/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8490628]

Genetics. Famous "There's more variance within human races/ethnicities than between them" statement. Explain or refute.

[Anonymous No.8490638]

Lewontins fallacy.

[Anonymous No.8490641]

>>8490628
That's true, but there are still different races.

[Anonymous No.8490645]

>>8490641
How is it true?

[Anonymous No.8490648]

>>8490645
The number of parts in the DNA that are different are greater, simply that.
But that goes for every definition of race.
From dogs, over insects to humans.
That's just how it is.
What makes a race are shared characteristics.

[Anonymous No.8490653]

>>8490648
>x commom traits -> same race
>x-1 commom traits -> different races
If this is not the definition, then the babble is a pure syntaxis problem. ;^)

[Anonymous No.8490658]

>>8490648
Yeah right. That's what you would think. But how would you come up with a greater variance within a race now than between races. I just cannot bring the two things together because they contradict each other

[Anonymous No.8490660]

Done

[Anonymous No.8490683]

>>8490660
Thanks, anon. Will check the publication.
So it's about inspecting a multitude of loci.
As expected looking at thousands of loci individuals from the same population should be more similar because these loci are statistically dependent on each other because they are propagated within the population and this population has only a limited alleles to fill them. Completely understandable.

But again I don't understand how the first paragraph works (after "Fact:").
Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.8490696]

>>8490683

The statement "races have more variation within them than between them" is a myth; it is only a fact when examining concentrations of groups and the variation in those groups. Races have more variation between them if you metaphorically zoom out and view more than the differences of seperaye concentrations of people in one race.

[Anonymous No.8490729]

ok this wiki page was really helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

The part that always tripped me up is explained here: "In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined "races" (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a "race", and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification."

I think I understand it now. What Lewontin did was break down the total variance of an individual loci and then found that most allels (of all the possible/known allels) occur in this population (i.e. at least one individual has one of these allels). Only a minority of the other allels does not occur in our observed population and will only be found in some other population.
So in a way he was saying: Looking at a single locus I cannot predict with great accuracy that this individual must belong to population X because most allels occur in most of the populations.

That makes a ton of sense finally.
And an easy addition is that you will increase prediciton accuracy if you simply add more loci to your analysis.

Wow, I cannot believe how hard it was to get to the bottom of this issue for me. This "myth" (it is a fallacy really) is spread everywhere and hardly explained in detail after.

[Anonymous No.8490739]

>>8490729

Correct

"But why is it a myth? Race is only skin deep, you racist!"

[Anonymous No.8490758]

>>8490739
ok where are the other two myth graphics

[Anonymous No.8490765]

>>8490758

Let me simply present them all.

(1)

[Anonymous No.8490766]

(2)

[Anonymous No.8490769]

(3) posted earlier

(4) posted earlier

(5)

[Anonymous No.8490772]

(6)

[Anonymous No.8490775]

(7)

[Anonymous No.8490778]

(8)

Wala

[Anonymous No.8490788]

>>8490660
>>8490739
>>8490765
>>8490766
>>8490769
>>8490772
>>8490775
>>8490778
Fact: you can easily identify junk science when they try to sell something off as "fact". Do yourself a favor and track down and read the actual sources indicated in each of these infographs. Ignore the narrative and graphs they're trying to sell with these "facts".

[Anonymous No.8490792]

>>8490788

Oh, so "fact: these facts are not facts"? Man it sucks that all this junk science can be proven with real-world evidence on a minute-by-minute basis. Damn scientists

[Anonymous No.8490803]

>>8490788
hehe don't worry bra
I was just intrested what other "myths" are debunked here.... even though there might be different races with different features in different disciplines I see no reason to use that as justification of racism.
Judge the individual not the group

[Anonymous No.8490805]

>>8490792

Those dirty dirty EVIL junk scientists!

[Anonymous No.8490816]

>>8490792
>>8490805
If you think scientific articles are "facts" then you know absolutely nothing about the scientific method. The fact that you're arguing against actually tracking down and reading your sources instead of just taking your word for it is highly suspect. I'm 99% certain you went into this research with a conclusion first and then are cherry picking papers that suit your world view and discarding everything else. Hell I bet you didn't even read these papers yourself and are just regurgitating infographs like a typical /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.8490824]

>>8490816

High speed evil science articles!

[Anonymous No.8490837]

>ITT: butthurt Frenchmen trying to gain the upper ground

[Anonymous No.8490845]

>>8490824
Amazingly insightful and well thought out response, you sure showed me and my disgusting nerve for trying to stop people from politicizing science for personal gain. How will I ever recover from this wreckage? Oh I know, I can ignore it completely because that infograph and your two before it actually have pol in the filename further confirming my suspicions. If you love /pol/ so much why are you sticking around us lowly blue pilled swine? Surely you could be learning more about why the Earth is flat and how government officials are all lizard people in the comfort of your own home.
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8490856]

>>8490845

It's a known truth you can't change the mind of almost anyone who has firm beliefs already in their minds on a given subject unless their minds are changed through 1) a significant life-changing event regarding the subject, or 2) they come to the conclusion themselves

This is why I never debate people online. It never works, and they never change. Have a good day though, anon

[Anonymous No.8490858]

>>8490845
Why don't you refute that guy's sources though? He presents hard numbers, and all you do is make claims about his motives. If anything, you're the one being retarded.

[Anonymous No.8490867]

>>8490792
>whites are racist even when it comes to crime
Wow, thanks for sharing that. A

[Anonymous No.8490882]

>>8490858
see
>>8490856
He's putting 0 effort in and admits it himself, I'm just having fun pointing out how ridiculous he's being. You're not honestly expecting me to put real work into disproving obviously biased infographs are you? I'd be here all day if I did that. I'd rather point out the flaws with how he's arguing. If he was making his own arguments instead of copy and pasting pictures then I'd return the favor and actually respond but he's being lazy as fuck. If you want to see these infographs disproven you can probably reverse image search these images in the /sci/ archives and you'll find them refuted somewhere.

>>8490856
If you can't change people's minds then why are you posting infographs in the hopes of doing so? :^)

[Anonymous No.8490899]

>>8490882
what a shitty fucking argument
"i'm not disproving this because someone else probably has already done it xDDD"

[Anonymous No.8490903]

>>8490899
It's better than
"i'm going to spam /sci/ with infographs all day and make other people disprove them for the millionth time i'm so original Xdddd"

[Anonymous No.8490915]

>>8490899
>>8490882

so what we arguing about?

[Anonymous No.8490918]

>>8490915
/pol/ methodology

[Anonymous No.8490921]

>>8490903
literally the same argument again, holy fuck lol

[Anonymous No.8490922]

>>8490628
has anyone even refuted this? desu the statement itself doesnt necessitate any /pol/ rage.

[Anonymous No.8491093]

>>8490660
Yeah sure bro. And if you were to examine every single genomic loci, you would find a classification that puts every individual alone in his own group.
What really matters for society are the differences between populations for one specific parameter such as intelligence. African may be on average less intelligent than Europeans, but the variability within groups is higher than between groups, meaning that the geographic origin gives little information about the individual's intelligence. Therefore discrimination and racial hatred is not justified, and that's the most important part.

[Anonymous No.8491099]

>>8490765
>take a sample that does not cover homogeneously and continuously the whole population
>perform PCA
>HOLY SHIET THE OUTPUT IS NOT CONTINUOUS

[Anonymous No.8491106]

>>8490792
It can mean two things:
- Either blacks are more likely to rape than whites
- Either white women are sexier than black women

[Anonymous No.8491113]

>>8490903
They are seldom disproved. My background is in genetic so I can discuss the GWAS/sequencing ones. However I have never seen the sociology ones (comparing income and IQ for instance) disproved.

[Anonymous No.8491131]

>>8491106
lets get the white on white rape stats on. its definitely the second of the two.

[Anonymous No.8491132]

>>8491113

yeah but people make claims about genetics and those social factors and thats what isn't proved.