/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14489360]

>race doesn't exis-

[Anonymous No.14489371]

>>14489360
Where do you cut the line between races?
We know that people differ from each other but that alone doesn't really justify the concept of race. If there are no hard lines, is it useful to speak of the different races as if they were clearly distinct things where people just belong to or don't?

I think it's probably more intelligent to classify people by ethnicity and culture.

[Anonymous No.14489428]

>>14489371
>Where do you cut the line between races?
Babies are a difference race than their parents based on those skulls.

[Anonymous No.14489435]

>>14489428
>Babies are a difference race than their parents based on those skulls.
Probably corresponds to the level of intelligence of those making race threads.

[Anonymous No.14489450]

[Anonymous No.14489525]

>>14489371
>If there are no hard lines, is it useful to speak of distinct things ?
Yes. Red and yellow are different things even without a hard line between them.

>it's probably more intelligent to classify people by ethnicity and culture.
How is that any better ? They're continuums too.

[Anonymous No.14489586]

>>14489371
>Where do you cut the line between age groups?
>We know that people differ from each other but that alone doesn't really justify the concept of age groups. If there are no hard lines, is it useful to speak of the different age groups as if they were clearly distinct things where people just belong to or don't?

[Anonymous No.14489590]

>>14489586
Dividing people by age or light by color didn't result in numerous genocides, did it?

[Anonymous No.14489611]

>>14489590
>genocide by age
you going biblical baby jesus hunting or what is the angle here?

[Anonymous No.14489653]

>>14489360
Race does exist, and rednecks aren't white.

[Anonymous No.14489755]

>>14489590
So your argument is no longer that it's not useful, but that it's dangerous ?

[Anonymous No.14489775]

>>14489769
>social construct.
So what ?

[Anonymous No.14489870]

>>14489360
I'm African yet look like a "euro" skull. Despite having no white ancestry.

[Anonymous No.14489875]

>>14489525
>Red and yellow are different things even without a hard line between them
Thing is dogs can't see colour like us and certain animals see colour better then us so how they woudl define red or yellow or blue widely varies

[Anonymous No.14489905]

which race does this count as?

[Anonymous No.14489910]

>>14489905
Neanderthal

[Anonymous No.14489927]

>>14489917
for example, Barack Obama had 0% ancestry from slaves. he was half white and his biological dad was Nigerian.

another example, Kamala Harris’s mom is indian and her dad is Jamaican. also, she was raised in Canada

neither is actually “Black” i.e. descended from people enslaved in the USA. both of them just pass as black based on how they look superficially

[Anonymous No.14489956]

>>14489927
>both of them just pass as black based on how they look superficially
they "pass as black" because they have a massive media machine which circulates that lie and censors anyone who disputes it

[Anonymous No.14490003]

>>14489980
agreed. the fact that people are so superficial is just racist in a way that is actually anti-Black. letting the half-african non-slave-descended likes of Obama and Harris appropriate actual Black culture based on how they look is even more racist than run-of-the-mill racism. it reduces people to mere appearances over even genetics or heritage which is so fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.14490083]

>>14489371
>is it useful to speak of the different races as if they were clearly distinct things
There is a whole family of named fallacies based off this faulty reasoning, the sorites paradox is one of them, I could name more but it would be more productive if you instead looked inward to examine and describe your reasons for wanting this thing SO BADLY to be true that you’re willing to invoke freshman-tier ontological fallacies just to get it to work

[Anonymous No.14490754]

>>14489811
No. OP just says that races exist. Social construct doesn't mean inexistant.
Furhtermore, social constructs can be based on non-social facts. That's the case of race.

[Anonymous No.14490977]

>>14489670
Touch grass, burger

[Anonymous No.14491147]

>>14489360
>european
and arab and iranian skulls too

europeans are by any definition of race grounded in genetics the same race/breed/sub-species as middle easterners

[Anonymous No.14491290]

>>14489360
Bros wtf??? I can't the believe the experts are stumped. I thought we were all equal

[Anonymous No.14491463]

>>14489525

[Anonymous No.14491498]

>>14489360
Me bottom right

[Anonymous No.14491513]

[Anonymous No.14491522]

>>14489870
>is arab, or berber, or nilid, or ethiopioid or horn..
Guess what retard, your race is also known to science, well documented and you aren’t special at all

[Anonymous No.14491605]

>>14490083
>the sorites paradox is one of them,
Not even remotedly related to what I said.
You have a spectrum of variation with arbitrary cuts in them.
Is a Somali black or not? If he's black, then why is he genetically so different from them? If he's Arabian, is he also white? And if Arabs aren't white, where do we cut the line there? Between Arabs and Turks, Turks and Greeks or Germans and the English?
>But muh color spectrum.
Yes, you can distinguish yellow from red the way you can distinguish an Englishman from an Arab. It still doesn't change the fact that yellow, green or red are just different manifestations of the very same thing.
>...inward to examine and describe your reasons for wanting this thing SO BADLY to be true
You might as well look inward to examine and describe your reasons for wanting an outdated concept of race SO BADLY to be true.

[Anonymous No.14491648]

>>14491605
>Not even remotedly related to what I said.
>You have a spectrum of variation with arbitrary cuts in them.
You should probably look up what the Sorites paradox is….

[Anonymous No.14491669]

>>14489875
Still does not justify abandoning the concept of colors.

[Anonymous No.14491755]

>>14491605
>where do we cut the line there?
Who cares ? As you said it's arbitrary. Like colors, or like subspecies in a lot of other animals.
The important part of the concept is that it points out that there is differences between groups, that grow larger the further their last common ancestor is (also with admixture from other homos). You can apply this truth to any two groups, separated by the line of your choosing : for exemple, turks are more different from the germans than the greeks.

[Anonymous No.14491766]

>>14491755
>like subspecies in a lot of other animals.
Here's one. Should the concept of magpie subspecies be abandoned ?

[Anonymous No.14491770]

>>14489371
Hard classifications aren't very good for this. Say you had an adult who was a 50/50 mix of European and (abo) Australian. Right now, we would say they're a mix of two cultures, and their skull would be described as a combination of the predecessors. But what if 1000 years later, there is an entire society of people who are phenotypic of European and Australian? Are they not their own race? At what point do they become their own race? What if one of the original "races" that created this new mixture dies out? Any skull could be defined as a long series of combinations of predecessor skulls.

[Anonymous No.14491794]

https://archive.org/details/CultureOfCritiqueForNormiesPartIIIJewsAndTheLeft_201803/Culture+of+Critique+for+Normies+-+Part+I+-+Replacing+Race+in+Anthropology.mp4

[Anonymous No.14492457]

>>14491648
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
>Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity
Yes, yet this is not what I was saying. I do not claim that a white person and a black person are the same just because there's a spectrum inbetween them which is what you're hinting at.
I say that the very notion of nicely split up races that can be regarded as self-enclosed groups as opposed to a continuum with white, black, asian etc. akin to colors is pseudoscientific, that the categories itself are ultimately arbitrary and that most information gained from them is subject to the fallacy of composition and division. In short, knowing that black person commit a lot of crime doesn't mean that Tyron, because he's black, commits crime. Vice versa, thinking of races as discrete categories also subjects us to generalizing claims to other subgroups within that category. All black people have wide flat noses, therefore Somalis also have wide flat noses. Either you admit that the generalization is wrong, or you admit that Somalis aren't black and something else.
>but it's pruhbabehhlistic.
Yes, which is what I was hinting at. You can get to know probabilities from introducing these categories which in itself is trivial. The concept 'race' on the other hand doesn't work with probabilities. It works with generalizations and the famous 'all X are/have' statements. 'All black people have dark skin' -> Well, what about albinos? Thanks to my TED talk.

[Anonymous No.14492826]

>non-human primates can be split into different subspecies
>but humans can't because...?

[Anonymous No.14492832]

>>14489371
>>14491513

[Anonymous No.14493276]

>>14492832
Interesting stats and I get the point but an Fst of 1 does not mean the populations have no sites in common, it just means that all sites that differ between populations have their respective alleles fixed in each population. That is to say, totally invariant sites aren’t included in Fst at all, which make up most sites in any reasonable comparison (e.g. humans are all about 99% identical so only 1% of sites are included in Fst).

[Anonymous No.14493336]

>>14489360
it's funny how /pol/ has all these data and yet they still don't know if Turks are white or not
Just admit it, race is a social construct

[Anonymous No.14493338]

>>14493336
>Just admit it, race is a social construct

[Anonymous No.14493341]

>>14489360
until you can scientifically prove that whites are inferior, we don't wanna hear none yo shit!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJE0tqFBTw

[Anonymous No.14493345]

>>14489360
When I was a child, I had always wondered why my black classmates had a bulbous back to their skull lol.

[Anonymous No.14493347]

>>14489428
clearly the baby is the smartest, look at the size of his head, must have had a massive brain

[Anonymous No.14493447]

>>14492832

[Anonymous No.14493455]

>>14489525
>>14489371
the lines are roughly this
asian
caucasian
african (potentially 2 types)
american
australian

no better definition of race/subspecies/breed exists than this
idk why people who advocate for race so much are this vague on this subject but typically they post this >>14491513 and go 'see race is real' without actually saying how many races and what they are
well those are the races as i've posted them and algorithmically classifying humans yields this as best estimate

[Anonymous No.14493462]

>>14490003
>Obama and Harris appropriate actual Black culture based on how they look is even more racist than run-of-the-mill racism. it
They were part of the culture now cut out you concern trolling .

[Anonymous No.14493464]

>>14493455
You still have big holes in your categories. Why does Africa get "potentially 2", Caucasian is very wide as well, American makes no sense since the natives there came from Asia off a population bottleneck.

[Anonymous No.14493500]

>>14489428
You're beyond retarded

[Anonymous No.14493526]

>>14492457
>'All black people have dark skin' -> Well, what about albinos?
>let me just round off my argument with an excellent example of why my point of view is totally irrelevant

[Anonymous No.14493572]

>>14493500
your rarted

[Anonymous No.14493771]

>>14492457
>the very notion of nicely split up races that can be regarded as self-enclosed groups
... is a convenient strawman made up by anti racists. No one ever said that there is no continuity. Though obviously, there's less gene flow across seas, deserts, mountain ranges and isthmuses than across fertile plains.

>The concept 'race' on the other hand doesn't work with probabilities.
Says you. The concept of race is no different from any other categorization and works just as well.

>>14493336
>Just admit it, race is a social construct
Sure is. Just as subspecies and species. Still valid though.

>>14493447
Yes ! it can ! as a polfag I have no issue with this. I am and was aware that turks and arabs and north africans are mostly descended from the same population that colonized europe, and if you were to divide humanity in five races around the 0.1 Fst mark (>>14491755), they'd be in the same race as us. That's just fine. The important thing is for you to admit that human groups are not identical and interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.14493832]

>>14491605
it tells something . there are research that says children tend to inherit their parents weaknesses and behaviors. i know i did from my dad . me and him are incredibly anxious but i grow from that and become more confident .

race does say something it could be more then just different color . but brains can be changed by will

[Anonymous No.14493966]

>>14489371
>individual
>family
>group of families = tribe
>group of tribes = city
>group of cities = nation
>nation = race
It's not a difference you are looking for but an hierarchy for self preservation based on genetic distance.

[Anonymous No.14494019]

>>14489371
>Where do you cut the line between races?
The pigmentation of their skin seems to be a good place to start.

[Anonymous No.14494126]

>>14489450
He's got some Australian in him

[Anonymous No.14494146]

>>14489590
neither did race

[Anonymous No.14494148]

>>14489371
Where do you draw a line between ethnicities?

[Anonymous No.14494159]

>>14493447
What do you think this is supposed to refute? lol

[Anonymous No.14494163]

>>14494159
It's supposed to refute the /pol/ strawman in this head, thereby refuting you.

[Anonymous No.14494175]

Bump to based thread

[Anonymous No.14494181]

>>14494163
I think he just misunderstood anon's argument. He wasn't saying that 0.153 fst is the minimum value for existence of subspecies but that there are animals with recognized subspecies whose genetic distance is the same as between humans so why shouldn't they have recognized subspecies as well?

[Anonymous No.14494217]

>>14494181
>animals with recognized subspecies
Wolves and coyotes are recognized as different species. Genetic distance between wolves subspecies is even less than that.

[Anonymous No.14494441]

>>14494217
>the dog is more distant to the tibetan wolf than the tibetan wolf is to a coyote
>thus race doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.14494488]

>>14489360
Do races still matter in this age of mutts? Globalism seeks to abolish any form of isolation.

[Anonymous No.14494646]

>>14489371
do you know where you are?

[Anonymous No.14494655]

>>14489360
wtf children are a different race!

[Anonymous No.14494942]

This site's obsession with defining arbitrary racial boundaries is at mental illness levels.

[Anonymous No.14494986]

>>14494441
>>the dog is more distant to the tibetan wolf than the tibetan wolf is to a coyote
?
That's not how it's read.
Last common ancestor of dog and tibetan wolf : 250 000 years
Last common ancestor of coyote and tibetan wolf : 380 000 years

[Anonymous No.14495859]

>>14493447
>i am unable to admit arabs are white

Arabs are capable of civilization if they want to. They count as human.

[Anonymous No.14495867]

>>14494655
Got damned infesting my pure nation!
The evidence is right there!

[Anonymous No.14496468]

>>14495859

"If they want to"

What exactly were Europeans doing during the Islamic Golden Age other than living in straw huts?

The Middle East is literally the fucking birthplace of civilization.

[Anonymous No.14496500]

>>14496468
>straw huts
Notre Dame was built during Islamic Golden Age

[Anonymous No.14496522]

>>14495859
semites are half nigger, their "civilization" was just helleniclarping, monkeys cargo culting, you can read it in their "science" a bunch of bullshit which went nowhere, they accidentally contributed some nice trig tables in pursuit of worshiping their half nigger half kike "allah" god
always keep in mind that muslim semites were of another faith until 1400 years ago, they are kikes at heart and in character, thieving chattering monkeys, prone to chimpouts, always up to no good and incapable of civilization. their oil industry is still completely engineered by hired caucasians, even decades after it got it's start. they've over half a century to train a semite to do engineering and they haven't succeeded yet.

[Anonymous No.14496542]

>>14489371
Your absolutely right. It's really difficult to draw the line. In fact I would argue that most humans outside of Africans are really similar. Whites and Arabs and Asians are all really similar with mostly religion and culture separating them. But Africans and Australia's natives are something completely different from everyone else.

[Anonymous No.14496567]

>>14496522
>semites are half nigger
Note that they are much ore niggerized now than they were at first in their golden age. Because that was the time when they imported black slaves in big numbers, and even though they castrated most of the males, they bred with the women.

[Anonymous No.14496598]

>>14496522
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

>>14496542
I've had black professors who seemed pretty smart desu. Even if lower average iq, why does it matter? There are still high achievers.

Doesn't the old racial theory refer to "Caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid". So Indians, arabs, egyptians, north africans, central asians (?) would be caucasoid right? Or mixed?

[Anonymous No.14496604]

Why is 85% of my university Chinese/Arab/Indian? They get degrees.

[Anonymous No.14496636]

>>14489360
>child
ah yes, my favorite race

[Anonymous No.14496642]

>>14496598
>why does it matter?
Because the low achievers also impact society.

>Doesn't the old racial theory refer to "Caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid".
That was one proposed classification among many. Arabs would be caucasoid.

[Anonymous No.14496654]

>>14489525
We recognise that they refer to different things, but they're just constructs- red and yellow don't actually exist. Frequency and wavelength do. What is the wavelength of race?

[Anonymous No.14496673]

>>14496654
Genetics.

[Anonymous No.14496690]

>>14496673
Sure, but this only proves that humans can be grouped. How does it prove that the classical racial groups exist as a taxonomical category? You need to show that it is not as arbitrary as color terms, which differ a lot by language.

[Anonymous No.14496697]

>red and yellow don't actually exist. Frequency and wavelength do
Anyone else unsurprised that race deniers are literal p-zombies?

[Anonymous No.14496748]

>>14496690
>the classical racial groups
I don't particularily care about "classical" groups. If other clusters can be identified that's alright.
>You need to show that it is not as arbitrary as color terms
Why ? Actually even without any clustering, if human genetics are on a spectrum like colors they can be arbitrarily divided like colors. Nothing wrong with that.

Lots of subspecies were separated arbitrarily for other animals, like pic. But in our case I would follow geographic barriers to gene flow : the Sahara, the Urals, Taklamakan desert and Himalaya, the Weber line, maybe the Bering strait, and the iranian and anatolian plateaux.

[Anonymous No.14496908]

>>14496748
By classical groups I mean easily distinguishable and identifiable.

>if human genetics are on a spectrum like colors they can be arbitrarily divided like colors. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes, but then those categories don't have a footing in the real world. They just draw over it. That can lead to a selection bias.

>Lots of subspecies were separated arbitrarily for other animals, like pic.
Yes, which is why subspecies are blurry and there is no consensus on what animal subspecies there are.

[Anonymous No.14496920]

>>14496690
Because they are grouped the exact same way humans group them.

[Anonymous No.14496931]

>>14496673
How can Danes be genetically closer to Africans than English are to Africans? According to this, Italians are more distant from Africans than northern Euros, yet Italy is located closer to Africa.

[Anonymous No.14496936]

>>14496920
Which humans and what groups?

[Anonymous No.14496972]

>>14496936
>Which humans
Humans on this planet

>what groups
races

[Anonymous No.14496973]

>>14496972
Which races used as terms by humans on this planet correspond closely to genetic clusters?

[Anonymous No.14496975]

>>14496973
all of them

[Anonymous No.14497075]

>>14489450

[Anonymous No.14497105]

>>14493447
Arabs are just whites living in a shit climate. I thought this was common knowledge?

[Anonymous No.14497146]

>>14496908
>That can lead to a selection bias.
There will be less bias than when we're pretending all human groups are interchangeable with europeans.

>subspecies are blurry
A lot of species are debated too. But yes, they often are, and that doesn't stop us from using the concept of subspecies.

>>14496931
I suppose the data is not very accurate. Maybe this is within the margin of error. But it could be that ancient migrations were more complex than you expect.

[Anonymous No.14497205]

>>14489360
>every single person can be considered their own race (genetic definition)
>anyone can decide what race they belong to, fore it's arbitrary anyway (any other definition)
>race is a meaningful way of organizing people
Choose exactly two.

[Anonymous No.14497224]

>>14489371
Each human is their own race.

[Anonymous No.14497269]

>>14489450
Dr mitosis my arch nemesis we meet again

[Anonymous No.14497343]

>>14489360
What race is this ?

[Anonymous No.14497356]

>>14497146
>But yes, they often are, and that doesn't stop us from using the concept of subspecies.
I am not saying anything stops us from using it. It does mean that the concept is flimsier and less significant. You are right that even a lot of species are debated, so this is not helpful in establishing more specific types.

[Anonymous No.14497480]

>>14491605
I agree. I always bring up colors. They of coarse exist on a spectrum. Does that mean red or yellow are the same? But where do you draw the difference? Yeah those colors definitely exist but it's hard to say exactly where they start or end. Ditto for human races. A black man from the Congo is obviously different from a white men in Berlin. A Japanese man is different from a Spaniard. That's obvious and can't be argued against. But yes, drawing lines on things which are spectrums are really hard.

[Anonymous No.14497492]

>>14496598
It matters bc a society made up of blacks vs a society made up of whites will be completely different. High iq is high iq. A smart black person has a lot in common with a smart white person. But we both know the average black and white person is a lot different from each other. That's the problem. When you live amongst blacks. Your not going to be bumping into the high iq black person but his retarded cousin who will stab you for looking in his direction. That's the fucking problem.

[Anonymous No.14497536]

>>14497356
>It does mean that the concept is flimsier and less significant.
Significant enough to counter pic related.

>>14497205
>>every single person can be considered their own race (genetic definition)
That's not the genetic definition of race, that's the genetic definition of individual.
Yes, correlations of allelles frequencies in groups of individuals are meaningful.

[Anonymous No.14497661]

>>14497536
>Significant enough to counter pic related.
The (non)existence of human races has no impact on the quote. Demographic differences can be (wholly) due to causes unrelated to a system, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.14497680]

>>14497536
The Systematic Racism argument is easily rebuked by several metrics such as the fact that black families that make upper middle-class income still commit way more crime than even poverty level white families, or the fact that ANY country at all with a significant black population shows the same level of disproportionate crime levels. Do you mean to tell me that EVERY country has a bias towards "keeping a brotha down"

[Anonymous No.14497734]

>>14497661
>The (non)existence of human races has no impact on the quote.
It does because it relies on the idea that all demographic groups have the same average capabilities before systemic influence. And the first sort of group it mentions is race.

The existence of human races means the existence of differences in innate capabilities.

[Anonymous No.14497834]

>>14489371
>wordplay
Are you seriously telling me if I showed you a Asian, European, Australoid, and African right now that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference?

Ridiculous Leftist drivel.

[Anonymous No.14497839]

/sci/ is indoctrinated pussies scared to admit everything they've been taught is fake, and when challenged on a topic and they begin to lose, jannies delete the thread so they can keep believing the lies.

[Anonymous No.14497852]

[Anonymous No.14497860]

i cant deal with the 60 second timer here so this is my last post but i have a folder of hundreds of race images. doesnt matter though, indoctrinated people are immune to reality.

[Anonymous No.14498148]

>>14497680
Yup. It's what I said on reddit and got banned for racism. Like wtf? It's statically true no matter how hard you pretend it doesn't. Just force leftists to go live in majority blacks and have their kids go to black majority schools. Let's see how hard reality smacks them in the face.

[Anonymous No.14498153]

>>14497734
Yeah. Asians and whites ans blacks and natives all obviously have different averages in everything and seem to excel in different things. Hell Asians have a gene that makes their sweat not stink. If one gene causes that what millions of genes are different across races and what are the effects of that? I've read that iq charts for whites are different then Asians. Like there are a lot more high intelligent whites then Asians but Asians are om average smarter.

[Anonymous No.14498492]

>>14497536
>that slide
Unironically based

[Anonymous No.14498536]

>>14497860
You have to be coping to think those look anything alike. You can find arbitrary similarities between humans and primates without having to try, but humans do not look like them.

[Anonymous No.14498685]

>>14497536
Here's your homework for tonight anon:
It'll be graded in the morning, in class.

1). The minimum genetic difference individuals must have, to be considered different races is _____________________.

2). This difference was chosen because _______________________.

3). This difference is not arbitrary because _____________________.

4). And it's supported by the fact _________________________.

[Anonymous No.14498720]

>>14498536
>You have to be coping to think those look anything alike.
Even google's image recognition software confuses black people and gorillas

[Anonymous No.14498786]

>>14498720
Google is retarded. Human skulls of any race are instantly distinguishable from that of a gorilla.

[Anonymous No.14498809]

>>14498685
I told you it was arbitrary. As for the minimum genetic difference between individuals, it's the same with other animal subspecies.

[Anonymous No.14498836]

>>14493455
Then what are indians and Bengalis?

[Anonymous No.14498844]

This thread is filled with rednecks who say "genetics" and then can't tell us how many races there are which races there are. Are Turks and Europeans the exact same? Are Arabs and Europeans the exact same? Are indians and europeans the exact same?
Europeans should take arab refugees because all the "genetics" studies say Arabs and Europeans are the same

[Anonymous No.14498900]

>>14498844
The point is not to have a particular number of races, and it's especially not to assume that all groups within a race are identical. Only a complete retard like you would consider such a thing, obviously.
The point is to acknowledge that humans are like all other animals subject to evolution and that as such different human groups are not identical.
Making up and arguing about lists of subspecies is secondary.

[Anonymous No.14499091]

>>14498685
>1). The minimum genetic difference individuals must have, to be considered different races is
Arbitrary.
>2). This difference was chosen because
Scientists needed a cutoff on the genetic continuum to be able to meaningfully distinguish traits between organisms, while also maintaining some scientific convenience. Convenience as in, classifying every new generation of organisms its own new species is not helpful for study of biology and genetics. Neither is attempting to classify humans along arbitrary cutoffs as of now.
>3). This difference is not arbitrary because
Invalid question
>4). And it's supported by the fact
that God did not come down to earth and say "organisms with x% differences in their genetic make up are different species." The cutoff is carefully chosen and needs to be agreed upon by scientists. It is not random, but it is not objective.