/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10313917

The first paper links to several other studies and is designed to introduce people to the theoretical arguments regarding the interpretation of genetics and other statistical data. You do it an unfair disservice by calling it "propaganda", unless you think all intellectual articles are propaganda, in which case you ought to specify such given how loaded and pejorative the term is today. One example of a study is a forensic study which separated people by race with 99% accuracy based on a dozen skull measurements.

>Race is not correlated with geographic ancestry

Self-identified race correlates with best fit genetic cluster 99% of the time and the article is probably referring to mixed race populations, if not they're just wrong and this statement is not supported by their data. Obviously being Black correlates with descending from Sub-Saharan Africa, I have yet to hear of any Blacks of Japanese descent.

What their data does show is that at the level of the genome there is virtually no overlap between races in terms of genetic similarity, or what they call the omega value. This means that a White person is 100% more likely to be more genetically similar to another random White person than a Black person.

The authors caution that on diseases, etc. that only differ by a few alleles that the race concept can only minimally assist in making predictions, but that is irrelevant to the image I was responding to.