Don't throw scientific bones to racist dogs

[Spectral]

Anthropologists recognize differences in human populations, but these characteristics do not neatly fit into our societal terms like "black, white, etc".

Yeah, there are a few oddities that don't line up with the socially constructed groups, but it turns out that pretty much everyone knows which genetic grouping they're from and very few are wrong:

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.

Human genetic and morphological diversity is pretty interesting anyway though.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah, there are a few oddities that don't line up with the socially constructed groups, but it turns out that pretty much everyone knows which genetic grouping they're from and very few are wrong:

Human genetic and morphological diversity is pretty interesting anyway though.

White, Black, African American or Asian are not gentic groupings, they are labels attached by human constructs.

This the Genetic grouping,

Caucasoid:
Aryan
Semitic
Hamitic

Negroid:
African Negro
Khoisan
Melanesian
Negrito
Australoid

Uncertain:
Dravida and Sinhalese
Mongoloid:
North Mongol
Chinese and Indochinese
Japanese and Korean
Tibetan
Malay
Polynesian
Maori
Micronesian
Eskimo
American

[Sunseeker]

Well this thread went exactly where I expected.

[Techno-Druid]

Yeah, there are a few oddities that don't line up with the socially constructed groups, but it turns out that pretty much everyone knows which genetic grouping they're from and very few are wrong:

Human genetic and morphological diversity is pretty interesting anyway though.

The article lost me at using Hispanic as a 'racial' classification.

Hispanic originates from the word Hispania, the Roman province which now makes up Spain and Portugal (Iberian Peninsula). As such the Hispanic denotes to a person originating from a Spanish-speaking country (usually with cultural ties to Spain) regardless of their ethnic/genetic background.

Much of Mexico and Central Americans make up a 'race' widely known as Mestizo, a mix of various Amerindian groups and Southern (and Western Europeans) with minute West African, East Asian and Middle Eastern ancestry. Most of the Hispanics of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are of Italian, Castillian, French and German descent.

[Spectral]

White, Black, African American or Asian are not gentic groupings, they are labels attached by human constructs.

People repeat this a lot, but it's just plain wrong. See the citation I provided in what you're replying to. These are both genetic groupings and social constructs - those aren't mutually exclusive subcategories. There's a fact of genetic clustering that shows substantial genetic difference across continents (due to relatively isolated breeding for an extended stretch) as well as socially constructed ideas of what this means and what it looks like in cultural practice.

Claiming that race don't real is just scientific ignorance though.

[Mormolyce]

So... racial anthropology is the precursor to gender studies?

Irony is, it's the precursor to the movement that hates gender studies.

- - - Updated - - -

Well this thread went exactly where I expected.

Apparently bait gets bites.

[Techno-Druid]

White, Black, African American or Asian are not gentic groupings, they are labels attached by human constructs.

This the Genetic grouping,

Ironically, Sub-Saharan Africans and Papua New Guineans/Australian Aborigines are the most distantly related peoples on Earth.

[Doctor Amadeus]

People repeat this a lot, but it's just plain wrong. See the citation I provided in what you're replying to. These are both genetic groupings and social constructs - those aren't mutually exclusive subcategories. There's a fact of genetic clustering that shows substantial genetic difference across continents (due to relatively isolated breeding for an extended stretch) as well as socially constructed ideas of what this means and what it looks like in cultural practice.

Claiming that race don't real is just scientific ignorance though.

No it isn't wrong. and race is a distinction made by social not fucking science, otherwise tell me where capoid is on that list?

Do you know what Capoid are?

Again race and the significance of it is not scientific, it's regular plane old horeshit. Intellectual jerking off around racism.

[Spectral]

The article lost me at using Hispanic as a 'racial' classification.

Hispanic originates from the word Hispania, the Roman province which now makes up Spain and Portugal (Iberian Peninsula). As such the Hispanic denotes to a person originating from a Spanish-speaking country (usually with cultural ties to Spain) regardless of their ethnic/genetic background.

Much of Mexico and Central Americans make up a 'race' widely known as Mestizo, a mix of various Amerindian groups and Southern (and Western Europeans) with minute West African, East Asian and Middle Eastern ancestry. Most of the Hispanics of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay are of Italian, Castillian, French and German descent.

I don't think this criticism works in the direction you're implying - despite the fuzziness of the classification system, people still correctly matched their ethnicity to their genetic history. In the case of "Hispanic", the paper goes into some detail about how they handled the relevant cluster analysis here. In the context of an American sample, "Hispanic" is complicated, but less so than what you might think.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Ironically, Sub-Saharan Africans and Papua New Guineans/Australian Aborigines are the most distantly related peoples on Earth.

Yeah, well the beautiful thing about Science (knowledge) is that it changes, and as a tool it and of itself, can and doesn't make any claims, people do, based on evidence we conclude one way or another.

People are different no two are alike including twins. Your genetics markers are no more relevant than most things about you

[Spectral]

No it isn't wrong. and race is a distinction made by social not fucking science, otherwise tell me where capoid is on that list?

Do you know what Capoid are?

Again race and the significance of it is not scientific, it's regular plane old horeshit. Intellectual jerking off around racism.

This sort of rage is silly and doesn't speak well to your ability to handle reality on reality's terms. Population genetics is pretty clear about these sorts of things and gives us pretty clear evidence of sufficient differentiation that breaks basically along the lines of traditionally defined races.

I know that "capoid" is an archaic term for a sub-population of sub-Saharan Africans that are referred to as Khoisan in most modern terminology. People that aren't particularly squeamish about population genetics are usually already well aware of these people and of the broader fact that Africa is spectacularly genetically diverse (more diverse than the rest of the world). The existence of distinct sub-populations isn't some amazing gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -

Your genetics markers are no more relevant than most things about you

All aboard the meaningless platitudes train...

[Deleted]

we're in a fucking scary situation when both the left and right want to censor science they don't agree with.

even with this multiple gender shit i don't believe for a minute, i don't want it censored.

Demonstrating high levels of comprehension

as always

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't think this criticism works in the direction you're implying - despite the fuzziness of the classification system, people still correctly matched their ethnicity to their genetic history. In the case of "Hispanic", the paper goes into some detail about how they handled the relevant cluster analysis here. In the context of an American sample, "Hispanic" is complicated, but less so than what you might think.

FUZZINESS is that a scientific term?

The classification system is, and guess what it's arguably fucking wrong, because just as less intelligent people are vulnerable to bias and stupidity so are those of greater intelligence, regardless to however rare.

[Deleted]

Don't derail the thread to race stuff please

[Doctor Amadeus]

This sort of rage is silly and doesn't speak well to your ability to handle reality on reality's terms. Population genetics is pretty clear about these sorts of things and gives us pretty clear evidence of sufficient differentiation that breaks basically along the lines of traditionally defined races.

I know that "capoid" is an archaic term for a sub-population of sub-Saharan Africans that are referred to as Khoisan in most modern terminology. People that aren't particularly squeamish about population genetics are usually already well aware of these people and of the broader fact that Africa is spectacularly genetically diverse (more diverse than the rest of the world). The existence of distinct sub-populations isn't some amazing gotcha.

- - - Updated - - -


All aboard the meaningless platitudes train...

Platitudes

plat·i·tude
ˈpladəˌt(y)o͞od/Submit
noun
plural noun: platitudes
a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.

Nothing about what I said was a sentiment or has shit to do with morals, it's a god damn fact, you are romanticizing and trying to over play a failed ideology, NOT SCIENCE.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't derail the thread to race stuff please

This thread is already about race, nice try.

[Spectral]

Nothing about what I said was a sentiment or has shit to do with morals, it's a god damn fact, you are romanticizing and trying to over play a failed ideology, NOT SCIENCE.

This statement is a meaningless platitude:

Your genetics markers are no more relevant than most things about you

It's such a bag of nothing that it fits into the category of "not even wrong".

[Doctor Amadeus]

This statement is a meaningless platitude:

It's such a bag of nothing that it fits into the category of "not even wrong".

Uh that is a fact

Your genetics markers are no more relevant than most things about you

This ain't Star Trek or SyFy, and despite what you read somewhere, outside of SOME medical applications genetics aren't really used for that much either. It simply part of you like a Thumb, or Your Skull Size and whatever else.


Or would you like to dive into that other horseshit concerning brain size and intelligence, because almost all that nonsense Bunk too. The brain and how it develops and what does matter but it isn't directly related conclusively to size.

[Deleted]

So... racial anthropology is the precursor to gender studies?

Or that people engaging in gender studies are equally disgusting as people who use skull shapes to classify living people?

The only real difference is that the latter ones genuinely believed they were doing science, while those gender study marxists know they are nothing but liars, but don't care.

Furthermore, science is a self-correcting; when you get new information and evidence, old theories need to be reworked or even abandoned entirely. In contrast, people in political "sciences" ignore reality and pursue their agenda first.

[Spectral]

Uh that is a fact



This ain't Star Trek or SyFy, and despite what you read somewhere, outside of SOME medical applications genetics aren't really used for that much either. It simply part of you like a Thumb, or Your Skull Size and whatever else.


Or would you like to dive into that other horseshit concerning brain size and intelligence, because almost all that nonsense Bunk too. The brain and how it develops and what does matter but it isn't directly related conclusively to size.

Brain size is a good example of something that people are really confused about too, actually. There's a decently studied correlation between brain size and IQ. Some folks are just really uncomfortable with these sorts of facts (maybe just statistical illiteracy that causes a poor ability to relate to correlative data?), so they respond to them the way you are here.

[Helgrimm]

Studies are not supposed to come with political implications

Maybe that's why those get vilified

What? That is the dumbest thing I've heard. There's an entire field of study, sociology, whos studies are meant to create better public policy based on the way humans interact with each other.