Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
Your question isn't what the OP is about. Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality. You're moving the goalposts by demanding that I provide airtight governmental policy with race realism. As to what governmental policy should be applied when race realism as accepted is entirely irrelevant to the validity of race realism.

What is the **actual** difference between the HUTU and TUTSI tribes ?


The TUTSI are taller and more elegant.


IT WAS THE **BELGIANS** THAT CREATED THE DIVISION.


IT WAS THE **BELGIANS** THAT CREATED THE DIVISION.


How ?


They picked people, those with thinner noses and lighter skin, they used to measure the width of people's noses.


The **BELGIANS** used the TUTSI to run the country.


And then when they left, they left the power to the HUTU.


And of course the HUTU took revenge on the "elite" TUTSI for years of repression.


Am I telling the truth Paul ?


Yes, unfortunately.

#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
Well, I will try showing it to you in another way because it did not work. You should not conflate that with a concession.
100% THIS.
#93
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
I hope these understandings help you comprehend race realism better.
"RACE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GENETICS"
Topic's author
#94
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
"RACE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GENETICS"
This is the most stupid thing I've seen you say. It's also within the top 10 most stupid comments I've seen on this website.

The Weekly Stupid should be brought back just for this comment.
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
"RACE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GENETICS"
This is the most stupid thing I've seen you say. It's also within the top 10 most stupid comments I've seen on this website.

The Weekly Stupid should be brought back just for this comment.
HUMANS WERE CATEGORIZED BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS LONG BEFORE "GENETIC MARKERS" WERE EVER PROPOSED
Topic's author
#96
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
HUMANS WERE CATEGORIZED BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS LONG BEFORE "GENETIC MARKERS" WERE EVER PROPOSED
Yes, biology didn't exist until genetic markers were proposed.

Yes, human characteristics are totally random and aren't a result of biological evolution.

Except for Black people. Black people decided to be black because they felt like it.
#97
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
If you think there is a contradiction to my characterization of your argument (there's not), then you need to demonstrate that, instead of barely asserting it.
Your characterization was inaccurate. I said this:

Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time
You said this:

You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested.
That is a completely different meaning.
Topic's author
#98
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

When a locus is tested, that is 'one time'. When 100 loci are tested, that is 100 times. When 5 of those 100 loci are more similar between than within groups, they are more similar 5% of the time (due to 5% of the loci tested). When you say "38% of the time" that means  "38% of the loci tested" because that's how you determine the percentage of time wherein there is similarity -- this is what your quoted study is talking about.

You don't understand this because you think your study refers to *total impact* of that variance (i.e. a single locus producing lactose intolerance is of greater impact than having a mandible 0.00001 mms higher), instead of *total instances* (i.e. how many loci differ, ignoring their impact). This is why you made the stupid 'more variation within than between' argument.
#99
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.
From my last post - Respond to this point.

I specifically walked you through the Chinese example showing:

(1) That lactose intolerance is a problem for Chinese people
(2) That China is a overwhelmingly majority Chinese (specifically Han).
(3) That people vote primarily on race; you need to make issues race based to best have a chance when running for office
(C) Policy in China should address the Chinese lactose intolerance

You've agreed to all the premises yet won't accept the conclusion
I never denied this conclusion, but I am questioning how you came to yours.

How did you determine that the Chinese government should do anything? Cause it sounds almost like you have some standard in your mind regarding how a government should function and are applying that standard to inform your conclusion about what you think should happen here.
#100
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Mesmer
Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

When a locus is tested, that is 'one time'. When 100 loci are tested, that is 100 times. When 5 of those 100 loci are more similar between than within groups, they are more similar 5% of the time (due to 5% of the loci tested). When you say "38% of the time" that means  "38% of the loci tested" because that's how you determine the percentage of time wherein there is similarity -- this is what your quoted study is talking about.
"of the time" is referring to genetic similarity between one random European and a random Asian. It is not referring to a genetic locus. You made that up and your interpretation is baseless. Look at what the study says and the context:

Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population [...] pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population [...] These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, 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 (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/


You don't understand this because you think your study refers to *total impact* of that variance (i.e. a single locus producing lactose intolerance is of greater impact than having a mandible 0.00001 mms higher), instead of *total instances* (i.e. how many loci differ, ignoring their impact). This is why you made the stupid 'more variation within than between' argument.
Well map every single gene on the genome and figure out what all of it does, come back with a list of impacts and figure out which loci are important and which are not. Assign them a significance value, say 1-10. Then you can say "this gene matters, this gene doesn't matter" etc. Let me guess: You're going to select the ancestral markers as the only important loci.
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
HUMANS WERE CATEGORIZED BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS LONG BEFORE "GENETIC MARKERS" WERE EVER PROPOSED
Yes, biology didn't exist until genetic markers were proposed.
THE IDENTIFICATION AND DISCRIMINATION OF AND AGAINST PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF "GENETIC MARKERS".
#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@dfss9788
Well map every single gene on the genome and figure out what all of it does, come back with a list of impacts and figure out which loci are important and which are not. Assign them a significance value, say 1-10. Then you can say "this gene matters, this gene doesn't matter" etc. Let me guess: You're going to select the ancestral markers as the only important loci.
Well stated.
#103
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
A "critical tenant".......Is someone that complains about the rent.



Notwithstanding that......Everyone is aware of perceivable differences and either does or doesn't discriminate....Therefore, race realism.

Though I would suggest that everyone will discriminate to a certain degree....Human nature.


Education and familiarity will increase tolerance and reduce discrimination....But it's a slow process.
#104
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Everyone is aware of perceivable differences and either does or doesn't discriminate
That's not the same as "race-realism".
#105
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
As I've said previously, there is more genetic diversity in people of the same skin color than between them.. this is a fact that has been known for a while; therefore, any noticable difference in outcome or performance, logically speaking, cannot be a result of genes. Otherwise such large disparations would not account for such a wide population of said group, it is therefore most likely the case that environment is the cause of said differences in outcomes. 

Oh look, we knew that already too. 
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mesmer
I hope these understandings help you comprehend race realism better.
Would you say that "race-realism" means "some people are born better and smarter and with greater moral capacity" ?
#107
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
For sure...But it's an inevitable outcome of race reality.

Race Realism is a truism......Doesn't take much understanding.
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Would you say that "some people (with similar physical characteristics) are born better and smarter and with greater moral capacity" ?
#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Moral capacity is a variable concept, greatly influenced by variable conditioning and not directly relative to mental capacity or incapacity.

Genetic modification and development is such that better and smarter, was/is an inevitability.

In simple terms better and smarter, tends to breed with better and smarter.

And history clearly shows us that better and smarter certainly does have a variable approach to morality.


And physical characteristics are generally pretty standard anyway..... One head, two arms, two legs, with a few cosmetic variations, as it were.
Topic's author
#110
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
I think I've crystallized my position best in the previous post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . You've decided to drop most of it and ask specific questions, but I think I already answered those questions (or provided enough information in those questions) in what you dropped. I don't think there's any point in continuing, if you're going to do that.


Topic's author
#111
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@dfss9788
Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

When a locus is tested, that is 'one time'. When 100 loci are tested, that is 100 times. When 5 of those 100 loci are more similar between than within groups, they are more similar 5% of the time (due to 5% of the loci tested). When you say "38% of the time" that means  "38% of the loci tested" because that's how you determine the percentage of time wherein there is similarity -- this is what your quoted study is talking about.
"of the time" is referring to genetic similarity between one random European and a random Asian. It is not referring to a genetic locus. You made that up and your interpretation is baseless.
This is usually where I directly quote the study's methodology (not the abstract, which for some reason you think will explain the methodology). However, it's jargon heavy, not an easy read at all (took me many minutes) and the average person isn't going to understand it. I've already attempted to explain what it means, but you've decided to label that as "baseless" lol. 

So, I'll try another way.

Bamshad (2003), Guo (2015), Alloco (2007) have all produced results showing that self-ascribed Asians fit into the Asian category 97%+ of the time, even when K > 2 (your Asian-white example being K = 2), and even when far less genetic markers were used compared to your cited study Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . 

We can also look at Lao (2010) who managed to produce 99.9% Evaluating Self-declared Ancestry of U.S. Americans with Autosomal, Y-chromosomal and Mitochondrial DNA (nih.gov) , and Rosenberg 2005, Rische 2005, Witherspoon 2007 and Porras-Hurtado 2013 all replicated either Bamshad's or Guo's findings. Notice that "Witherspoon" is one of the researchers who conducted the study you cited, and here is Witherspoon claiming something that contradicts your interpretation of Witherspoon's previous study.

You're essentially claiming that when K = 2, Asians only fit their category 62% of the time -- way off what most studies are showing.

Do you see that now? If not, how do you explain all this research that contradicts what you've argued?

Well map every single gene on the genome and figure out what all of it does, come back with a list of impacts and figure out which loci are important and which are not. Assign them a significance value, say 1-10. Then you can say "this gene matters, this gene doesn't matter" etc. Let me guess: You're going to select the ancestral markers as the only important loci.
I've already explained to you why researchers don't do the entire genome. You've indicated that you don't believe this is a reasonable standard yourself by citing a paper which doesn't measure the entire genome, yet using it to make an argument.

The reason I mentioned "significance value" was that I was trying to explain how your study found the 38% number. Don't take that out of context.
Topic's author
#112
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
A "critical tenant".......Is someone that complains about the rent.
Thanks lol.

Notwithstanding that......Everyone is aware of perceivable differences and either does or doesn't discriminate....Therefore, race realism.
Race realism isn't built upon just "perceivable differences". It's built upon research and data that show "perceivable differences" are scientifically sound concepts (e.g. race).

Though I would suggest that everyone will discriminate to a certain degree....Human nature.
Yes, and they're discriminating based on real, biological differences -- that's a key tenet of race realism.

Education and familiarity will increase tolerance and reduce discrimination....But it's a slow process.
People who have become "tolerant" get electorally beaten by people who vote based on racial lines Non-White Conservatives STILL Vote Democrat - altCensored . Being "tolerant" is a LOSING strategy, when it comes to nationwide affairs.

The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it WILL work, btw. You haven't.
Topic's author
#113
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I've said previously, there is more genetic diversity in people of the same skin color than between them.. this is a fact that has been known for a while
As I've shown you previously, the 'more variation within than between' argument is stupid and wrong. This is a fact that has been known for a while.

We'll use your stupid logic to show how stupid you are:

Depending on which and the amount of loci you use (taken from 1996 study: variation within than between chimpanzees - Bing images ), there is more variation within than between chimpanzee and human groups  1996-nei-takezaki.pdf (psu.edu) . After all, humans are genetically 96-99% similar to chimpanzees New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level. Are we now the same as chimpanzees, or are distinction between us arbitrary, because 'there is more variation within than between?'

We'll again use your stupid logic to show how stupid you are:

You can also model gender differences as an fst distance, treating the Y-chromosome and deactivated analogues on the X-chromosome as an allele frequency difference of 100% (which means 100% variation at those gene locations). If we do this, we find that there is 'more variation within than between' men and women  Imgur: The magic of the Internet (taken from: Race compared to Family and Gender – The Alternative Hypothesis ) .  So, according to your logic, there are no valid genetic categories of 'men' and 'women.

For anyone non-stupid who is interested in the actual science as to why he is wrong (i.e. not theweakeredge), here is the science behind why the 'more variation within than between' argument is stupid and wrong: Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis . In short, humans differ more times at individual genetic markers between races, but the total effect of those differences still makes racial distinctions valid.

herefore, any noticable difference in outcome or performance, logically speaking, cannot be a result of genes. Otherwise such large disparations would not account for such a wide population of said group, it is therefore most likely the case that environment is the cause of said differences in outcomes. 
Your 100% environment explanation is fringe, stupid and wrong. You're literally denying the existence of genetics, at this point -- you are that stupid.
#114
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mesmer
I think I've crystallized my position best in the previous post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . You've decided to drop most of it and ask specific questions, but I think I already answered those
You haven’t addressed a damn thing, that’s why I dropped the rest of it and asked you again to address the part of the conversation that actually mattered. You now respond by dropping the entire conversation.

Once again, you cannot claim the government should be doing anything without a conception, standard, ideology, (call it whatever you want) of what a government is supposed to be in the first place.

Like I said earlier, I find it very telling when someone is challenged on the foundation of their position and responds by first pretending not to understand the most basic of concepts (like what is a standard?) and then ending the conversation when it becomes clear that they cannot pivot their way out of it.
#115
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
As I stated to 3RU7AL....Race Realism is a truism....Doesn't take a lot of science to work it out.

As you state above, the science is in understanding the detail.
Topic's author
#116
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated to 3RU7AL....Race Realism is a truism....Doesn't take a lot of science to work it out.
The problem with this is that the average person doesn't understand the science, and so they're susceptible to idiots like theweakeredge coming along and saying 'more difference within than between', or drlebronski saying 'heritability doesn't exist'. 

Some people also just genuinely hate people of other races purely because they are of other races, so people tend to conflate that with race realism, too.

Having all the science helps people steer clear of that stupidity.

Also, you dropped everything else I said lol.

#117
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
So in not so many words....What is the crux of your contention?
#118
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Moral capacity is a variable concept, greatly influenced by variable conditioning and not directly relative to mental capacity or incapacity.

Genetic modification and development is such that better and smarter, was/is an inevitability.

In simple terms better and smarter, tends to breed with better and smarter.

And history clearly shows us that better and smarter certainly does have a variable approach to morality.


And physical characteristics are generally pretty standard anyway..... One head, two arms, two legs, with a few cosmetic variations, as it were.
Is this a "yes" or a "no" ?
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated to 3RU7AL....Race Realism is a truism....Doesn't take a lot of science to work it out.
EXACTLY HOW MANY "RACES" ARE OBJECTIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE ?
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You haven’t addressed a damn thing, that’s why I dropped the rest of it and asked you again to address the part of the conversation that actually mattered. You now respond by dropping the entire conversation.
Well stated.