What if your race is the dumbest of them all?

[Ryika]

We also know that genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences, which indeed are those used to identify the "races". Like skin color, eye shape, and hair color.

To claim otherwise would incur a burden of proof and I absolutely guarantee that you won't find any proof outside of disgusting white supremacist nonsense.

No, genetic differences between the "races" do not start and end with external and superficial differences, they do go a lot further than that, and include things like how likely you are to be affected by certain diseases, and how well some medication works.

Of course that's also not now burden of proof works, you yourself have made a definite claim - that 'genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences' - and would have to provide proof for that claim before we assume it to be correct, because we do know that there are differences, and there is no obvious reason for why there would only superficial differences, and in fact, there are non-superficial, statistical differences such as the medical differences mentioned above.

Until you do that, the only valid stance is the good old "We do not know which thesis is correct".

 

[Traitorfish]

No, genetic differences between the "races" do not start and end with external and superficial differences, they do go a lot further than that, and include things like how likely you are to be affected by certain diseases, and how well some medication works.

Those differences persists, and sometimes even stronger, within "racial" groups. The point being made is that whatever genetic differences may be found between group X, identified as "white", and group Y, identified as "black", the identification itself is based on physiology, and not on any sophisticated or often even basically-researched model of human descent.

For example, sickle cell anemia is often cited as an example of the below-the-skin differences between "racial" groups. But that isn't supported by the actual distribution of the condition:



What we see here is that not all "black" populations experience the condition at high rates, that some populations which do are not considered "black" in this sense, and that the prevalence of the condition varies within all the "racial" groups concerned. The reason that this is considered a "black" disease is only that it is most heavily-concentrated in areas where most Black Americans and Caribbeans happen to originate, and so while that creates the appearance of a stark genetic contrast between Americans of European and African descent, the actual reality is not that simple.

 

[Lexicus]

And in fact characterizing such genetic differences as evidence of the biological reality of race is evidence only of the racism/ignorance of the person attempting to make the claim.

 

[Hehehe]

We also know that genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences, which indeed are those used to identify the "races". Like skin color, eye shape, and hair color.

To claim otherwise would incur a burden of proof and I absolutely guarantee that you won't find any proof outside of disgusting white supremacist nonsense.

Ok, how about this: did you know that DNA testing can reveal your ancestry? Do I even need to provide proof for this? Or how about this: did you know that criminal anthropologists can tell a victim's race by looking at their skeleton? Or how about this: it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain?

 

[inthesomeday]

No, genetic differences between the "races" do not start and end with external and superficial differences, they do go a lot further than that, and include things like how likely you are to be affected by certain diseases, and how well some medication works.

Can you provide evidence specifically linking these phenomenon to racial genetics in a causal relationship?

Of course that's also not now burden of proof works, you yourself have made a definite claim - that 'genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences' - and would have to provide proof for that claim before we assume it to be correct, because we do know that there are differences, and there is no obvious reason for why there would only superficial differences, and in fact, there are non-superficial, statistical differences such as the medical differences mentioned above.

The proof that external racial characteristics are genetic is observational. Further claims need further proof. The only definite claim I'm making is that external racial characteristics are genetic. To claim that other things are passed on alongside racial genetics will require more proof.

Until you do that, the only valid stance is the good old "We do not know which thesis is correct".

My thesis: racial characteristics are passed on genetically. The other thesis: this + intelligence and other features.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We also know that genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences, which indeed are those used to identify the "races". Like skin color, eye shape, and hair color.

To claim otherwise would incur a burden of proof and I absolutely guarantee that you won't find any proof outside of disgusting white supremacist nonsense.

Racists have been trying to distort and falsify science to confirm their racism for several hundred years, and it's always fallen short. Whatever the newest attempt by you racists is it will most certainly fail again.

You do understand that your clearly-displayed emotional need for this to be true actual weakens your credibility as reliable don't you?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Or how about this: it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain?

You did notice, didn't you, that the researchers were careful never to use the word race in that entire article?

 

[Hehehe]

You did notice, didn't you, that the researchers were careful never to use the word race in that entire article?

Oh yes, they used the word ancestry. We can talk about ancestry if it makes you feel better.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Those who argue that IQ tests are not relevant because unreliable in their meaning: With an IQ of 70 you have reached the outer reaches of clinical ret******** [medical term meaning stupid which I can not use because it is, in its colloquial form, banned on this board].
So I think it is not unreliable but rather safe to say that with an IQ of 80 your are, at the very least kinda, dumb. Provided you have enjoyed the kind of education normal for someone making a 100.
In an environment without the kind of education and in general demands which in effect will prepare you for an IQ test, 80 may perhaps be rather normal.


@Traitorfish
The difference among individuals outweighs the difference between groups. You have repeatedly argued this, in such discussions. And you are right, of course.
Look at this picture

Spoiler Race and IQ :

The range goes from about 60 to 140. That is 80 points.
The average black and white IQ is, I will roughly estimate, about 85 and 105, respectively. That is 20 points. 20 points is a lot less than 80 points. That is your argument, really, is it not?
However, a population with the black distribution will still, as a whole, be a lot different to a population with the white distribution. Even if those distributions won't allow us to judge a person, they do, if true - factually and in their implied meaning of course - make it clear that the share of different races matters.
-------------------

Personally, without knowing it, but from all I have gathered and I if would have to hazard a guess, that guess would be that race is correlated to genetic IQ potential, to some extend.
However, it is a valid question of what use this revelation is. Other than political racism, it is hard to think of one.

 

[inthesomeday]

Ok, how about this: did you know that DNA testing can reveal your ancestry? Do I even need to provide proof for this? Or how about this: did you know that criminal anthropologists can tell a victim's race by looking at their skeleton? Or how about this: it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain?

Hm... So you're saying that the shape of people... An external and ultimately superficial and inconsequential quality... Is decided by genetics?

I'm not arguing with the fact that physical characteristics are genetic. I'm arguing with the absurd idea that these characteristics are in any way related to intelligence or other qualities of individual personality.

You do understand that your clearly-displayed emotional need for this to be true actual weakens your credibility as reliable don't you?

I get emotional when people insult and abuse the body of scientific fact to achieve political goals. Eugenics and phrenology are pseudoscience. It's the 21st century. Your race realism lost WWII, and it'll lose the next war too.

 

[Lexicus]

Ok, how about this: did you know that DNA testing can reveal your ancestry? Do I even need to provide proof for this? Or how about this: did you know that criminal anthropologists can tell a victim's race by looking at their skeleton? Or how about this: it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain?

This is exactly the sort of scientific racist nonsense I was talking about above. DNA testing can reveal your ancestry- this has nothing to do with race whatsoever. You are also misrepresenting the second link, as what it really says is that you can make a strong guess as to a person's ancestry by looking at their skeleton; any inference of the subject's "race" relies on unscientific notion of "race" which is not a conceptual framework that is supported by the mainstream of any of these fields, for the simple reason that it is more or less totally unhelpful for examining genetic or other data on human variance.
Finally as Gori has already pointed out the last article doesn't make any mention of race; you can tell someone's ancestry and then project whatever half-baked notions of "race" you want onto that information, but that's all.

Can you provide evidence specifically linking these phenomenon to racial genetics in a causal relationship?

The proof that external racial characteristics are genetic is observational. Further claims need further proof. The only definite claim I'm making is that external racial characteristics are genetic. To claim that other things are passed on alongside racial genetics will require more proof.

The whole concept of "racial genetics" is false.
I have found this quotation from the wikipedia article on race and genetics to be quite instructive on this point:

Anthropologists (such as C. Loring Brace),[43] philosopher Jonathan Kaplan and geneticist Joseph Graves[44] have argued that while it is possible to find biological and genetic variation roughly corresponding to race, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations: the cluster structure of genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; with other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. Weiss and Fullerton note that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form; all other populations would be composed of genetic admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan material.[45] Kaplan therefore concludes that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in Western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese).[46]

What this means is essentially that any genetic evidence found for the concept of "race" is really just racists projecting the idea of race onto the genetic information. Which as you can see, is what the racists have done in this thread with all their "evidence" for race's existence (and not only with the genetics).

See also Traitorfish's post for a specific refutation of the sickle-cell anemia thing.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Ok, how about this: did you know that DNA testing can reveal your ancestry? Do I even need to provide proof for this? Or how about this: did you know that criminal anthropologists can tell a victim's race by looking at their skeleton? Or how about this: it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain?

You can tell from my skull and maybe my genetics that I am not black or asian. You can also tell that I'm not German, English, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian or Finnish. My skin color is the only reason I get lumped together with those.
Am I a different "race" ? Trick question, the Nazis thought so and wanted to exterminate us.
If I get enough sun I can be as dark as some "brown people" (from North Africa or the Middle East), if an Irishman gets enough sun he'll just be red for a time and go back to pale. Are the Irish a different race ? Trick question, there are old pamphlets that compare them to "negroes".
Chinese and Japanese are also usually lumped together as Asian, but it's not that hard to tell them apart if you know what to look for. Are they different races ? Trick question, Chinese and Japanese ultranationalists certainly think so.
It's also not that hard to tell if someone is from northern or southern China (Northerners are on average taller, southerners have narrower eyes and smaller noses).

 

[inthesomeday]

Race is a social construct based on a certain set of physical characteristics, like hair and skin color, shape of eyes. These superficial physical characteristics of people's appearances are genetically transmitted. The myth is that this set of genetic qualities is in any way related to individual performance or personality.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is not that easy, Jesus. You sound like a parrot. "Race is a social construct blablabla" Sure, to some extend, race IS a social construct. But to some extend, it is also plain genetics, with various effects. You even say so yourself, just with all the political correct axioms attached. Because that must be so.
It seems to me you could do with a bit more of thinking on your own.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Oh yes, they used the word ancestry. We can talk about ancestry if it makes you feel better.

"Genetic ancestry." Yes, it would make me feel much better if we used that term.

 

[Hehehe]

Those differences persists, and sometimes even stronger, within "racial" groups. The point being made is that whatever genetic differences may be found between group X, identified as "white", and group Y, identified as "black", the identification itself is based on physiology, and not on any sophisticated or often even basically-researched model of human descent.

For example, sickle cell anemia is often cited as an example of the below-the-skin differences between "racial" groups. But that isn't supported by the actual distribution of the condition:



What we see here is that not all "black" populations experience the condition at high rates, that some populations which do are not considered "black" in this sense, and that the prevalence of the condition varies within all the "racial" groups concerned. The reason that this is considered a "black" disease is only that it is most heavily-concentrated in areas where most Black Americans and Caribbeans happen to originate, and so while that creates the appearance of a stark genetic contrast between Americans of European and African descent, the actual reality is not that simple.

Well done sir. You constructed a strawman and then defeated it.

Hm... So you're saying that the shape of people... An external and ultimately superficial and inconsequential quality... Is decided by genetics?

I'm not arguing with the fact that physical characteristics are genetic. I'm arguing with the absurd idea that these characteristics are in any way related to intelligence or other qualities of individual personality.

So things like the shape of someone's body and brain are "superficial characteristics"?

This is exactly the sort of scientific racist nonsense I was talking about above. DNA testing can reveal your ancestry- this has nothing to do with race whatsoever. You are also misrepresenting the second link, as what it really says is that you can make a strong guess as to a person's ancestry by looking at their skeleton; any inference of the subject's "race" relies on unscientific notion of "race" which is not a conceptual framework that is supported by the mainstream of any of these fields, for the simple reason that it is more or less totally unhelpful for examining genetic or other data on human variance.
Finally as Gori has already pointed out the last article doesn't make any mention of race; you can tell someone's ancestry and then project whatever half-baked notions of "race" you want onto that information, but that's all.

The whole concept of "racial genetics" is false.
I have found this quotation from the wikipedia article on race and genetics to be quite instructive on this point:

What this means is essentially that any genetic evidence found for the concept of "race" is really just racists projecting the idea of race onto the genetic information. Which as you can see, is what the racists have done in this thread with all their "evidence" for race's existence.

See also Traitorfish's post for a specific refutation of the sickle-cell anemia thing.

What is race if not differing ancestry? Saying "ancestry" is just another way of saying race. Second, this whole race denial argument is completely asinine. If you want, we can call them populations, if it makes you feel better. It's a distinction without a difference. Third, yes I know how genetic distance works, you're wasting your time by throwing continuum fallacies at me.

You can tell from my skull and maybe my genetics that I am not black or asian. You can also tell that I'm not German, English, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian or Finnish. My skin color is the only reason I get lumped together with those.
Am I a different "race" ? Trick question, the Nazis thought so and wanted to exterminate us.
If I get enough sun I can be as dark as some "brown people" (from North Africa or the Middle East), if an Irishman gets enough sun he'll just be red for a time and go back to pale. Are the Irish a different race ? Trick question, there are old pamphlets that compare them to "negroes".
Chinese and Japanese are also usually lumped together as Asian, but it's not that hard to tell them apart if you know what to look for. Are they different races ? Trick question, Chinese and Japanese ultranationalists certainly think so.
It's also not that hard to tell if someone is from northern or southern China (Northerners are on average taller, southerners have narrower eyes and smaller noses).

Somebody, somewhere, sometime, made a claim that was wrong, and therefore, my claim, which had nothing to do with that, is wrong? Why do you even bring this up?

 

[Ryika]

Can you provide evidence specifically linking these phenomenon to racial genetics in a causal relationship?

What do you even mean by "causal relationship" in this context? There is no causality, race, insofar as the concept is useful (geographically roughly categorized groups that were subject to similar local pressures that have led to different phenotypes) is the result, not the cause, and different immunities are a part of that result.

The proof that external racial characteristics are genetic is observational. Further claims need further proof. The only definite claim I'm making is that external racial characteristics are genetic. To claim that other things are passed on alongside racial genetics will require more proof.

No, you said:

We also know that genetic differences between the "races" start and end with external and superficial differences, which indeed are those used to identify the "races".

That was clearly a positive claim, that we "know" that generic differences end there. We do not know that, so I'm glad you have walked back to "We don't know.", which again is reasonable. We do indeed not know for most other characteristics that are not directly observational. As a hypothesis however, it makes sense to assume that there are other differences, too, as different environments will shape people differently.

My thesis: racial characteristics are passed on genetically. The other thesis: this + intelligence and other features.

Intelligence is partly passed on genetically, we do again know that, I provided a link a few posts ago. As with everything that is passed on genetically, intelligence is shaped by the local environment, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that average IQ is different in different local environments, the only real question is whether those differences are substantial, or if they are neglectable.

Those differences persists, and sometimes even stronger, within "racial" groups. The point being made is that whatever genetic differences may be found between group X, identified as "white", and group Y, identified as "black", the identification itself is based on physiology, and not on any sophisticated or often even basically-researched model of human descent.

Yeah, but that's not how I'm using the word "race" in this context. We're talking about biology here, why would I be using a sociological definition of race?

But of course, most of what I have said so far does indeed not work with a sociological definition of race.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Saying "ancestry" is just another way of saying race.

If that is so, why do you think it is the researchers that you yourself invoked as authorities on this matter never once used that supposedly synonymous term? Why did they keep troubling themselves to say things like "populations of shared genetic ancestry"?

 

[Hehehe]

If that is so, why do you think it is the researchers that you yourself invoked as authorities on this matter never once used that supposedly synonymous term? Why did they keep troubling themselves to say things like "populations of shared genetic ancestry"?

Do I really have to answer such an obvious question? Because "race" is a loaded term that carries many taboos

 

[Gori the Grey]

Oh, they wanted to say "race," but they avoided doing so because of social taboos on the use of that term?