/sci/ - Science & Math

It is, race is an arbitrary grouping of genetic subtypes which changes with time. For example, white used to exclude the irish, whereas they are now considered white. Likewise mexicans are also now considered white, and even lightly colored asians. Next to become white will be inidia.

>>12667559
whats so good about mars and space travel anyway

>>12667570
>For example, white used to exclude the irish,
that's a meme, the irish were not excluded from the USA by the 1790 citizen act

Yoooo lil darkie what the hell you doing here
Your new album man, its kinda meh man
It has some banger but most are kinda trash doe

>>12667570
race isn't entirely arbitrary. nobody's ever said that a congolese ancestral native is white and a norwegian ancestral native is black. races correspond to geographic ancestral clusterings.

>>12667559
>IQ and psychology aren't pseudoscience

>>12667559
>Race is a social construct
So calling nigger a nigger is not offensive, since niggers doesn't even exist and we all niggers in that respect, granting us the nigger pass.

/pol/ is leaking again

post classic total syntheses instead

https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/ja01647a088
https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/ja01647a088

>>12667602
the divisions are arbitrarily drawn.
If all knowledge of race was abolished instantly humans would quickly reform the concept but exactly where one race starts and another ends would be different.

What this means is that race is not a suitable a frame of reference to take actions from. At best it can be a quick way to analyze a situation and guide where closer analysis is required.

Race is like 'age group' ranges which are influenced by the fact that we use base 10. So we tend to think of life stages in 10 year brackets even though someone towards the end of could be more likely to have physiological similarities with someone near the beginning of the next than they are the beginning of their own.

>>12667624
Precisely. Watch. NIGGER!

>>12667559
>Society is a racial construct

>>12667624
Yes. I advise you to practice this in real life

>Race is a social construct!
>Nigger
>That's racist!

Explain this...

>>12667652
>NIGGER
Why the racism?

Race is a social construct?

Explain this then.

>>12667570
>Gives examples that have nothing to do with the given definition of race.

>>12667679
Phenotypes and race are different.

>>12667698
i know i was just b8ing the racists.

>>12667684
or for example, the russians which hitler considered non white but which the US census would.

Likewise all those various groups of africans see each other as different races and even fight race wars, whereas to the west they are all simply 'those blacks in africa'.

race is something that changes with time and your location on the planet. It is a social construct.

Race as a practical definition is real, regardless if we're all genetically humans. Abbos, for example, will never be caucasians as a people. They are objectively more primitive people on average. Political correctness will never change this.

>>12667722
Considering most people don't want to be put through a DNA test for petty race surveys, we just categorize them based of looks/nationality which is considered good enough for most purposes. Notice this way of categorization is completely different from the genetics one and is inherently unscientific. It just happens that certain features are strong indicators of certain genes.

>>12667559
Seems like /pol/ is leaking again. Go back to your shithole, schizo

For those interested in the actual science, there are a couple of reasons why people call it a social construct: (1) Where we draw lines and clustering thresholds between different populations is arbitrary, and changes over time. (2) While there are differences in the population means from different continents, the in-group variance is much more than between-group variance when it comes to genetic information. That is to say, given an individual, you cannot reliably predict their "race" just by looking at their overall genetic similarity to other people. You have to discard a lot of genetic info and focus on a small handful of genes (which again is arbitrary).

>>12667841
A good analogy is height: There is clearly a whole spectrum of heights, and it is real and physical. But "tall" and "short" are social constructs because they require us to draw an imaginary line

>>12667841
>(1) Where we draw lines and clustering thresholds between different populations is arbitrary, and changes over time.
Where we draw the subspecies line in canines is also arbitrary, but we don't call it a social construct to delineate wolves from coyotes.
(2) While there are differences in the population means from different continents, the in-group variance is much more than between-group variance when it comes to genetic information.
I'm familiar with the study (or studies) you reference, and I really wish leftists would shut the fuck about that. All it does is actually prove them wrong. Consider, for example, this commonly cited study
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population
Whoa, bro, that's super deep, bro. Unfortunately for the authors, and the idiots who peddle this work, they are blind to how the authors say "can". Let's dig into the text a bit.
>Let ω be the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different populations is genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single population. . . . The expected value of equation M2 ranges from 0 to 0.5 (regardless of the number of populations). At equation M3 = 0, individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations; at equation M4 = 0.5, individuals are as likely to be more similar to members of other populations as to members of their own.
Notice, however that omega and Loci are correlated, see pic related. What this means is that when you take a more complete picture of whatever genes may impact the brain, you arrive at the conclusion that an individual "x" taken from population X would be maximally dissimilar from an individual "y" taken from population Y.

>>12667880
Indeed, the authors state the exact same thing as I just concluded from their own data.
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation w ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, w ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
I'll draw your attention to that last sentence.
>However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
When looking at the conclusion of the paper, problems persist.
>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
Evidently only a couple hundred loci, which discards a majority of an individua's genetic information. is enough to gauge genetic dissimilarity according to these authors. Ugh, duh?

>>12667559

If race is a social construct that means you can't lean on it to shame other people for being "racist"
If race isn't a social construct that means you have to admit that not all races are equal

>>12667911
libtards BTFO with FACTS and LOGIC!!

Africans probably have a lower average IQ due to genetics, but there are still highly intelligent blacks. Racism can lead to irrational overgeneralization where you neglect the potential of decent blacks because a bunch are shitty.

>>12667903
Let us consider a simple thought experiment. Genetic variations between men and women are well accepted. Let me restrict my focus to only a few genes, say, those that let you grow beards. Then if I take any two random men, there's going to be variation in beard length. If I take a random woman and a random man, then X% of the time, the selected man (unbearded) will be more similar to women (unbearded) than to the second selected man (bearded). That's basically what the paper argues here,
>in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time
Wow, guys. Cool shit.

You libfags need to actually understand the fucking papers you use to make your retarded arguments.

>>12667841
>>12667856
OK so since height is a social construct, a 6'10 guy and 5'5 guy should perform equally well in the NBA, right?

>>12667880
Where did you get the image? It's not in the paper you cited. If I'm wrong, I'll concede and read more about it, but I can't find the source for that plot

>>12667962
I made it using the paper's data in table 1. I did not include the distinct microarray points, since by definition they give omega 0 and I didn't want to potentially distort any trend (though they don't really change the trend).

>>12667911
i can tell most of y'all middle aged crackers with broken lives who would never do this shit in public. But its cool cause I'm going to the one black that finds y'all. I get my computer science degree soon. and you all are free game/targets. Mark ass bitchs

>>12667935
They won't, and they don't need to, for my argument. My whole point is: Calling some short vs tall is a social construct rather than the height itself, which is physical. Every trait has a spectrum where some people are better or worse, but where you draw a line is arbitrary

>>12667976
It's fun to play pretend.

>>12667980
>where you draw a line is arbitrary
Ugh, tall being above average and short being below average are reasonable definitions. It also lines up with most people's use of the term. A tall guy is usually about 6' or taller, whilst a short guy is typically anyone about 5'7" or shorter. Recognize that these two numbers correspond almost exactly to 1 standard deviation above or below the average height of 5'9.5"ish.

>>12667570
Your entire premise is wrong. 'White' isn't a race, you're talking about the Aryan subset of the group Caucasian.

Reply to this post to make me (a high IQ white male) fill my girlfriend (a high IQ Korean female) with my semen (a high IQ, high viscosity fluid)

"social construct" is the most useless word of all time and the sooner people stop using it the sooner the discourse on all this shite will improve

>>12667559
for (YOU)

>>12668031
for (YOU)

>>12667559
for (YOU)

>>12668031
Fixed it for ya

>>12667998
Yeah, but the averages change from place to place and time to time, and as reasonable as the line may seem you to at a given point, it is still decided by humans, and therefore a social construct.

>>12668161
the average answer people give to 2+2 changes with place and time too

>>12668007
Yet plenty of people will disagree with you.
Further illustrating why race is an entirely illusory concept.

>>12668161
Gravity changes from place to place and time to time, but you don't see me calling general relativity a social construct.

>>12667570
That's like saying "the division between orange and yellow is arbitrary, therefore orange and yellow do not exist"
It's just a leftist sleight-of-hand trick.
>>12667722
People have different reasons for classifying people different ways.
However, no one, and I mean no one, mistakes a nigger for a European and you have to be entirely delusional to think they're the same.

>>12667998
>tall being above average and short being below average are reasonable definitions

They key word here is "average" and the reason why this word is key is because of the sample that you use to create this average.

For example, if you are 5 foot 0 inches most people would call you short. However if you walked into a classroom of 1st graders, they'd all say you're tall, and they would technically be correct. Based on the average in that classroom you would be tall compared to everyone else. This sample you use to create the average is the "social" aspect that the other anon is talking about.

>>12668244
That would imply age is a social construct. Old or young depends on the group you're in.
That would imply health is a social construct. You're healthy with respect to a group.
That would imply obesity is a social construct, as you can be skinny in a group of hamplanets.
That would imply that hair color is a social construct.
That would imply that eye color is a social construct.

Actual retard take.

>>12668272
>color is a social construct.

Is it not though?

>>12668281
>dress are the same as blondes vs red heads

>>12668204
The difference between orange and yellow is a social construct. The boundary between the categories and the intended meaning of the words differs between people/cultures.

Saying something is a social construct doesn't imply it isn't 'real' or doesn't exist though. It still carries meaning.

>>12668272
> That would imply age is a social construct. Old or young depends on the group you're in.
You actual age isn't a construct, but old/young distinction is. How dumb do you have to be that you can't distinguish between the quantity and classes created on top of that quantity?

>>12668313
Yeah the cutoffs are socially constructed, just like whether a Middle Easterner is white or not is dependent on culture. That doesn't mean there aren't significant genetic differences between the average German and average SubSaharan African.
The color cutoffs on a color wheel are arbitrary, but that doesn't imply that red and green are the same.

>>12667660
>calls someone nigger
>they proceed to act like a nigger
Great argument pencil neck

>>12667976
t. Metokur
I’ll break your black jaw nerd nigger

>>12668313
So someone's actual race isn't a social construct either.

>believing in an unreal fantasy God is irrational

>>12667650
>the divisions are arbitrarily drawn.
they aren't arbitrary, they're vague.

you'd never have congolese and norwegians in the same racial grouping for example, or japanese and ethiopians.

that means you can draw some conclusions about who does and doesn't have race in common.

>>12668400
Nope. Someone's genome is not a social construct, but their race is.

>>12668468
>old world vs new world
I have single handedly grouped Congolese, Norwegians, Japanese, and Ethiopians into a single ethnic group

>>12668526
Here's a good test to tell if something is socially constructed or not. Can a dog tell the difference? If yes, it's not socially constructed. Since dogs can be trained to attack exclusively black people, please explain how that happens if we socially constructed them to be black.

>>12668526
their race is clearly not a social construct because you can even get a computer to recognize racial groupings that look like the ones we agree on.

race is just species. that's all it is. there are different species of humans but nobody wants to say it.

>>12668533
You wouldn't say a Labrador and a Golden Retriever are two separate species

>>12668530
that's not a categorization anyone would recognize as having the same properties as race.
namely - reflects a few distinct broad clusters of ancestral origin - based on appearance.

>>12668541
dog breeds are a bad example to apply to naturally occurring species because they were artificially bred under huge artificial selective pressure.
nobody bred human races like dogs.
human races speciated naturally like wolves and coyotes, grizzly and polar bears, etc.

>>12668541
But you would call a German Shepherd and an Australian Shepherd different species :)

>>12668532
this is a good point and i'll try to remember that argument.

>>12668547
And human races interbreed just as naturally now that geography is a much less significant limitation

>>12668561
the social construction aspect of race is how you draw those vague boundaries. there's no reason for barack obama to be called black or kamala harris to be called black, other than the fact being black in america is a position of power and privilege. blacks are a kind of aristocracy.

>>12667570

>>12668598
Why isn't there a WAACP?

>>12668468
>they aren't arbitrary, they're vague.
Yeah, and the point is that a categorization of people into races is stupid because the boundaries are so vague and the categorization doesn't bring any real value. You can say someone has darker skin than someone else, but making categories on the basis of that is a reductive and primitive idea with no use in modern society

>>12668737
Clarification: The act of categorization based on skin color is a social decision, and it's not a beneficial one

>>12668737
>making categories on the basis of that is a reductive and primitive idea with no use in modern society
And yet meaningful enough to train a dog to attack that specific category.

>>12668746
Do you unironically think that's a good argument?

>>12668746
In an entire thread about sophisticated arguments about genetics, distributions, etc. you choose to go for the literal bottom of the barrel
> hurr durr dog go woof woof
I would call you a retard, but I think you know that already.

>>12668746
No shit a dog can tell races apart, any human can with ease as well. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Talk to me when you have a dog that will tell you exactly how many of an individuals great great grandparents are ethiopian vs somali vs kenyan, that would actually be impressive.

>>12668759
>>12668765
>>12668774
Look, all I'm saying is, if race is "socially constructed" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I find it a wee bit suspect that dogs, completely blind to our social customs, are capable of discerning differences between these racial categories. I think it's more likely there are phenotypical differences between these categories, which is what caused us to draw these categorical lines, and that dogs can also see these obvious phenotypic differences. That suggests race is NOT socially constructed, and that it's a myth propagated by idiots.

Since the word racism has a negative connotation, it is better not to associate it with simple racial prejudices because everyone has those and if being racist means you have racial prejudices, then everyone is a racist. I prefer the definition of racism by which someone is a racist if they believe that you only need to treat other people the way you would like to be treated if they look more or less like they do. By this definition, the negative connotation of the word is supported while it is certainly not if racism is associated with racial prejudice.

Since English is technically the King's English, I am going to remove that bullshit that recently got added to the Oxford definition of racism and I will make the word as I, the King, see fit.

>>12668605
What do you think NAACP stands for?

>>12668533
>>12668548
What the fuck do you think species are you illiterate mongoloid?
I swear this board is full of clueless dropouts with a boner for race pseudoscience to cling onto the slightest feeling of false superiority because of their trash and unsuccessful ancestry.

>>12668792
> (whatever that's supposed to mean)
That's the problem. You haven't even read our arguments. I'll repeat it again: The boundaries, and the act of categorization itself, are social decisions. Once that categorization has been made, you can obviously teach it to a dog, but that doesn't justify the original act of categorization. I'd go further and argue that this categorization is useless and counter-productive in the modern society

>>12667559
Race is a social construct grouping distinct genetic ethnicities into larger umbrellas that poorly represent the underlying genetic variation.

>>12668822
>I'll repeat it again: The boundaries, and the act of categorization itself, are social decisions.
And yet, a dog can discern between those boundaries. Rather odd, dontcha think?
>Once that categorization has been made, you can obviously teach it to a dog,
Obvious how? How do you teach a dog to recognize a socially superimposed boundary between groups? Are you aware that dogs will attack different races even without any training? This suggests dogs can recognize these categories regardless of training. So I fail to see how such categories are manifestly socially constructed.