On the epidemic of truth inversion - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15311769
@Unthinking Majority

We don't consider blue eyes vs green eyes or brown hair vs blonde hair to be different races, however. You're diminishing the entire meaning and usecase of the concept of race in a bid to claim it as a scientific observation... But why? Of course it's very easy to say "that person is black and that person is yellow" but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as a black race or yellow race anymore than there is a blonde race or blue eyes race or ginger race or arch nosed race.

Why is so damn important to say "race exists as a scientific phenomenon" as opposed to "race is a belief with real world effects but is ultimately an arbitrary designation that varies based on time, culture, and place"?
#15311788
The wide genomic variation in Saharan and sub Saharan Africa should be of great interest scientifically. But politically this is often just an irrelevant Liberal talking point. Be under no illusions, the Liberal doesn't care about the Pygmies. The Liberals doesn't care about the wide spread enslavement of Pigmies by the Bantu. No that's the last thing the Liberal wants to attract attention to, it would divert from his White men are evil narrative.

Yes there is wide variability in the African genome, something many Africans seem actually eager to reduce. The genocide of Pygmies for example in the Congo Civil war is not something that the "Black Lives Matter" Liberal seems to care much about.

But as i said this is largely irrelevant. The Liberal morons love to parrot lines about the variation in African genomes. First off I have stated a number of times on this forum that the Mediterranean divide is a cultural one not a racial one. In pre modern times seas as opposed to oceans connected peoples rather than dividing them. But even if we limit ourselves to Sub Saharan populations ,just because there is a high variation, does not mean we can assume a high variance. When the Liberal says there is a higher variation within races (that don't exist obliviously than between them, what does this even mean mathematically. How do they get the sigma in the first place and how do they get a standard deviation from two averages?
#15311795
Rich wrote:The wide genomic variation in Saharan and sub Saharan Africa should be of great interest scientifically. But politically this is often just an irrelevant Liberal talking point. Be under no illusions, the Liberal doesn't care about the Pygmies. The Liberals doesn't care about the wide spread enslavement of Pigmies by the Bantu. No that's the last thing the Liberal wants to attract attention to, it would divert from his White men are evil narrative.

Yes there is wide variability in the African genome, something many Africans seem actually eager to reduce. The genocide of Pygmies for example in the Congo Civil war is not something that the "Black Lives Matter" Liberal seems to care much about.

But as i said this is largely irrelevant. The Liberal morons love to parrot lines about the variation in African genomes. First off I have stated a number of times on this forum that the Mediterranean divide is a cultural one not a racial one. In pre modern times seas as opposed to oceans connected peoples rather than dividing them. But even if we limit ourselves to Sub Saharan populations ,just because there is a high variation, does not mean we can assume a high variance. When the Liberal says there is a higher variation within races (that don't exist obliviously than between them, what does this even mean mathematically. How do they get the sigma in the first place and how do they get a standard deviation from two averages?


Well you are kinda putting the cart before the horse there. First you would need to convince liberals that black people actually exist
#15311811
Fasces wrote:Just come out and say you don't care about the science of it. :lol:


This is what he is about.

And @Potemkin the reason he can't try you on the ring thing is because he does not have an answer for that either.

So now, we know he has neither science or basic logic.

Next. :lol: :D

Now, if he knew a bit about genetics and tracing human origins he needs to have read thoroughly Dr. Spencer Wells.

A prominent scientist in that specific field.

https://media.nationalgeographic.org/as ... ells-4.pdf

There is also a great documentary featuring Dr. Wells. Has he seen it?

If he has not? And refuses to do the work but wants to win arguments about race based on solid science he will have to use Dr. Wells.

He has shown an unwillingness to do it.

Probably because it makes his theories on it invalid.

Like most of his thinking it drops into irrationality.
#15311813
FiveofSwords wrote:Well whatever dude. Clearly you are determined to not believe that human biodiversity exists so there is no way to have a conversation about it. I encourage you to believe whatever you want or need to believe...I have nothing left to explain to you.

Nothing in what I have posted suggests a denial of genetic variation, but rather I attempted to hold you to your original point and then you just move on from it when it was questioned. You didn't double down on how civilization (vague term) produces homogenity and when I emphasized the genetic evidence about the out-of-Africa theory that follows the well established pattern of genetic drift with a smaller subset of origin populations and produces founder effects, you just ignored it. I'm not speaking gibberish but using concepts establish in genetic research. But somehow that amounted to, the extreme characterization of not recognizing genetic variation at all as if everyone is a clone.

Now back to the more interesting post:
FiveofSwords wrote:You still just seem to be making a spectrum fallacy and you are overcomplicating what ought to be a simple subject.

We know there are an infinite number of hues between red and orange. Where exactly you draw the line between red and orange is arbitrary. But that doesn't mean red and orange don't exist. Clearly there exist. There are colors which are OBVIOUSLY red and colors which are OBVIOUSLY orange. And then between them there exists a sort of range where people might disagree whether this hue is red or orange or just say it is some sort of mix and they cannot confidently say whether it is red or orange. This is actually fine...it need not cause any fundamental issues eithbusing red or orange as different hues of color. Maybe you just need to study more mathematical set theory or something for this to become intuitive and for this sort of thinking to be comfortable.

Because all life is intrinsically clinal. That is just how evolution works. Okay? It isn't like categories you may be more familiar with...there are not an infinite number of tools between a hammer and a screwdriver. But if tools came into existence from some process of evolution, there would be. But still even if that were the case, we could meaningfully speak of hammers and screwdrivers.

But anyway...with human biodiversity...it isn't like everything is spread evenly. That would be an incorrect and dishonest description of the design one would get if you associated dna with plotting points in some sort of space. What really happens with humans is that there are a lot of people who are really closely bunched up with eachother..and a lot of fairly empty space. It's kinda like planets in the solar system. It probably isn't true that there is zero mass at all between earth and Mars. There probably is some random particle...even if it was just debris left by some rocket we sent...that is between us. But nobody pretends they cannot tell where earth ends and Mars begins. Human dna clusters are similar to that.

Unlike the planets, however, dna clusters also have significant sub clusters. Kinda as if instead of one big mass the planets where actually 5 Or 6 bits of rock orbiting eachother. Thus we can clearly observe a general 'white' cluster but we also see inside that distinct clusters around Russian, English, Spanish, etc. So 'white' is a perfectly meaningful catrgory...which you can even detect visually...and also the subcategories are also...which may or may not be easy to visually identify. For example, perhaps you can tell a person is white but you aren't sure whether they are English or French (but stereotypical archetypes of both do exist and do correspond somewhat to reality).

Naturally there is also then a sort of borderland region which for Europeans would be southern italy...where there is significant overlap with southern Italians and jews, and jews with middle eastern populations. But once again, you have to be careful not to fall into the 'spectrum fallacy'.. of course it is arbitrary where you draw the line among southern Italians and say 'this is where being white begins'...but that arbitrary nature does not mean white never begins.

If you can understand all of that conceptually, I could then move on to a more advanced topic...which imo is a better way to classify life in general and also shows why racial categories are so important...am I losing you yet?
Image

Here your color point reiterates what I have also stated, that the inability to mark a specific line of distinction does not render everything the same.
But your emphasis on clusters, isn't illegimate but it does now raise questions about the methods and models and how this reflects reality.

My point here is that while it is useful to represent and use specific models, we should be explicit about the implications of those models. Currently you have said that you consider a genetic cluster as an example of racial categories.
These models are not entirely false and are useful. That research paper looks like one that helped identify the ancient peoples that contibuted heavily to modern day Europeans. This is a useful point of Principal Component Analysis in finding the similiar genes. However there is still a contention to be made about the reality or nature of genes a sbeing clustered and clinal and to what extend the reality reflected in these models is constrained by the methods.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/35984
There is broad scientific agreement that a relatively small fraction of human genetic variation occurs between populations, continents, or clusters. Researchers of genetic clustering differ, however, on whether genetic variation is principally clinal or whether clusters inferred mathematically are important and scientifically useful.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/
That said, we distinguish questions of “reality” from questions of “utility” (Maglo, 2007, 2010, 2012). In the not too distant past, determining continental ancestral origin was an astounding achievement. Today, however, the geographic origin of an individual can be determined within just a few hundred kilometers (Novembre et al., 2008). Indeed, with genetic data we are able to subdivide even relatively homogeneous countries into sub-national genomic groups corresponding to linguistic affiliations, e.g., Switzerland (Novembre et al., 2008) or to North-Central-South geographic location, e.g., Sweden (Salmela et al., 2011). However, in a rational classification of biological organisms, the computational possibility to determine group membership (Edwards, 2003; Edge and Rosenberg, 2015) does not imply that these groups are meaningful according to biological systematic and evolutionary classification criteria (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Bolnick, 2008; Maglo, 2011). Thus, it is essential that the utility of these classifications are carefully evaluated in well-controlled epidemiological and clinical contexts (Maglo, 2010, 2011, 2012; Maglo and Martin, 2012; Mersha and Abebe, 2015).

These is where basically, while we can meaningfully group genetics and it helps us paint a clearer picture of our genetic history, one should not equate such evidence with reality itself and I think one needs to make a case for how the existence of such variation provides an ontological ground for race when we can push back with evidence of genetics being clinal.
A significantly arbitrary quality beyond just drawing a line in a color spectrum is also the a priori input of the researcher.
If in your analysis you pick out clearly different genes like those for different skin color that correspond to specific genes, you could delinate something that then you go onto mathc with the common sense view of race. But also, if you looked at genetics without this assumption in mind, not looking to specifically separate people by the genes for skin color, you would not likely discover a distinction for something that corresponds to our idea of race. Just looking at genetic information without an already existing notion of race would not likely result into the categorization of race, because the genetic variation isn't so fundamentally distinct.
Basically, a cluster can be an artifical cut off point from the method used, rather than an objective reality where there is a clinal gradient of genes.
[url]
However, cluster analysis is a phenetic method and presupposes, from the perspective of a rational biological classification, the genetic similarity criterion of evolutionary taxonomy. Yet, unlike cluster, it is cline that best accounts for human evolutionary diversity. In fact, the cline model maps continuous genetic gradation in a dataset and indicates that there is no natural break in a population's genetic profile (Figure ​(Figure1B).1B). Although cluster and cline models are not incompatible, they may lead to competing interpretations. If the population is shown to have a clinal genetic structure but cluster arises in some situations (Ramachandran et al., 2005; Handley et al., 2007; Underhill and Kivisild, 2007), then clustering results cannot be interpreted, in biological taxonomy, as indicative of natural differentiations of biological subpopulations. In this case, cline will be the representation of the natural evolutionary ordering of the population, while cluster will be an artifact, a construct that indicates instrumental, i.e., convenient, cutoff points for various scientific purposes.
So in the bold we see the point that the clustering method is useful, but this is a product of the method and not strictly a reflection of genetic variation. You seem to want to take the clustering as a means to biologically and ontologically ground races as having existence. But the retort then is to emphasize how there isn't necesasrily such a group in reality, but one created by the researcher. And then how does one add anything to research or understanding to then go onto claim that such clusters are then also another thing, race. It's introducing a concept that doesn't really exist to explain anything. Because if i ask you what is race, you just go its genetic clusters, I then can emphasize how one can divide up a population into many different clusters, none necessarily more foundational than another, only marked by the utility of adding finer or rougher measurements and divisions.
I would argue then race is not a concept at all in the matter, but an effort to hamfist a historical and social conecpt into genetics because it doesn't actually refer to anything.
Basically, you are attempting to take a creation of methods for genetic reality itself.
https://epistemicepistles.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/a-wittgensteinian-critique-of-conceptual-confusion-in-psychological-research/
Referentialism

Referentialist views of language treat words as standing for, or referring to, objects. While Wittgenstein’s Tractatus[9] espoused such a view, he later came to think one of the Tractatus crucial failings was that it ignored the difference between alternate kinds of words and uses of language.[10] Consider the words ‘table’, ‘blue’ and ‘hot’, these do not all signify objects, and understanding the words does not in each case involve knowing what objects they stand for. Rather, according to Wittgenstein, it involves knowing how the words are used.[11] Consequently treating reference as central to meaning gives a one sided and inaccurate view of language.

However in psychology this referentialist doctrine seems alive: In the misplaced reification of concepts as ‘concrete’ tangible things. As Gould[12] argues, there is a strong tendency to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. However on a Wittgensteinian take, we can reasonably be sure that no such ‘concept-entities’ can be found among the neurons in a person’s skull, they are concepts not concrete things. Confusing the two is equivalent to confusing a “map with a territory.” [13] Essentially it involves taking a pattern of behaviour, naming it, then taking this named thing to be a physical entity, then viewing someone’s behaviour as caused by having this entity inside them. Confusing psychological concepts with inner entities, like so, leads to postulating metaphysical explanations which actuality explain nothing. It is equivalent to saying a volcano erupts because it has ‘eruptability’ inside, or to say someone’s nervous behaviour is caused by an inner ‘neuroses’. This is merely to repeat the observation that they tend to behave in a nervous manner. The explanation merely repeats the description of the initial behaviour, yet the vacuousness of the explanation is concealed by pointing to a mystified inner entity; ‘neurosis’. This form of referentialism survives in psychology and leads to much conceptual confusion, distorting our notion of causality and providing only vacuous explanations[J1] .[14]

Instead of psychology however, race just becomes a way to refer to what is actually found, whether it be a specific set of genes for a phenotype like height, skin, or eye color, or risk of certain diseases. But instead of actually speaking specifically abotu what is found genetically, you add a phantom.

Skin color for example is something often associated with race, but to be actually specific about it, we know there are alleles that are relevant to one's skin color as an adaptation to how much sun one is exposed to. So we can see the continous shift of darker skin for those who live around the equator to light skin the further away a population is.
The continuity doesn't mean we can't speak of darker and light skin colors, but it is also not some major fundamental genetic difference and it is one on a gradient.

One might then argue that sure, there is a clinal gradient to alleles, but microbiology does lead to macrobiology in that it would be foolish to claim that while there are cms, it can never qualtiatively change into being meters of difference. That there is a fundamental change due to bottlenecks, genetic drift, and founder effects.
But there argument has never been there is no variation, but rather the variation you are emphasizing does not ground any meaningful concept of race beyond the categories that are already used to separate a population to tease out a picture to answer a specific scientific question.
Are you considering the early European farmers a race, or ancient Eurasians, or Western Hunter-Gathers? Why not another level of division? Because statistical methods can set how much one wants to divide the data. When we think of these groups, they are not homogeneous and must also have variation in themselves although of course a smaller range due to founder effects, and so they can be split apart also because they are also in a sense a mix group.

As far as I can tell from genetic research, the primary differences we do see are differences in phenotype and disease risk. Racial classification that fixates on the alleles that are expressed specifically in disease and phenotype would be a sound but very narrow conception of race, but to what end? Once again, just as easy and more accurate to speak about the gene its function within some area of research. For example, I am Australian of Western European descent.
I have very fair/light skin, and that poses a significant risk for myself of skin cancer having grown up in a hot country like Australia and now New Mexico, USA. So moving to climates that aren't typical to where my ancestors were does pose a health concern.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9610717/#:~:text=Among%20Australian%2Dborn%20subjects%20of,was%20strongly%20predictive%20of%20risk.
One which I try to manage with "sun smart" practices I learned as part of Australian culture.
#15311814
@Wellsy use a sun hat too, lots of sunscreen and avoid direct exposure to the sun from 10AM to about 6PM.

Again Dr. Wells went in search of a lot of the direct ancestors of modern day human beings. He found a lot of interesting genetic groups.

Let me see if I can complement your above post with Dr. Spencer Wells documentary eh?







If you read his research the idea is that people thrived in many different environments. Why?

Again, it helps us survive and thrive. So why fear variants of ourselves? The more variation the more answers to how to adapt in time we have. Again, back to the clone theme and too much of monoculture or inbreeding does not a species that is strong make.

Why is this such a difficult truth to accept for those who want a hierarchy?

I loved paeloanthropology. A great field of anthropology. And it is exhausting and a lot of work. But well worth the effort.
#15311815
Tainari88 wrote:@Wellsy use a sun hat too, lots of sunscreen and avoid direct exposure to the sun from 10AM to about 6PM.

I actually have a sun hat for wearing outside at school since I take kids to recess the majority of school days so I have nice wide brim hat. It reminds me of how I was made to wear such a hat in elementary school as part of sun smart practices. If you did not have a hat, you did not get to play. The sunscreen I am improving on by using spray on sunscreen. I don't like the oily feel as I am a bit weird about sensory things, but spray on sunscreen seems more tolerable.

Again Dr. Wells went in search of a lot of the direct ancestors of modern day human beings. He found a lot of interesting genetic groups.

I'll check it out.
#15311816
Wellsy wrote:I actually have a sun hat for wearing outside at school since I take kids to recess the majority of school days so I have nice wide brim hat. It reminds me of how I was made to wear such a hat in elementary school as part of sun smart practices. If you did not have a hat, you did not get to play. The sunscreen I am improving on by using spray on sunscreen. I don't like the oily feel as I am a bit weird about sensory things, but spray on sunscreen seems more tolerable.


I'll check it out.


I still remember New Mexico Wellsy.

It is a special vibration place eh.

It would rain very rarely but right after a rain you would get the most beautiful flowers and plants that would bloom. And the entire desert would be beautiful for a little while.

Genetic research is interesting.

One of my favorite nearby ancient Mayan sites here is called https://yucatan.travel/archeological-ar ... ilchaltun/

Dzibilchaltun.

Or the temple of the seven dolls.



If you press on Mirar en Youtube Wellsy you will be able to see the tour of that zone in English.

It a cool place to visit in general. Especially during the Summer equinox and the winter solstice.
#15311818
Wellsy wrote:Nothing in what I have posted suggests a denial of genetic variation, but rather I attempted to hold you to your original point and then you just move on from it when it was questioned. You didn't double down on how civilization (vague term) produces homogenity and when I emphasized the genetic evidence about the out-of-Africa theory that follows the well established pattern of genetic drift with a smaller subset of origin populations and produces founder effects, you just ignored it. I'm not speaking gibberish but using concepts establish in genetic research. But somehow that amounted to, the extreme characterization of not recognizing genetic variation at all as if everyone is a clone.

Now back to the more interesting post:

Here your color point reiterates what I have also stated, that the inability to mark a specific line of distinction does not render everything the same.
But your emphasis on clusters, isn't illegimate but it does now raise questions about the methods and models and how this reflects reality.

My point here is that while it is useful to represent and use specific models, we should be explicit about the implications of those models. Currently you have said that you consider a genetic cluster as an example of racial categories.
These models are not entirely false and are useful. That research paper looks like one that helped identify the ancient peoples that contibuted heavily to modern day Europeans. This is a useful point of Principal Component Analysis in finding the similiar genes. However there is still a contention to be made about the reality or nature of genes a sbeing clustered and clinal and to what extend the reality reflected in these models is constrained by the methods.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/35984

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

These is where basically, while we can meaningfully group genetics and it helps us paint a clearer picture of our genetic history, one should not equate such evidence with reality itself and I think one needs to make a case for how the existence of such variation provides an ontological ground for race when we can push back with evidence of genetics being clinal.
A significantly arbitrary quality beyond just drawing a line in a color spectrum is also the a priori input of the researcher.
If in your analysis you pick out clearly different genes like those for different skin color that correspond to specific genes, you could delinate something that then you go onto mathc with the common sense view of race. But also, if you looked at genetics without this assumption in mind, not looking to specifically separate people by the genes for skin color, you would not likely discover a distinction for something that corresponds to our idea of race. Just looking at genetic information without an already existing notion of race would not likely result into the categorization of race, because the genetic variation isn't so fundamentally distinct.
Basically, a cluster can be an artifical cut off point from the method used, rather than an objective reality where there is a clinal gradient of genes.
[url]
So in the bold we see the point that the clustering method is useful, but this is a product of the method and not strictly a reflection of genetic variation. You seem to want to take the clustering as a means to biologically and ontologically ground races as having existence. But the retort then is to emphasize how there isn't necesasrily such a group in reality, but one created by the researcher. And then how does one add anything to research or understanding to then go onto claim that such clusters are then also another thing, race. It's introducing a concept that doesn't really exist to explain anything. Because if i ask you what is race, you just go its genetic clusters, I then can emphasize how one can divide up a population into many different clusters, none necessarily more foundational than another, only marked by the utility of adding finer or rougher measurements and divisions.
I would argue then race is not a concept at all in the matter, but an effort to hamfist a historical and social conecpt into genetics because it doesn't actually refer to anything.
Basically, you are attempting to take a creation of methods for genetic reality itself.
https://epistemicepistles.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/a-wittgensteinian-critique-of-conceptual-confusion-in-psychological-research/

Instead of psychology however, race just becomes a way to refer to what is actually found, whether it be a specific set of genes for a phenotype like height, skin, or eye color, or risk of certain diseases. But instead of actually speaking specifically abotu what is found genetically, you add a phantom.

Skin color for example is something often associated with race, but to be actually specific about it, we know there are alleles that are relevant to one's skin color as an adaptation to how much sun one is exposed to. So we can see the continous shift of darker skin for those who live around the equator to light skin the further away a population is.
The continuity doesn't mean we can't speak of darker and light skin colors, but it is also not some major fundamental genetic difference and it is one on a gradient.

One might then argue that sure, there is a clinal gradient to alleles, but microbiology does lead to macrobiology in that it would be foolish to claim that while there are cms, it can never qualtiatively change into being meters of difference. That there is a fundamental change due to bottlenecks, genetic drift, and founder effects.
But there argument has never been there is no variation, but rather the variation you are emphasizing does not ground any meaningful concept of race beyond the categories that are already used to separate a population to tease out a picture to answer a specific scientific question.
Are you considering the early European farmers a race, or ancient Eurasians, or Western Hunter-Gathers? Why not another level of division? Because statistical methods can set how much one wants to divide the data. When we think of these groups, they are not homogeneous and must also have variation in themselves although of course a smaller range due to founder effects, and so they can be split apart also because they are also in a sense a mix group.

As far as I can tell from genetic research, the primary differences we do see are differences in phenotype and disease risk. Racial classification that fixates on the alleles that are expressed specifically in disease and phenotype would be a sound but very narrow conception of race, but to what end? Once again, just as easy and more accurate to speak about the gene its function within some area of research. For example, I am Australian of Western European descent.
I have very fair/light skin, and that poses a significant risk for myself of skin cancer having grown up in a hot country like Australia and now New Mexico, USA. So moving to climates that aren't typical to where my ancestors were does pose a health concern.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9610717/#:~:text=Among%20Australian%2Dborn%20subjects%20of,was%20strongly%20predictive%20of%20risk.
One which I try to manage with "sun smart" practices I learned as part of Australian culture.


See, you make these long posts like this where is seems like you are trying to be reasonable and trying to understand genetics. But my eyes rolled I to the back of my head when you suggested that race could possibly be a product of 'genetic drift'. Clearly you don't know what genetic drift is, but you used it nonchalantly as if you assume it must have sonething to do with race...when any geneticist would inform you that it could not.

You really ought to just alter your attitude a bit and instead of pretending like you know a lot about genetics, just accept you do not...and maybe ask more questions than make assertions.

Your 'criticism' of using race as a category is just based on the fact that humans are biological life forms. You probably don't realize it but species could be deconstructed in exactly the same manner. The idea that species cannot reproduce is not exactly true and is not the awesome categorical device that people think that it is.

Anyway....there is a more advanced and a more complete outlook on all this genetics stuff that unfortunately I don't think I could ever even begin to discuss because you are just hostile to the idea that I night know things and you are uncomfortable with the political implications of using race as a catrgory, even if I could show clearly that your more scientific concerns are not real concerns.

The reason 'genetic drift' cannot have anything to do with race is because (as you probably do not know) genetic drift precludes adaptation. If a life form is actually adapting to a climate or diet or function (as dog breeds do) or method of survival. And method of survival is actually key in this because different humans do any always had somewhat different ways of life which place reproductive pressures on their populations...and this is the real reason races begin to emerge. The fact that Europeans had white skin to absorb more vitamin d and developed lactise tolerance is less significant in the development of their genome than the fact that they have relied on technology to 'conquer' nature and also to outcompete competing human tribes...that fact has had significant impact on our DNA. But I know that if I brought that up as a way to help you understand what race comes from and why racial categories are useful you are just going to shit down. There is no way you could progress to more advanced topics like that because of the taboo of the general subject
#15311823
Tainari88 wrote:Acculturation is a reality. One that many never acknowledge.

For example a Black man who speaks Mandarin Chinese well, or an African American woman who was born and raised her entire life in Japan. She considers herself Japanese. Though the society might not because they think about racial acceptance. The Japanese do not accept other Japanese looking people only. It has to be cultural for it to be complete acceptance. It gets complex.





This theory that people feel the most comfortable with their own race and that intermixing with languages, cultures and races does not happen? Is really false.

People exist in their world and there is some form of human connection? You will have mixing and it has always been mixing.

It is to be expected though , if one wishes to be accepted by the cultural group , and not derided as a cultural appropriator ,that one have more than a stereotypical superficial familiarity with the culture in question . Otherwise , the person will come across as being a poser , or even a racist , as these comedy sketches illustrate .





#15311826
ingliz wrote:@Rich

Of course, race exists as a social construct, but it is not 'real' - I mean real in the sense a dog can never be a horse.

Who's what when it comes to race is not fixed.

Take the Maltese, for example. We were white N***** through the 20th century and into the 21st. Yes, some of us achieved the status of honorary white man through wealth or education, but it is only recently we were invited en masse into the white man's club.

Oh wow , by that criteria , Britney Spears , and her sister Jamie Lynn , both pictured below , wouldn't have been considered to be fully White , but merely passing . If the two aren't White though , judging solely by appearance then what race would they supposedly be , other than human of course .

Britney Spears, Singer
The princess of pop has a Maltese great-grandfather! Anthony Portelli was born in Malta but moved to England in the 1920s. He married a British woman and changed his surname to Portell. The Portells had two daughters, Joan and Lillian. Lillian is Britney’s grandmother. https://vibe.mt/well-know-celebrities-that-have-maltese-roots/



Image

Image
#15311828
FiveofSwords wrote:See, you make these long posts like this where is seems like you are trying to be reasonable and trying to understand genetics. But my eyes rolled I to the back of my head when you suggested that race could possibly be a product of 'genetic drift'. Clearly you don't know what genetic drift is, but you used it nonchalantly as if you assume it must have sonething to do with race...when any geneticist would inform you that it could not.

Here’s what I said:

You didn't double down on how civilization (vague term) produces homogenity and when I emphasized the genetic evidence about the out-of-Africa theory that follows the well established pattern of genetic drift with a smaller subset of origin populations and produces founder effects, you just ignored it.

And now look at the bolded in what you claim I asserted.

Somehow discussing why groups outside of Africa exhibit greater genetic homogeneity turned into races are produced by genetic drift. This constant shifting to new points based off not even reading my points or I guess comprehending them seems to me that you are being willfully obtuse.

What I emphasized was the reduced genetic variation, that is greater homogeneity.
This isn’t some whacky point.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516416/#:~:text=Genetic%20bottlenecks%20are%20stochastic%20events,can%20lead%20to%20genetic%20drift.
Genetic bottlenecks are stochastic events that limit genetic variation in a population and result in founding populations that can lead to genetic drift.



You really ought to just alter your attitude a bit and instead of pretending like you know a lot about genetics, just accept you do not...and maybe ask more questions than make assertions.

Your 'criticism' of using race as a category is just based on the fact that humans are biological life forms. You probably don't realize it but species could be deconstructed in exactly the same manner. The idea that species cannot reproduce is not exactly true and is not the awesome categorical device that people think that it is.

Again a tangent that dismisses my point about methodology and their implications entirely to posit greater understanding about speciation. You don’t even argue about race being a biological reality beyond the now undefended point about them being synonymous with clusters. You don’t argue about it even being a useful concept scientifically. It’s not clear you even have a well defined sense kf what you believe race is or you’re just unwilling to elaborate because no one could possibly understand it and are too sensitive.

Anyway....there is a more advanced and a more complete outlook on all this genetics stuff that unfortunately I don't think I could ever even begin to discuss because you are just hostile to the idea that I night know things and you are uncomfortable with the political implications of using race as a catrgory, even if I could show clearly that your more scientific concerns are not real concerns.

Your assertion of discomfort does no more to argue your point then I might argue about your affinity for race ad a concept making you suspect but that isn’t my argument and I haven’t dismissed you on that basis but are pressing you to attempt explaining yourself. What the hell is the point of this thread if not for discussion, what is your goal? Finding those who already think they agree?

The reason 'genetic drift' cannot have anything to do with race is because (as you probably do not know) genetic drift precludes adaptation. If a life form is actually adapting to a climate or diet or function (as dog breeds do) or method of survival. And method of survival is actually key in this because different humans do any always had somewhat different ways of life which place reproductive pressures on their populations...and this is the real reason races begin to emerge. The fact that Europeans had white skin to absorb more vitamin d and developed lactise tolerance is less significant in the development of their genome than the fact that they have relied on technology to 'conquer' nature and also to outcompete competing human tribes...that fact has had significant impact on our DNA. But I know that if I brought that up as a way to help you understand what race comes from and why racial categories are useful you are just going to shit down. There is no way you could progress to more advanced topics like that because of the taboo of the general subject

This at least adds to your conception of race being bought adaptation but that in itself doesn’t extend an argument about clusters vs clinal methods of genetics and the basis of a distinction in a data set.

But now you are also moving beyond genetics and perhaps wanting to venture forth towards how Europeans developed culturally and technologically.
But to what extent that has changed our genes would be interesting as I think while it plays a role with evolution, we clearly see a lot change based on social and material relations in which people participate.

No doubt we can take an ecological view how any one person changes biologically through their position in society and this doesn’t reflect a static biological reality but a dynamic one. That would bring us to epigenetics at least.
Thougj of course I am of the mind that while genes do significantly impact phenotype, most people given similar conditions end up with a consciousness of a similar kind and its why someone raised in another part of the world is more like the population around them than the parts of their genes perhaps tied to one continent population or another.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm
It is now firmly established that the ethnogenesis and phylogenesis of human beings went hand-in-hand for millions of years before the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens. So both ethnogenesis and phylogenesis are essentially processes stretching over millions of years.
We can distinguish a period of about 10,000 years of recent history where ethnogenesis has dominated phylogenesis, with human beings today effectively genotypically identical to human beings who lived 10,000 years ago, but with phenotypes and lives which are utterly different. We see significant ethnogenesis unfolding through qualitatively new forms of activity now decade by decade, whereas at the dawn of our species such innovation took hundreds of thousands of years.
Ontogenesis completes its development in under 100 years, and social situations can come and go quite rapidly, with passages through social positions typically taking some years to be accomplished. So it is clear enough that these 4 processes can be associated with three different time scales: phylogenesis takes millions of years, ethnogenesis takes decades and centuries, sociogenesis takes up to years, ontogenesis (that is, formation of stable social positions and identities), takes days, years and decades.
But the mutual constitution of these processes, i.e., the way one process achieves its changes thanks to another process, means that time-scale cannot separate these processes of development – all of them are at work unceasingly and in mutual interconnection.
What distinguishes phylogenesis, ethnogenesis, sociogenesis and ontogenesis is what is developing.
in phylogenesis, the biological genotype develops by natural selection;
in ethnogenesis, institutionalised forms of activity and material culture develop;
in sociogenesis, social positions and social situations develop.
in ontogenesis, individual human organisms and minds develop.
#15311834
Wellsy wrote:Here’s what I said:


And now look at the bolded in what you claim I asserted.

Somehow discussing why groups outside of Africa exhibit greater genetic homogeneity turned into races are produced by genetic drift. This constant shifting to new points based off not even reading my points or I guess comprehending them seems to me that you are being willfully obtuse.

What I emphasized was the reduced genetic variation, that is greater homogeneity.
This isn’t some whacky point.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516416/#:~:text=Genetic%20bottlenecks%20are%20stochastic%20events,can%20lead%20to%20genetic%20drift.




Again a tangent that dismisses my point about methodology and their implications entirely to posit greater understanding about speciation. You don’t even argue about race being a biological reality beyond the now undefended point about them being synonymous with clusters. You don’t argue about it even being a useful concept scientifically. It’s not clear you even have a well defined sense kf what you believe race is or you’re just unwilling to elaborate because no one could possibly understand it and are too sensitive.


Your assertion of discomfort does no more to argue your point then I might argue about your affinity for race ad a concept making you suspect but that isn’t my argument and I haven’t dismissed you on that basis but are pressing you to attempt explaining yourself. What the hell is the point of this thread if not for discussion, what is your goal? Finding those who already think they agree?


This at least adds to your conception of race being bought adaptation but that in itself doesn’t extend an argument about clusters vs clinal methods of genetics and the basis of a distinction in a data set.

But now you are also moving beyond genetics and perhaps wanting to venture forth towards how Europeans developed culturally and technologically.
But to what extent that has changed our genes would be interesting as I think while it plays a role with evolution, we clearly see a lot change based on social and material relations in which people participate.

No doubt we can take an ecological view how any one person changes biologically through their position in society and this doesn’t reflect a static biological reality but a dynamic one. That would bring us to epigenetics at least.
Thougj of course I am of the mind that while genes do significantly impact phenotype, most people given similar conditions end up with a consciousness of a similar kind and its why someone raised in another part of the world is more like the population around them than the parts of their genes perhaps tied to one continent population or another.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm


I'm just going to try repeating what I said and maybe you will hear it this time.

By definition, genetic drift cannot result in a race. Genetic drift only refers to changes in population genetics that are NOT related to adaptation. That is just the definition of the term, and you don't seem to know that.

We are just going to tackle one thing at a time because these posts are way too long and progress is painfully slow.
#15311837
FiveofSwords wrote:I'm just going to try repeating what I said and maybe you will hear it this time.

By definition, genetic drift cannot result in a race. Genetic drift only refers to changes in population genetics that are NOT related to adaptation. That is just the definition of the term, and you don't seem to know that.

We are just going to tackle one thing at a time because these posts are way too long and progress is painfully slow.

Here’s a short one then.

I didn’t say that.

Go back and read the post and there won’t be a need for repeating ourselves.
#15311842
FiveofSwords wrote:I'm just going to try repeating what I said and maybe you will hear it this time.

By definition, genetic drift cannot result in a race. Genetic drift only refers to changes in population genetics that are NOT related to adaptation. That is just the definition of the term, and you don't seem to know that.

We are just going to tackle one thing at a time because these posts are way too long and progress is painfully slow.

Actually, genetic drift can even lead to speciation if populations are separated from each other. For a single, interbreeding population, genetic drift tends to lead to genetic uniformity rather than variation, but for two separated populations which are initially identical, it will lead to the elimination of alleles in one population which can become fixed in the other. This can actually trigger speciation events, not just the creation of ‘races’. Needless to say, this hasn’t happened for the human race yet, and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future, due to the increasing mixing of human populations in the modern world (and even in the prehistoric world - humans have always been great travellers and mixers).
#15311843
Potemkin wrote:Actually, genetic drift can even lead to speciation if populations are separated from each other. For a single, interbreeding population, genetic drift tends to lead to genetic uniformity rather than variation, but for two separated populations which are initially identical, it will lead to the elimination of alleles in one population which can become fixed in the other. This can actually trigger speciation events, not just the creation of ‘races’. Needless to say, this hasn’t happened for the human race yet, and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future, due to the increasing mixing of human populations in the modern world (and even in the prehistoric world - humans have always been great travellers and mixers).


You guys are still just showing your ignorance of genetics, lol. What you are talking about is not genetic drift. You are just using the wrong term.
#15311844
FiveofSwords wrote:You guys are still just showing your ignorance of genetics, lol. What you are talking about is not genetic drift. You are just using the wrong term.

Not all genetic changes in a population are caused by adaptation through natural selection, @FiveofSwords. Random genetic drift can even lead to speciation events, in the sense that populations which are separated from each other for long enough can become non-breeding even if they are brought back together again. None of this has anything to do with adaptation. You don’t seem to like the idea that the existence of different ‘races’ might have no meaning, genetically or adaptationally speaking. In other words, you seem to want there to be a hierarchy of races.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 17

Here's a joke "China is a threat to the Unit[…]

there were at least 2 Irish people in the US sena[…]

Taiwan-China crisis.

Well China announced there are going to be 2 more […]

More insanity, these people are barbarians, nothin[…]