[Suntzu]

I have taken and given many I.Q. test including may non-verbal tests. I.Q. test seem to measure the tails of the curve pretty well. They can surely distinguish between 70 and 130, between 90 and 110. I wouldn't bet on between 95 and 105. Are I.Q. tests perfect? No. Are they useful? Yes. Can they tell if you are Black or White? No. Kill the messenger!

[Pants-of-dog]

It's actually pretty easy:

I inherit the genes of my parents, who inherit the genes of their parents, and so on; the genetics of groups become distinct because they have interbred with one another as an extended family for millennia. This is why Koreans, Nigerians, and Norwegians all look incredibly different from one another, right?

This accounts not just for differences in color, but also differences in their average heights and body structures, their hereditary diseases, their athletic talents, and, just as how our bodies are made of matter, it also affects their brains that are made of matter. Just as a mental disease can be inherited, so, too, can intelligence, as there is plenty of research showing that intelligence is heritable.

Right, race does not exist at all.

But the reason that certain groups excel at long distance running are genetically based, right?

So there would be such a thing as a gene pool that is relevant to a specific region or people, and certainly relevant to everyone that came out of it, right?

OK, like I said: race doesn't exist. I don't believe in it.

OK, a reminder to the group, this is what I had asked:

"We can simply all agree that certain groups of people have higher athletic aptitudes in certain categories than other groups of people, right? And so if two typical Kenyans from among the tribal groups that excel at long distance running have 10 children, the bulk (if not all) of those children will have the natural aptitude towards long distance running, right? "

So, two clear questions:

(1) Would the children of two people who excel at long distance running from the Kenyan tribes that excel at long distance running be more likely than other children to excel at long distance running?

Let's asy that they had 10 kids... I am sure it is possible that some of them weren't particularly good, but, on average, wouldn't their kids have a greater aptitude for long distance running?

(2) If yes, what does this say about gene pools for specific groups of people? Is it possible for a specific gene pool to produce better long distance runners?

Or is it the case that the Kenyan groups that compose less than ten or fifteen million people are just excellent at training at it or some such..?

Sure.

Race doesn't exist.

You convinced me with your better arguments and I have changed my mind.

But gene pools exist, right?

Please provide a scientific definition of race. By “scientific” i mean that it is empirically verifiable.

Please provide a link and quoted text from a source that says clearly that the races are distinct.

[Suntzu]

race
noun (2)



Definition of race (Entry 3 of 3)




1 : a breeding stock of animals


2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics


3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species
also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a groupb : breed

c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits


4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition


5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

[Verv]

Please provide a scientific definition of race. By “scientific” i mean that it is empirically verifiable.

Please provide a link and quoted text from a source that says clearly that the races are distinct.

You actually didn't read my post at all:

I said races are not distinct at all and instead gave you relevant questions in which race wasn't a factor!

I am just trying to get you to talk about things beyond your deflection -- the fact that genetics has an impact on people regardless of the semantics that exist above it.

The fact that you are utterly unwilling to get to that point shows just how clearly you fear the conversation.

It also shows that you intrinsically know something else: when we show that different gene pools demonstrate that the differences between people are not as superficial as color, it does become more clear that the category of race has merit. Perhaps it cannot be as defined as strictly as anyone suggests that it should be, but the patterns that go beyond mere physical appearance and coloration are certainly relevant when we are categorizing.

[Godstud]

I thought that there was some amount of hope when we were talking about how there can be tweaks in people's DNA to give them advantages here and there.

But I see that this is what you accused others of before: a deflection from the real arguments.

And then you turn around and say that races are not distinct, which would be the case if they were any science behind them. You can stuff your mealy-mouthed accusation bullshit up your nose. Your whole argument is a deflection.

Race is not a scientific classification. A few genetic advantages/disadvantages do not make humans living in certain areas belong to a specific race, of which no one with any scientific scruples has ever truly classified.

Race is primarily used to discriminate against people who don't look the way your specific group does. That's how it originally came into being, in the 1600s, with "scientists" trying to classify people as to make discrimination perfectly acceptabe.

Campaigns of oppression and genocide were often motivated by supposed racial differences. Manifest Destiny was founded on the basis of racial superiority/racism. Race isn't used in a functional way in society, but as a way to oppress and discriminate.

In 1978 the general assembly of the UNESCO considered the four previous statements and published a collective "Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice". This declaration included Apartheid as one of the examples of racism, an inclusion which caused South Africa to step out of the assembly. It declared that a number of public policies and laws needed to be implemented. It stated that:

- "All human beings belong to a single species."

- "All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic,
cultural and political development."

- "The differences between the achievements of the different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors."

- "Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate and eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity."

[Pants-of-dog]

You actually didn't read my post at all:

No, I did.

I noticed you did not, since you kept going with several strawmen that I already dismissed.

I said races are not distinct at all and instead gave you relevant questions in which race wasn't a factor!

I am just trying to get you to talk about things beyond your deflection -- the fact that genetics has an impact on people regardless of the semantics that exist above it.

Then you are conceding the IQ race debate.

Since the fact that races are distinct is a necessary premise for the argument that the different races have different intellectual capabilities.

The fact that you are utterly unwilling to get to that point shows just how clearly you fear the conversation.

This is a personal attack.
Ignored.

It also shows that you intrinsically know something else: when we show that different gene pools demonstrate that the differences between people are not as superficial as color, it does become more clear that the category of race has merit. Perhaps it cannot be as defined as strictly as anyone suggests that it should be, but the patterns that go beyond mere physical appearance and coloration are certainly relevant when we are categorizing.

Then provide scientific evidence. You have not so far.

Please provide a scientific definition of race. By “scientific” i mean that it is empirically verifiable.

[Godstud]

Since the fact that races are distinct is a necessary premise for the argument that the different races have different intellectual capabilities.

QFT. That's why the whole argument for race being even remotely scientific, fails.

[Verv]

I might have to really dissect this thread someday.

This is the most back & forth I've ever had with people who are absolutely committed to being obtuse in terms of genetics and who will literally mince words about category and classification as much as possible to avoid dealing with the actual topic.

And then you turn around and say that races are not distinct, which would be the case if they were any science behind them. You can stuff your mealy-mouthed accusation bullshit up your nose. Your whole argument is a deflection.

Race is not a scientific classification. A few genetic advantages/disadvantages do not make humans living in certain areas belong to a specific race, of which no one with any scientific scruples has ever truly classified.

Race is primarily used to discriminate against people who don't look the way your specific group does. That's how it originally came into being, in the 1600s, with "scientists" trying to classify people as to make discrimination perfectly acceptabe.

Campaigns of oppression and genocide were often motivated by supposed racial differences. Manifest Destiny was founded on the basis of racial superiority/racism. Race isn't used in a functional way in society, but as a way to oppress and discriminate.

In 1978 the general assembly of the UNESCO considered the four previous statements and published a collective "Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice". This declaration included Apartheid as one of the examples of racism, an inclusion which caused South Africa to step out of the assembly. It declared that a number of public policies and laws needed to be implemented. It stated that:

- "All human beings belong to a single species."

- "All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic,
cultural and political development."

- "The differences between the achievements of the different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors."

- "Any theory which involves the claim that racial or ethnic groups are inherently superior or inferior, thus implying that some would be entitled to dominate and eliminate others, presumed to be inferior, or which bases value judgements on racial differentiation, has no scientific foundation and is contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity."

Very first paragraph: vicious ad hominem attack; Rule 2 violation. Of course, the moderation team is not going to do anything to you, Godstud, but you should live with it in your heart that you heap up vile statements and accusations at your brother because you cannot mount a decent argument against the content he posts.

And what is the rest of this?

Some silly UN declaration that doesn't deal with the information that I put forward in the least and has no real basis to the nature of our discussion. You just unfurled some meaningless feel-good drivel that the UN passed in place of an actual argument.

... And if you can't participate in these discussions like an adult and that is all you have for us, why don't you just go back to Gorkiy Park?

No, I did.

I noticed you did not, since you kept going with several strawmen that I already dismissed.

...

Then you are conceding the IQ race debate.

Since the fact that races are distinct is a necessary premise for the argument that the different races have different intellectual capabilities.

Since you only talk about the classifications of race and this is your only real argument, the entirety of our discussion on race can be divided into three parts here.

I. I explain that classical definitions of race can be bogus or hasty, and I suggest that races are not entirely distinct but that there are some elements of social construct behind them.

II. I say that race is purely a social construct and ignore the subtlety and care with which the topic needs to be handled in hopes of getting you to discuss the relevance of genetics and gene pools and its affects on humans.

You ignored the totality of this content because you probably realized that you have no arguments that go beyond disputing the semantics.

III. We come full circle, and with the help of @Godstud and your absolute insistence that we stick to the semantics, we are back to my original position.

---

Whether we say that race exists as a category or not, genetics are going to have an affect on the athletic and cognitive abilities of people.

I am completely willing to use whatever terminology you want.

WIll you simply agree to talk about athletic/cognitive abilities and trends as they come from heritage?

Because, of course, there is no clear category for people with very mixed backgrounds, yet still they are also affected by their genes in terms of their health, appearance, athleticism, and cognition. So, indeed, "race" is partly a social construct, and there could also be dynamically different geopolitical realities that lead to different classifications...

But a hard reality is the affect that our genes have on us, is it not?

Can you think about this away from the semantics for a minute and actually say something remotely scientific?

Then provide scientific evidence. You have not so far.

Please provide a scientific definition of race. By “scientific” i mean that it is empirically verifiable.

Race is by necessity a social construct because it is always the sub-species classification of things.

But this is still irrelevant to the impact that it has on us.

[Sivad]

the fact that races are distinct is a necessary premise for the argument that the different races have different intellectual capabilities.

No it isn't, you don't need discreet groups with essential traits in order to ground 'race' in biology.

The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have over time provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real. However, significant scholarly debate persists regarding whether reproductive isolation, either during human evolution or through modern practices barring miscegenation, may have generated sufficient genetic isolation as to justify using the term race to signify the existence of non-discrete human groups that share not only physical phenotypes but also clusters of genetic material.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

[Hindsite]

Yes, race is a social construct even if we can tell blacks, whites, and Asians apart.

This is because there are a few genes associated with skin colour that make clear differences in phenotypes.

I believe I can agree with that even though I don't identify as a racist.

This does not mean that race is a an actual thing when looking at biology.

These statements seem contradictory, since I am pretty sure that genes and phenotypes are part of biology too.

[Godstud]

@Verv Ad Hominem? Insult? Your statement was inflammatory and ignorant. I referred to it accordingly, and attacked what you said, not you. I am sorry that you cannot differentiate between such things.

Your argument is still lacking.

[Hindsite]

@Verv Ad Hominem? Insult? Your statement was inflammatory and ignorant. I referred to it accordingly, and attacked what you said, not you. I am sorry that you cannot differentiate between such things.

You may fool the moderators, but not me. You could just point out were you disagree, but instead of attacking him directly with insults and Ad Hominem type attacks, you deliberately attack his ideas with those insults and Ad Hominem type attacks because you know the moderators let you get away with it.

[Godstud]

@Hindsite Do you have an argument or anything useful to say, or are you just here to comment on people's posting styles like some sort of fashion consultant?

If you have a problem with the @Global moderators, then I suggest you take it to the Basement.

[SolarCross]

I suppose once we start spreading out beyond earth then natural selection and genetic isolation will become orders of magnitude more profound. Speciesation will occur.

[Godstud]

If anything, I think humans will become more homogeneous.

[Rich]

Since the fact that races are distinct is a necessary premise for the argument that the different races have different intellectual capabilities.

No its not. the fact that height groups are not distinct does not mean that they don't have different high jump capabilities.

Some have complained about my insulting style. I do try and direct my insults to sets of people in the outside world, not to individual posters within the forum. My insults are often based on compassion, attempting to goad the target group into educating themselves or reducing their hypocrisy. So we do have a problem generally with ignorant lefties. They don't know why "the Bell Curve" was called "The Bell Curve". that's assuming they've know of the Bell curve at all.

[ThirdTerm]

The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have over time provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real. However, significant scholarly debate persists regarding whether reproductive isolation, either during human evolution or through modern practices barring miscegenation, may have generated sufficient genetic isolation as to justify using the term race to signify the existence of non-discrete human groups that share not only physical phenotypes but also clusters of genetic material.

Race doesn't exist only if it's biologically defined as "a sub-species on verge of speciation". A study of ancient DNA suggests that a mysterious sub-species of ancient human could have reached Australia after crossing Wallace’s Line in southeast Asia over 100,000 years ago. The traces of Denisovan DNA in modern human genomes appear to be confined to indigenous populations in Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas (5-6%). Physical anthropologists in the early 20th century noted morphological parallels between Australian Aboriginals and the peoples of India, giving rise to the construct of the Australoid race, which has been questioned in the light of the recent genetic evidence.



In human genetics, the old concept of race is replaced with ancestry or population, while we cannot deny the existence of genetic differences across populations. But ancestry is not synonymous with race and the term was born of an urgent need to discuss genetic differences between them with a precise language. The race vocabulary is too ill-defined for scientific discussions, loaded with historical baggage. A pure Nordic racial group that anthropologists imaged doesn't exist as most European populations are either part African or Asian genetically (e.g. hg E from Africa, hg N from Asia.) Hg N-M231 arose in East Asia approximately 19,400 (±4,800) years ago and re-populated northern Eurasia in areas as far away as Fennoscandia and the Baltic (Finns 51-61%, Estonian 40%.)

Here we analyse ancient genomic data from 11 individuals from Finland and north-western Russia. We show that the genetic makeup of northern Europe was shaped by migrations from Siberia that began at least 3500 years ago. This Siberian ancestry was subsequently admixed into many modern populations in the region, particularly into populations speaking Uralic languages today. Additionally, we show that ancestors of modern Saami inhabited a larger territory during the Iron Age, which adds to the historical and linguistic information about the population history of Finland.

The Native-American-related ancestry seen in the EHG and Bolshoy corresponds to a previously reported affinity towards Ancient North Eurasians (ANE)2,33 contributing genes to both Native Americans and West Eurasians. ANE ancestry also comprises part of the ancestry of Nganasans2.

Haplogroup N1c, to which this haplotype belongs, is the major Y-chromosomal lineage in modern north-east Europe and European Russia. It is especially prevalent in Uralic speakers, comprising for example as much as 54% of eastern Finnish male lineages today36. Notably, this is the earliest known occurrence of Y-haplogroup N1c in Fennoscandia. Additionally, within the Bolshoy population, we observe the derived allele of rs3827760 in the EDAR gene, which is found in near-fixation in East Asian and Native American populations today, but is extremely rare elsewhere37, and has been linked to phenotypes related to tooth shape38 and hair morphology39.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07483-5

[Pants-of-dog]

I. I explain that classical definitions of race can be bogus or hasty, and I suggest that races are not entirely distinct but that there are some elements of social construct behind them.

This is vague.

II. I say that race is purely a social construct and ignore the subtlety and care with which the topic needs to be handled in hopes of getting you to discuss the relevance of genetics and gene pools and its affects on humans.

You ignored the totality of this content because you probably realized that you have no arguments that go beyond disputing the semantics.

None of this is an argument. It is merely your opinion about my debating style.

III. We come full circle, and with the help of @Godstud and your absolute insistence that we stick to the semantics, we are back to my original position.

---

Whether we say that race exists as a category or not, genetics are going to have an affect on the athletic and cognitive abilities of people.

This is not your original position.

Your original position was that the differenxes between the races are so distinct and clear, and some races are clearly more advantageous to have around and that this is a rational reason for racism.

If you are now conceding that original argument and now are advocating this very different argument, okay.

I am completely willing to use whatever terminology you want.

WIll you simply agree to talk about athletic/cognitive abilities and trends as they come from heritage?

Because, of course, there is no clear category for people with very mixed backgrounds, yet still they are also affected by their genes in terms of their health, appearance, athleticism, and cognition. So, indeed, "race" is partly a social construct, and there could also be dynamically different geopolitical realities that lead to different classifications...

But a hard reality is the affect that our genes have on us, is it not?

Can you think about this away from the semantics for a minute and actually say something remotely scientific?

It is obvious and true that genetics has an effect on us.

No one ever disputed this.

Race is by necessity a social construct because it is always the sub-species classification of things.

But this is still irrelevant to the impact that it has on us.

I think you mean "relevant".

----------------

No it isn't, you don't need discreet groups with essential traits in order to ground 'race' in biology.

If you are arguing that some of these groups have essential traits and others do not, you are implicitly assuming thay there are groups that can be discretely defined by these essential traits.

The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have over time provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real. However, significant scholarly debate persists regarding whether reproductive isolation, either during human evolution or through modern practices barring miscegenation, may have generated sufficient genetic isolation as to justify using the term race to signify the existence of non-discrete human groups that share not only physical phenotypes but also clusters of genetic material.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

Yes, the debate exists.

Some of us are having it right now.

[SolarCross]

:lol: If anything, I think humans will become more homogeneous.

You are wrong.

[Godstud]

Did you consult your crystal ball, or did you check the stars?