/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12610405
race is, like, a little bit real but not super real, but more real than some make it out to be.

>>12610405
Of course is real.

Progressivism is a religion, they are sentimentalists who believe in whatever goes according to their moral standards.

nobody with a brain claims it isn't real, however the real argument is that the distinctions between races are extremely hard to nail down in a scientific manner unless you're dealing with two populations that remained relatively homogeneous and isolated for a long time.

>>12610405
it's real, mayos are just too buttdevastated to admit it.

>>12610488
also, you have to understand that difference in genetics does not necessarily translate to physical differences. if you want to view race from a purely genetic standpoint you can, but trying to mix genetics with physical characteristics is a problem.
genetics isn't a videogame point system where you have +1 nose size genes which translates directly to an observable, it's a complex system of interactions.

>>12610405
Because the distinction between the disparate groups is arbitrary.

>>12610405
Race is a categorical feature that is relative to each culture.
It isn't "not real" rather think of it as colors and how different cultures maybe attribute more significance to colors dominant in their environment, if this helps.

The fact that Eskimos have a billion words for different shades of blue is not evidence that colors do not exist.
Words for different colors differ between cultures just like races.

Biologically, there are differences that are at the subspecies or species level.
Neanderthals and denisovans are species to some and subspecies to others not because we don't know, but rather because of different definitions used to categorize the two. Same with modern human species.

Some people consider different races as species based on dysgenic metrics of hybrid degeneration, while others use other definitions to separate them as subspecies instead.

>>12610405
this >>12610615 is a good reply

the way that I think about it, the question is where should you place skepticism, and how skeptical should you be. so you might ask, can black and white people solve math equations the same way. the issue is how do you test this? if your society treats blacks and whites significantly differently, then presumably testing children will show that whites perform better, in fact in the sample whites hive higher IQ. but the question you're trying to ask is "is there something biological about intelligence", which you haven't gotten anywhere near answering. you would have to test hundreds of children in a utopian society where they are not treated differently.

so then the question becomes "is there another reason to believe that blacks and whites have genetic characteristics that tend towards higher or lower intelligence." first of all, it doesn't look like it, because as biologists will tell you, there's way more diversity within populations than between them (we also have no clear markers for intelligence to even begin to test). but the next issue is how you formulate these arguments. it is undeniable that contemporary history is full of people who would like to answer that question "yes", since they were slave owners, so it should cast real skepticism on findings which point in that direction

>>12610405
Calling race a social construct isn't the same thing as calling it not real. Nationality, money, and religion are social constructs too. These things are real and have a big effect on your life.

A social construct is something that exists because we collectively agree it exists. Race works like that. Irish used to be a different race but now they're Caucasian because everyone changed their mind about how that works. Black people all have genes for black skin but that's only a tiny fraction of DNA. It's an arbitrary thing to group people by chosen by society. It's just as scientific to group people by genes for lactose intolerance or attached earlobes.

>>12610683
But do people with attached earlobes have completely different hair, run faster, and come from a completely different continent than non-attached earlobe people?

>>12610405
People had bimodal chromosome differences that changed different features like your genitals how could that be fake?

Gender isn't real, race isn't real

race is an informal category in taxonomy because it has no clear well defined criteria and it doesn't work on all animals. this doesn't mean there aren't distinct different groups with qualitative and quantitative differences but you can't group all of humanity into just 3 colors. ethnicity seems to be a lot better categorization and most serious non meme studies refer to ethnicities instead of black and white and yellow. of course it's not popular because americans have no culture and are too retarded

>>12610693
> run faster

You're thinking of Africans from around Kenya and assuming this applies to all Africans. The average African is shorter than the average Caucasian but most people get that wrong. They see 7ft NBA players and think therefore black = tall.

> completely different hair
Black people aren't the only ones with thick black curly hair. If you were to define a race on those genes it would include just about everyone south of France and west of Iran.

>>12610737
The bitch on left side is "pretending" to be black and both her parents are white, and the guy on right side had MEDICAL CONDITION that made him change color.
Stop being such a brainwashed leftist.

There is a clear physical difference between humans who lived in Australia versus humans who lived in Europe. However, the genes that created these differences aren't exactly "set in stone." The cutoff as to what makes someone a certain "race" is difficult and ultimately pointless to distinguish. For example, why are both Irishmen and Mediterraneans considered white? Why are they not a different race? There's even an IQ difference.

In general race is an unofficial taxonomy that's more useful for social science then genetic science.

>>12611267
this line of thinking is so retarded unless you can answer the question: what are the intelligence genes?

>>12611267
>some retarded infograph with NO FUCKING SOURCES!!!!!
Every single time
Stormfags/nazifags absolutely killed this website.

>>12610405
It’s real.