay out your case yet you just respond with sarcasm and out of context questions which apparently cannot be answer to you satisfaction. Please, go ahead and make your case. What is your evidence? 

[Strange]

10 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

I've already told that whether or not race is useful the subject of this thread is whether it's a valid biological category vis a vis other taxa.

Well, you can find copious peer-reviewed literature, courses and text books on taxonomy, the Linnaean system, cladistics, etc. If you look up most organisms on Wikipedia for example, you will find information on the species, genus, family, order, kingdom, etc. 

Is there the same level of scientific documentation on how to classify people by race?

I think the answer is no (but am open to correction) which suggests it is not a [useful] biological category. (Note, there is no meaningful distinction between a useful category and a biological category, because biological categories only exist in as far as they are useful.)

10 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

If I tell you somebody is Chinese that allows you to make predictions about their appearance.

Really? There are Chinese people who look Middle Eastern, who look Mongolian, or Tibetan, or like Han Chinese or ... And of course, there are Chinese people who look like Northern Europeans or Afro-Carribeans. And ...

That is a bizarrely diverse group to try and stereotype. 

8 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Disgusting anti-White fabrication.

Really? I mean, Really?? Time for the ignore list, I guess.