Race and Society

[Anonymous No.4929277]

Hey guys, I come from a land far away called /pol/

What does /sci/ think about the different races?
Is race just a social construct?
Does genetic variation between the races in any way account for social realities(achievement gap, crime rates, religious indices, ect.)?

>pic is to get those jimmies rustling....

[Anonymous No.4929283]

fuck off /pol/
we don't like yer kind 'round here

[Anonymous No.4929287]

>still arguing about policies
>not just using science to find out what works best
go away

[Anonymous No.4929291]

goddamnit /pol/ no one will take you seriously as long as you use pseudoscientific terms from the 1900's. At the very least base your arguments on haplogroups.

[Anonymous No.4929295]

In the of chance you don't know where pol is i will guide you way

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4929299]

sorry /pol/ rules are rules. You now have to get paddled all the way to page 15.

[Anonymous No.4929302]

>>4929295
Your post is so fucking retarded that I have to bump the thread.

The OP EXPLICITLY states that he is from /pol/ and wants to hear /sci/'s opinion.
How can you be so FUCKING RETARDED?
Did you never learn how to read?

[Anonymous No.4929304]

>>4929302
>Implying this is /pol/

Here let me guide you

>>>/pol/
or
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.4929307]

>>4929302

Spoken like a true anon from /pol/. Samefag detected.

sageth!

Have at thee!

[Anonymous No.4929308]

>>4929295
Also
>Implying that there are 15 pages

[Anonymous No.4929309]

>>4929304
How stupid are you? Such retardation should be banned. I was always agaist euthanasia, but now your unlimited idiocy completely changed my view. Do the world a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool.

[Anonymous No.4929312]

>>4929307
Haha, no. I don't give a fuck about the OP. It's just this retard what enrages me.

[Anonymous No.4929314]

>>4929302
dat delicious /pol/ rage

[Anonymous No.4929317]

>>4929314
Not even from /pol/. Never been there. Just hating retards.

[Anonymous No.4929319]

>>4929309
Well i'm giving him the benefit of doubt that he just got lost on his way to /pol/ so i decided to help him to find a home

[Anonymous No.4929322]

>>4929319
Are you incapable of reading comprehension? Have you never been to elementary school? Your IQ must be lower than 50.

[Anonymous No.4929325]

>>4929322
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4929327]

>>4929325
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.4929337]

/pol/ is the worst board on all of 4chan. It actually filters retards out of /b/

[Anonymous No.4929344]

>>4929337
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.4929346]

>>4929337
have you ever visited /mlp/ or /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4929349]

>>4929337
Have you ever been to /sci/?

[Anonymous No.4929351]

>>4929346
>>4929344

>implying they're not thousands of times better than /pol/.

People there still believe god made perfect man in the caucasus mountains and use the term 'aryan' without being ironic.

[Anonymous No.4929352]

>>4929291

>implying race doesn't exist

read in on some medical science and come back

[Anonymous No.4929353]

/sci/ confirmed for post-modernist anti-scientific faggots. Go back to calculating your sexist speed of light.

[Anonymous No.4929356]

>>4929351

>implying Aryans weren't a proto-European-Indo-Persian people

You can trace them back to a common ancestor actually

[Anonymous No.4929361]

>>4929353
>ask retard to use real science like haplogroups instead of social science from the 1900s
>be called anti-scientific

[Anonymous No.4929359]

>>4929351

[Anonymous No.4929364]

>>4929361

If you want to be an organ donor, you have to mark down your race. Not your haplogroup, your race. Because race is an actual molecular factor when it comes to immune systems.

[Anonymous No.4929367]

>>4929344
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4929368]

>>4929356

What mt-dna or y-dna haplogroup would that be? inb4 looks at haplogroup charts and realizes that all of those people are completely different haplogroups having diverged a fuckton of time ago with Q (american indigenous) actually being the closest related to R1a/b (eurofags who whine the most about this shit).

We mapped the human genome at the turn of the millennium, why the fuck do people still rely on non-genetic markers and bullshit like craniology?

[Anonymous No.4929371]

>>4929368
Get out of here
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4929373]

>>4929364

No, it's not, and you mark down your ethnicity, not your "race". American isn't a race, Canadian isn't a race, Mexican isn't a race, etc..

[Anonymous No.4929377]

>>4929371
You upset because you can't into rigor?

[Anonymous No.4929383]

Somehow I feel as if all the cancer is spreading out of /b/, /mlp/, /r9k/, /v/, and /soc/ and into the other boards. It's sad watching this site go down the drain.

[Anonymous No.4929392]

>>4929383
It's all going according to plan

[Anonymous No.4929390]

>>4929383
This is 4chan, you goddamn summerfag.

[sage No.4929432]

mfw everyone who didn't sage is samefag.
mfw i have no face.

[Anonymous No.4929463]

>>4929383

This is how 4chan works. The quality of posts on almost all boards decreases during this time and for some reason most of the regulars almost seem to give up and disappear. The boards you mentioned get even worse and you see a group of people give up on them and decide to migrate ; they end up here and keep an eye on their own boards for a while. At the end of summer, some of them go back, some of them stay; we generally recover and the vibe of the board returns to normal. The boards you mentioned don't return to the way they were entirely and the spiral of shit continues forever. The shitboards get shitter, the rest occasionally decline and fluctuate with little consistency.

[Anonymous No.4929533]

>>4929383
I've been browsing 4chan off and on for the past 5 years, and for some strange reason, it seems that every summer some genius decides to make a comment very similar in composition to yours, often more than once. While it's true there is an influx of trolls and underage b&, that doesn't mean you won't find quality scientific posts. All it means is that the boards are more cluttered and you need to have a bit more patience. So do try to think it through before endowing onto us your judgement as the supreme and unequivocal authority of what make 4chan boards shit.

[Anonymous No.4929537]

>>4929533
>>4929463
Funnily /sci/ is among the boards whose quality improves in summer.

[Anonymous No.4929556]

The primitive ways that the retards from /pol/ define races are laughable.
SKIN COLOUR? Hahahahahahahahahaha, wow. Just how stupid are you guys?
You think that just because two people have the same skin and eye colour their part of the same race? No wonder you're always wrong about everything

[Anonymous No.4930708]

Wellp, at least one someone needs to treat your question seriously,OP, and seems I drew the short straw.

1- I mostly inhabit /tg/, so I can't answer what /sci/'s opinions are.
2-yer skin's a pallid off-white, and his is what everyone seems to call 'olive' colour, yes, race is a thing.
Though that's obviously not what you meant, so here: first, genetics is nowhere near as powerful as people think, there are limits on how much a human cell can change. a whitey can be every bit a berserker as a Maori warrior, given the same upbringing.
Second, every last one of us, barring clones, has a father, grandfather, his father's father, etc. way the hell back when, doing stupid shit ended with banishment from the tribe-not ideal for social creatures continual living.If a race has, say, a propensity for sociopathy, it's going to be 1 in 250 has a 12% increased chance (chance,note) of being effed in the head in this way.
It's been a pleasure to talk at you, and I invite you to cherry pick freely from this rant to support your arguments.

>pic is to get those jimmies rustling....
God damn it, it took me way too long to think 'troll?'. Oh well, posts away.

[Anonymous No.4930724]

>>4929295
This is science related.

[Anonymous No.4930726]

>>4929556

Pretty much this.

Obviously:
1) There are genetic variations between breeds of man, resulting in both physical and intellectual (which, in the end, are the same thing) differences.
2) At the loss of some accuracy, it is possible to break up the continuum of these breeds into "races" sharing similar traits.

However, the common "white" and "black" labels are utterly retarded. Any meaningful definition of Caucasoid would have to include both Arabs and Berbers, and maybe stretch as far as Ethiopia. Whereas Negroid means nothing at all. There is an incredible amount of genetic diversity in Africa, probably because much of the continent hasn't undergone a true agricultural revolution up until relatively recently.

[Anonymous No.4930735]

>>4930708

Race isn't real, genetics are. race has very little to nothing to do with genetics.

[Anonymous No.4930738]

http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf
>It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology, genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.

[Anonymous No.4930741]

>>4930726

>There is an incredible amount of genetic diversity in Africa, probably because much of the continent hasn't undergone a true agricultural revolution up until relatively recently.

not to mention it's fucking gigantic.

[Anonymous No.4930739]

>social generalizations
>race
>sociology
humoredgentlemen.jpg

[Anonymous No.4930742]

I fear that /sci/entists have been brainwashed into marxism.

[Anonymous No.4930743]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Scxg1Pu3dOsC&pg=PT463#v=onepage&q&f=false
>It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inferene that race is therefore a meaningless concept. This point has been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in a recent paper “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy.” R.C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possibile opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles.

[...]

>We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

[Anonymous No.4930754]

>>4930743
>>4930738

In case you didn't realize it, approaching race from a taxonomical standpoint defeats the purpose you are trying to argue. I.e. It would allow you to group anyone regardless of genetic background into whatever race based entirely on their physical characteristics. If you define race as that then you have to accept it from that standpoint under the realization that you may not necessarily belong to whichever race you think you do. Moreso that the distinctions between race would be largely arbitrary with little real meaning. In other words, it's useless to science.

[Anonymous No.4930794]

I'm going to bump this thread because of all the idiots sageing in a /sci/ related thread.OP clearly stated he wants a /sci/ opinion.

[Anonymous No.4930801]

Methinks we should go shitpost in /pol/
4-5 threads on this shit and they keep being bumped to the front page.

[Anonymous No.4930804]

>>4930801

>Implying /sci/ can raid any board larger than /lit/

[Anonymous No.4930806]

>>4930801
That would be like peeing in a septic tank. They probably wouldn't even notice.

[Anonymous No.4930807]

>>4930804
Indeed.
/sci/ isn't exactly a raiding type of board.
It's more of a "wait untill the raid is over and then badmouth the raiders" type board.

[Anonymous No.4930867]

>>4930754
So how should we approach race?

[Anonymous No.4930885]

>>4930867
It depends. What do you mean? The social/cultural groupings, or just the genetic ones?

[Anonymous No.4930905]

>>4930867

If you must, then you could use real genetic markers and run them through a clustering [machine learning] algorithm to sort the people into "races". However, these "races" won't necessarily mean the same thing that the 1900's definition did. It would probably be hundreds of times more useful. I.e. Doing IQ testing and such based on genetic markers instead of skin color or "write down what race you think you are".

Machine learning has progressed to the point where it can do clustering in hundreds of thousands of dimensions. Something that no human can do by hand.

[Anonymous No.4930927]

http://ge.tt/1kCj9WL/v/0?c
>Recent research on the human genome challenges the basic assumption that human races have no biological basis. In this article, we provide a theoretical synthesis that accepts the existence of genetic clusters consistent with certain racial classifications as well as the validity of the genomic research that has identified the clusters, without diminishing the social character of their context, meaning, production, or consequences. The first part of this article describes the social constructionist account of race as lacking biological reality, its main shortcomings, and our proposed solution: the concept of clinal classes. The second part discusses the character of the group differences that would be consistent with clinal classes and introduces the concept of genomic individualism, which extends an emerging model for understanding biosocial causation to include the genetic effects of ancestry. The third part develops the argument for a “bounded nature” reformulation of racial constructionism that reconceptualizes racial and ethnic categorization as the social perception of ancestry. The final part summarizes the article’s contributions and outlines implications for future research.

[Anonymous No.4930933]

>>4930927
Nice.

[Anonymous No.4931027]

>>4930927
>let's start with a conclusion and find evidence to support it.

[Anonymous No.4931032]

>>4931027
What is your evidence that they are using motivated reasoning? You know they summarize their conclusions in the abstract, right?

[Anonymous No.4931038]

>>4931032

Because if they were working the other way around they would find different more diverse racial groups than the ones social science pushes.

[Anonymous No.4931059]

>>4931038
The "number" of groups they identify is just a function of how strictly they require that members of a group be similar. If you go far enough in requiring in-group similarity, we're nearly 7 billion groups of one individual each, all with distinct genomes (except maybe twins, but even they have slight differences). On the other end of the spectrum, we're all the same species.

You're assuming a lot about what level of same-ness you want them to require for a grouping, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with race. Isn't their main conclusion that no matter how you slice it, there aren't any genetic groupings that correspond to what people racially self-identify as?

[Anonymous No.4931136]

>>4931059

This is true, but it is generally handled in intuitive ways with learning algorithms, not completely arbitrary ways guided only by social science.

[Anonymous No.4931204]

>>4931136

Perhaps they realized that no matter what the divisions would be completely arbitrary so they might as well use an already existing 'standard'

[Anonymous No.4931252]

>>4929277
>Race
>Social construct

Yes, the pigmentation of my skin is a social phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.4931258]

>>4931252
The pigmentation of your skin isn't a "race", it's the pigmentation of your skin.

[Anonymous No.4931299]

I reckon we might soon discover epigenetics are behind alot/most racial differences

[Anonymous No.4931301]

>>4931252

>calling different ethnic groups races
I thought that was a nazi thing

[Anonymous No.4931323]

>tfw not white
>tfw not black
>tfw not religious
>tfw not nationalist
>tfw my jimmies remain unrustled forever

[Anonymous No.4931346]

>>4931258
>implying White Race, Brown Race, Black Race

you dumb