Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@coal
1. Do not address me as "big boy."
Alright, small boy.

2. Your nonsense about race is unpersuasive.  For example, you linked a blog that is non-responsive to what I wrote written by an individual who lacks familiarity with the subject matters on which he opines.  To illustrate this point: I reviewed some of his other writings.  He clearly does not understand such basic concepts as psychometric testing, and yet purports to use data he doesn't understand to argue a point that is over his head.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether human races are real/equal. This is just ad hom against Ryan Faulk.

The website quotes numerous papers and data-points that show human races are a valid genetic concept. The fact that you don't think this disproves your argument ("Race has absolutely nothing to do with nature"), is either extremely bad faith or totally ignorant.

You further tried to make a point about skull shape.  That point was incoherent, and non-responsive to what I wrote. Google the term "phrenology," and consider whether arguing with me over skull shapes is an efficacious use of your time. 
Unless you think human skull shapes are shaped purely by "culture", the image very clearly shows that human races have distinct skull shapes. To even being fathoming that human skull shapes, across various races, are PURELY determined by culture and not genetics, if mind-warpingly stupid.

You totally dropped my point on phenotypic traits showing through albinism. I can't even begin to imagine how phenotypic traits (such as flatter noses for Africans) is something determined PURELY by culture.

3.  Your comment that "If that's too complicated for you" will surely result in me not taking you or anything else you have to say seriously.  That is particularly where, as here, you have been taken for a ride by a series of ideas that are devoid of any kind of scientific or other evidentiary basis.
Lol you're thin skinned.

You're not saying anything of substance. You're just finding fancy ways to say 'you're wrong'.

It's not even clear you can correctly repeat what, for example, Murray wrote on race and IQ; much less understand how Murray's methods were wrong, why or on what grounds.  
More Ad hom and a red herring. Even if I personally couldn't cite ANYTHING Murray wrote verbatim, how does that make human races an invalid concept? It doesn't, and the perhaps even you know that, hence why you continue to deflect with ad homs are irrelevant waffling.

Furthermore, there's plenty of data/research on this topic that isn't Charles Murray's work. The fact that you think the only race realist arguments I've referred to are Charles Murray's is objectively wrong, and everyone can click the link to see how ridiculous you are https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/ .

To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.
I don't know why you bothered to repeatedly ad hom and write 'you're wrong' in a pretty fancy way several times. If you're going to do that again, don't bother.

What a complete waste of time you've been so far.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Mesmer
See comment 30:

To wit, exactly nothing you have put forward can be taken seriously.


Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@coal
It's a shame you can't put your pretty words to good use, but I don't have time to read more ad homs and waffling.

Sod off.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Yep. You've already ad hommed me in this thread, which you should be able to find.
My God dude, grow up. You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. I never argued that your claims are invalid because you are a racist, I never even called you a racist. I implied that racism is the overwhelming driver of this conversation and challenged you to explain how and why I am wrong by providing some other reason this conversation matters. All you did was complain that I'm calling you names.

You don't understand race realism to such an egregious extent that you don't realize you're already a race realist, despite attempting to argue against it.
That's because your definition of race realism is probably the most pointless thing I've ever seen discussed on this site. There will always be differences between races because no two human beings are exactly alike, so those differences I described will always apply to any group of any kind that could ever be put together. Even if you separate a bunch of twins and create two separate teams out of them you will still have differences among them, so what is the point of talking about this? Please explain how we get from this to any policy discussion.

Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
My God dude, grow up. You clearly do not understand what an ad hominem is. I never argued that your claims are invalid because you are a racist, I never even called you a racist. I implied that racism is the overwhelming driver of this conversation and challenged you to explain how and why I am wrong by providing some other reason this conversation matters. All you did was complain that I'm calling you names.
You've implied that my argument is wrong because I'm an intellectually dishonest person Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .

You implied that my argument was invalid because I was a "racist" trying to justify my "racism" here Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

In both instances, you've ad hommed -- you've attacked my character in place of the argument I presented, and me being grown up or not doesn't change that fact lol.

Again, if you want to address the topic of this thread, rather than my character, feel free to start doing so.

That's because your definition of race realism is probably the most pointless thing I've ever seen discussed on this site. There will always be differences between races because no two human beings are exactly alike, so those differences I described will always apply to any group of any kind that could ever be put together. Even if you separate a bunch of twins and create two separate teams out of them you will still have differences among them, so what is the point of talking about this? Please explain how we get from this to any policy discussion.
"Pointless" is not equivalent to incorrect, hence you've already agreed that my argument is correct. If you want to then argue that race realism is "pointless", that comes after the fact of accepting race realism as a fact. Again, you're a race realist, not one who believes in valuing ethnostates, race-based social outcomes or deporting all black people, but one who believes that races can be grouped into genetically distinct groups (and thinking that it's pointless to do so). This is excellent because we can now discuss the policy implications of race realism which is a far more debatable topic. That's how we get to policy.

It goes beyond the scope of this thread, but this thread has been derailed into oblivion so there's little point in refraining from derailing it further, so I'll start to ask you meaningful questions: **if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
You've implied that my argument is wrong because
 
You implied that my argument was invalid because
In neither case did I even address you're argument. One example was a generalization, not even about you. The other spoke about your motivations for this thread, an important consideration for anyone deciding whether they want to engage in it. 

**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?
No.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
**if** certain racial groups had better abilities (say Jewish people with 108 I.Q. being better able to comprehend the written word -- you don't have to agree that this is true), would it be a good idea to attempt to account for that in policy?
No.
Alright. Let's move away from I.Q. for a moment.

Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy? Like if a certain racial group was far more prone to a certain disease, or a certain racial group excelled in a particular field? Or should these racial differences be totally ignored in policy?

I can think of some non-I.Q. examples for you to consider:

For example, lactose intolerance is particularly rampant across East Asian populations Percentage of Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity (and Geographic Region) - Milk Pro Con . Would it not be prudent policy to make sure lactose is noted on food/liquid products?

Another example, Koreans don't sweat to any significant degree, whilst Africans sweat a lot fgene-03-00306-g003.jpg (892×1167) (frontiersin.org) (taken from: Frontiers | Pharmacogenetics of human ABC transporter ABCC11: new insights into apocrine gland growth and metabolite secretion | Genetics (frontiersin.org) ). If these two racial groups lived in two different areas, should not one area aim to provide deodorant for its African population, whilst the other shouldn't bother with it nearly as much? Should the policies be the same for both areas, despite this genetic racial difference? 

Another example, let's say (hypothetically, because it's hard to quantify musical ability) African Americans are genetically predisposed to music and making better music than other racial groups. What it not be prudent policy to focus on nurturing this better ability through having more state-backed musical programs and different school curriculums, so that African Americans could polish their natural ability for music, and then better export this public good to the international market (as well as help African Americans self-actualize better)?
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
I’ve never seen a convincing argument against race realism, because there isn’t one. I would like someone who denies any significant differences between human populations to explain, for example, why 79 of the last 80 100 meter dash finalists at the last ten Olympics were of African ancestry 
I was going to reply to this earlier but I forgot to, so sorry. Still, better late than never imo.

They'd argue that (historically) African cultures promote sprinting. These kinds of people will argue that culture is the only thing that can affect people, assuming that people are born into a tabulsa rasa genetic set-up (i.e. you can be anything, so long as you try your best). They'd say that more money and effect is put into modern African sprinting, too. Finally, they'd also say that because we haven't found the sprinting genes, we can't yet say they exist (or even that they don't exist, or that it's random and based on individuals).

Those are the arguments of which I've heard.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy? Like if a certain racial group was far more prone to a certain disease, or a certain racial group excelled in a particular field? Or should these racial differences be totally ignored in policy?
They should be ignored. If say, African Americans are more prone to a particular type of disease, then that gives us an indication as to where the resources to fight that disease are likely to be needed. We don’t create a policy to fight the disease for African Americans in a way we would deny anyone else who comes down with the same illness.

This is exactly what happened with COVID, and in many cases we sent more resources to black communities. That’s not a racial issue, we did the same thing for seniors. Any group we recognize as being more likely to be in need of a resource will be more likely to have those resources available.

This is distinct though from policy. Policy is a proactive conversation, this is reactive. The policy says we’re going to fight COVID for everyone, the method figures out how to do that so we all have an equal chance of getting through it with our health in tact.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
They should be ignored. If say, African Americans are more prone to a particular type of disease, then that gives us an indication as to where the resources to fight that disease are likely to be needed. We don’t create a policy to fight the disease for African Americans in a way we would deny anyone else who comes down with the same illness.
Yes, policy shouldn't (ideally) deny other groups treatment. However, if you had a 95% of the same ethnic group in a particular country (South Korea has 95% Koreans South Korea - Wikipedia ,  China has Han Chinese at above 90% The Largest Ethnic Groups In China - WorldAtlas ), wouldn't it make sense to have a variety of policies that cater to the majority's needs and issues? It doesn't have to be at the expense of other groups. With the China example I gave, you can still have lactose products for sale, but clearly they need to indicate that they have lactose, otherwise the majority lactose intolerant population is going to be sick. How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"

This is exactly what happened with COVID, and in many cases we sent more resources to black communities. That’s not a racial issue, we did the same thing for seniors. Any group we recognize as being more likely to be in need of a resource will be more likely to have those resources available.

This is distinct though from policy. Policy is a proactive conversation, this is reactive. The policy says we’re going to fight COVID for everyone, the method figures out how to do that so we all have an equal chance of getting through it with our health in tact.
Sure, Covid policy isn't a race issue.

However, I gave several examples of policies that could be affected by race.

With the Chinese example, the policy could say 'we're going to make sure lactose is labelled on every product', in order to fight the fact that, genetically, Chinese people are lactose intolerant.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
Racial differences in humans are entirely cultural. No significant biological differences exist. The minor superficial cosmetic differences are not enough to categorize any difference taxinomicaly.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mesmer
That’s crazy because sprinting is basically pure physicality, and people of African descent but from all cultural backgrounds (Africa, Britain, United States, Caribbean) dominate the sport. I know we agree on this but it’s just so laughable that it needs to be said 

I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit. There’s a reason that in such a “systemically racist” country Asian people do extremely well (even though they *actually* face extremely well documented discrimination in university admissions and probably job hirings.) Culture has a lot to do with it, but pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy 
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
With the China example I gave, you can still have lactose products for sale, but clearly they need to indicate that they have lactose, otherwise the majority lactose intolerant population is going to be sick. How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"
Because race has nothing to do with it. Even if you can find an established correlation between races on lactose, that still has no place in government policy. The policy would be aimed at *people* who are lactose, not at people who share genetic traits with others who are lactose.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit.
Q1: Do you believe white people are largely responsible for the racial disparity within our society?

Q2: If yes, what do you think the appropriate response would be to the overall majority of white people who refuse to acknowledge this?

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Q1: Do you believe white people are largely responsible for the racial disparity within our society
No


Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Racial differences in humans are entirely cultural. No significant biological differences exist. The minor superficial cosmetic differences are not enough to categorize any difference taxinomicaly.
You've already made this assertion elsewhere and you've already been addressed (despite you ignoring/ not understanding it): "White Supremacist" is a racial slur (debateart.com) .

If you choose to ignore the response, that's a fault on your end and effectively a concession.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
These differences are entirely cosmetic.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
That’s crazy because sprinting is basically pure physicality, and people of African descent but from all cultural backgrounds (Africa, Britain, United States, Caribbean) dominate the sport. I know we agree on this but it’s just so laughable that it needs to be said 
Yeah. When you add a few more lines of dialogue, it becomes clear that these people are essentially arguing 'genetics don't exist'. The more affluent areas of the US and Britain will help these sprinters sprint faster, but clearly, with the reference to differing cultural backgrounds you've made, there is a genetic component in sprinting. But then some of these people will get hung up on the idea that 'race is a social construct' etc. etc.

I would be behind the “don’t talk about it” position if our political culture wasn’t enthusiastically pointing out every single metric of inequality as proof of racism and scapegoating white people as the culprit. There’s a reason that in such a “systemically racist” country Asian people do extremely well (even though they *actually* face extremely well documented discrimination in university admissions and probably job hirings.) Culture has a lot to do with it, but pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy 
Yeah, white people are overwhelmingly blamed for these issues that aren't necessarily issues we cause. Imo it gets scarier to think about when these issues aren't necessarily caused by anything external, but rather the functional result of being genetically African/Hispanic. If your race on average has: lower I.Q., lower impulse control, greater likelihood to have debilitating genes (for civilizations) like the MAO-A 'warrior gene', you're going to have worse modern societies on average. We can see this when we look at countries with majority Africans and the bottom of worldwide HDI index is full of African countries List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia . Mexico does way better, but it's still middling at #74. The top 30 countries are majority White, Asian or Jewish.

When you word it like that, "pretending like the tens of thousands of years of different selective pressures resulting in different cognitive abilities has nothing to do with it is just crazy", the absurdity of it becomes very clear. That's why I think race realists will eventually win the public over. The truth is somewhat obvious and the counter-narrative is such an egregious lie -- can't stay this way forever.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
These differences are entirely cosmetic.
Loci and SNP are literally genetic. Heterozygosity is built upon genetic differences. Fst values for within-between groups are measurements of genetic diversity. None of this is "purely cosmetic" -- you are completely wrong here.

The cranial influences things like I.Q., wherein roughly 0.3 of it correlates with cranial size. The shape tends to reflect the environment in which it was selected for, but it's theoretically possible that cranial shape was not specifically selected for/against because there was insufficient selective pressure -- this is the closest you could come to being right (and you didn't even make this argument; I'm being super charitable making better arguments for your side).

Phenotypic traits (mentioned in the albinism example) influence ability to cope with environments. For example, African have flatter, broader noses which allows them to cool down faster. In this regard, this makes them functionally superior to non-Africans when in hot environments, and hence this phenotypic trait is not "entirely cosmetic". There are plenty of other examples of this, too.

You clearly haven't read what I wrote or you don't understand it. I suggest you stop responding before you embarrass yourself further.
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
lets have a discussion. you will provide your argument for race realism then i will rebut along with whoever else wants to join in.

i will call you a racist that's not an ad hominem

drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
there are differences in races i dont deny that but these are mainly insignificant
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
you cannot use small genetic differences like some being more prone to sweat more
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Because race has nothing to do with it. Even if you can find an established correlation between races on lactose, that still has no place in government policy. The policy would be aimed at *people* who are lactose, not at people who share genetic traits with others who are lactose.
So I've argued that:

(1) Chinese is a valid racial category
(2) The vast majority of Chinese people are lactose intolerant

Hence, when a government produces policy that aims to aid its Chinese population's lactose intolerance, this is functionally policy that is responding to Chinese genetics -- Chinese genes are causing the lactose intolerance. Yes, other races can be lactose intolerant (would be interesting to know if this is because of Chinese admixture, but I digress), but this occurs far less frequently than with Chinese people. Lactose intolerance isn't a condition that spawns randomly in people; it is passed down through genetics, specifically Chinese genetics in my example. Thus we have a clear example of where race is what dictates policy.

You can try to cloak it in 'it's a lactose intolerance issue', but it's effectively a Chinese issue. If Chinese people weren't in your population, lactose intolerance would be far less of an issue because Chinese people would no longer be there -- the policy is **dependent** on Chinese people being there. Hence, race determined policy.
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Mesmer
do you think people shouldnt be able have children with chinese people because of lactose intolerance? what a joke dude
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
i will call you a racist that's not an ad hominem
Racist is a nonsense, malicious term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Even if I were a "racist" (whatever you mean by that), my argument isn't invalidated.

there are differences in races i dont deny that but these are mainly insignificant
You need to demonstrate that they are "mainly insignificant", or your argument is a bare assertion (a logical fallacy).

you cannot use small genetic differences like some being more prone to sweat more
You haven't demonstrated that this is a "small genetic difference". You need to reference its weighting.

You haven't argued as to why I can't use this or these types of differences, hence this is another bare assertion.
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
do you think people shouldnt be able have children with chinese people because of lactose intolerance? what a joke dude
No.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,334
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@drlebronski
I don't think he's saying that in post #53.
I think he's saying that the genetic makeup of a people, effect their actions/policies.
And making his case towards his OP claim race realism, or recognition of differences.

. . .

In response to your post though.
Would it be unreasonable for parents, or a society, to discourage their children or people, from breeding with an individual or people, recognized to have a genetic makeup that is seen as a weakening of the individual?

. . .

Then again, I 'think genetics vary widely in groups of people, if there's many of them.
Plenty of dumb (White/Black/Asian/Hispanic/So On) and plenty of intelligent (White/Black/Asian/Hispanic/So On)

And a Eugenic society wouldn't discriminate 'so much on race, as individuals, I'd 'think.
Since if a society was super anti lactose intolerance, they would prefer an Asian with no lactose intolerance, to a white guy 'with lactose intolerance, I'd think?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mesmer
You are moving the goal post by changing from superior as used by white supremacists and superior at "insert stated goal" and IQ tests are among the institutions that are used to justify systematic racism. I am dubious at best of their efficacy in determining actual human intelligence. Nothing you have said convinces me that a large widespread population of interreproductive individuals are not the same race. A white hooved Arabian stallion has softer hooves than a black hooves Arabian stallion they are superior at walking on sharp rocks but they are still the same species. No genetic findings support your claims. I'm sorry but this is not good science it is a justification to discriminate. 
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Lemming
I don't think he's saying that in post #53.
I think he's saying that the genetic makeup of a people, effect their actions/policies.
And making his case towards his OP claim race realism, or recognition of differences.
Thank you for not having -150 I.Q.


thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,061
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mesmer
If your race on average has: lower I.Q., lower impulse control, greater likelihood to have debilitating genes (for civilizations) like the MAO-A 'warrior gene', you're going to have worse modern societies on average. We can see this when we look at countries with majority Africans and the bottom of worldwide HDI index is full of African countries List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia . Mexico does way better, but it's still middling at #74. The top 30 countries are majority White, Asian or Jewish.
I don't want to go so far as to say that, but a highly successful and technological African or Amerindian society would definitely look different than a Western or Eastern one. The arc of history is long and we don't know how things will shake out in the end, but expecting perfect equality in all things is just ridiculous--groups of people are different. I also don't know how much of the IQ gap is environmental or cultural, what can be ameliorated in the near future with gene therapies, etc. PhD theses could be written about this stuff.