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).
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.Your 100% environment explanation is fringe, stupid and wrong. You're literally denying the existence of genetics, at this point -- you are that stupid.
You haven’t addressed a damn thing
So it is really a case of where does one begin categorising and stop sub-categorising.
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).A CLASSIC CASE OF A CONCLUSION SEARCHING DESPERATELY FOR A JUSTIFICATION.
Among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other "races" combined.If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.
Dog breeds aren't particularly interesting biological entities, either. Many modern dog breeds claim to have ancient roots, but they are, for the most part, relatively recent (within the past few hundred years) reconstructions of purportedly ancient breeds. You can take this as a testament to how well selective breeding can effect great physical change in a very short time.
You might like this,Stanford University's AI can tell if you're gay or straight from a photo
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).A CLASSIC CASE OF A CONCLUSION SEARCHING DESPERATELY FOR A JUSTIFICATION.How did you reach that conclusion?
Among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other "races" combined.If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.Nope.When K = 3 and at least 100 genetic markers are used, 'Africans' are genetically distinct from 'Asians' and 'Europeans' at 100% Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) .
You might like this,Stanford University's AI can tell if you're gay or straight from a photoWhat does this have to do with race realism (you know, the thread's topic)?
Gathering data to merely confirm a pre-existing perception is a perfect example of MOTIVATED-REASONING.
Among the "races", Africans have a much higher level of genetic diversity than the other "races" combined.If there were meaningful human "races", most of them would be African.Nope.When K = 3 and at least 100 genetic markers are used, 'Africans' are genetically distinct from 'Asians' and 'Europeans' at 100% Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) .YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF YOU FACTOR-OUT THE KNOWN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AFRICANS, THEN THEY MAGICALLY BECOME SIMILAR.
PERHAPS YOU ALSO SUBSCRIBE TO "SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-REALISM".
The argument for human races stands alone by itself.
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?
99.9% of the genome is the same.
This is a strawman argument. 99.9% of the genome is the same. Human genetic variation (save for weird things like trisomy) is going to be that last 0.01% of the genome. Certain parts of the genome (e.g. ancestral markers) are consistent within population groups. I'm imagining that these studies are simply focusing on things like that and aren't looking at the entire genome.
Focus on that 0.01% difference. There is a way to measure how much you have in common with another person genetically. Select a random white person, call him "W1". Select another white person, call him "W2". Select a random Asian person, call him "A1". Test them genetically to see if W1 is more closely related to W2 or A1. 38% of the time when you perform this test, you will find that W1 is more closely related to A1 than he is to W2. This is a different test than looking at only the parts of the genome which are consistent within population groups. That test focuses on what the races do not have in common. Further reading: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
BTW it is good to directly quote statements from source material when you claim that a source supports your position. When this is done iIt's a lot less work to verify that a source actually supports a position, and it is not much work for the source's proponent to present the supportive statements within the source (supposing the source actually does support him). People often make a claim, imply that some linked source supports their claim and try to leave it to other people to prove that the source does not support their position. I'm afraid my patience with that sort of thing has run out and I will disregard any implication that any source supports any claim unless this is done.
The fact that racism existed BEFORE genetic markers were discovered eliminates the possibility that racism is caused by an awareness of genetic markers.
Nobody on the planet is disputing that HUMANS ARE DIVERSE AND INHERIT SOME CHARACTERISTICS FROM THEIR PARENTS.You don't need a biopsy syringe to figure that one out.
What we seem to be disputing is that LUMPING RUSSIANS AND ITALIANS AND IRISH AND GREEKS AND ALGERIANS AND EGYPTIANS INTO A SINGLE GROUP, and calling this group, "WHITE AMERICANS" IS 100% ARBITRARY.How do you explain this obvious intra-group genetic diversity ?
How do you explain HALF-BREEDS ?
I wonder if this is you being genetically incapable of understanding racial in-group bias and the effect that it has on politics.
You have a false conception of race realism. Race realism is about outlining the differences between racial groups. That's 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?
Is there any racial difference that, in your mind, should ever be accounted for through policy?
How would such a policy, based on race, be "arbitrary?"
So I've argued that:(1) Chinese is a valid racial category(2) The vast majority of Chinese people are lactose intolerantHence, 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
You're rejecting race realism on the grounds that you don't like what you see as the "white supremacist" talking points. That's fine and you're well within your rights to do that.However, you are indeed a race realist because you believe human racial categories as valid concepts.
The topic of this conversation has been whether race realism *should* play any role on government policy, so unfortunately almost nothing you argued addresses anything I’ve said.
"You made that up and your interpretation is baseless."I'm not interested in your interpretation of the methodology you got from the abstract (hint: the methodology isn't explained there).
They are getting the 38% number from the individual chance for loci being different/similar. if you don't want to accept that, then your word is against the dozen studies I've referenced.
As I previously explained, much to your inabiltiy to listen, that's a stupid rebuke, it's a logical fallacy in every meaning of the word.
First of all, whenever I say genetic diversity, I am talking on a scale of humanity, we can hone in on the specifics within human genes and talk about the difference there. Your comparison to chimpanzees is stupid, because comparitively the difference is night and day, we are talking about the distinction between humans. In other words, we are talking about the 1 to 4%, and the difference is minute.
Second, we are talking about a basis to claim that black or hispanic people are less intelligent or something of that measure based on genetics or inherently, if this was the case then we would see a collective difference between black and white people, which would cause this gap in intelligence, we can observe no such thing, any observation of differences in IQ cannot be acredited to genetics and have to be environmental in roots.
Your argument is not the smoking gun you think it is, we can zoom in genetically speaking, and talk about soley human differences - you're being a moron.
His argument is generally this:1. People self identify as a race2. There are genetic markers which correlate to the self identified races3. Therefore race is not a social construct
WANTED: MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACYDespite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations); the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly 100 years ago. They, and the concomitant difference in standard of living, level of education, and related phenomena, lie in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. The IQ differences are attributable to differences in brain size more than to racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given by the commentators. It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the “moralistic fallacy” that good science must conform to approved outcomes.
Nounrace realism (uncountable)(euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
We've already been through all the posts you've listed.We got up to this post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com). For some reason, you decided to drop most of the arguments in that, claiming that all of it didn't address "a damn thing" of what you wrote. Even if that were true, you'd need to show it rather than barely assert it.
For the last time: I don't see any point in continuing if you can't address that post.
I did show it, I gave you a post by post break down of how we got here.
Note that as I just went through painstaking detail to explain to you
If you are not interested in this conversation that’s fine, just stop pretending that I’m the one who shut it down and ran away.
