Derail from "Video on race baiting"

[ApostateAbe]

It is a manifesto that rapidly fires many of the pro-black anti-authoritarianism positions and arguments. As expected, it ignores the perspective that racial inequalities may follow largely from innate psychological differences, as that perspective is obviously too ridiculous to consider and we are all past that, and it must be all about the history of racial oppression that continues in the justice system. So, the speech proceeds into the ambiguous capitalistic conspiracism. There is one argument that may have relevance: at 4:25--it was claimed that blacks are incarcerated for drug crimes at a rate far higher than whites, though the illegal drug use between whites and blacks are equal. If so, then the inequality of conviction plainly follows from the system, not from the inequality of crimes objectively committed. It is an argument I heard before, it is very widely cited, and I was skeptical of it, because it seemed to conflict with the general racial patterns of crime, so I investigated further, to see if I could find a critical response. And, yeah, a seemingly-good critical response is provided by Jared Taylor. It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence" (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/about). So, they asked each person, "Have you used meth in the past month?", they tally the results, and they find that the drug abuse rates are about equal. Problem: such a conclusion assumes that each race tells the truth about drug abuse at an equal rate, and it turns out that is wrong. Wrong, as in conflicting with a very-well-established fact. For any study in which a subject is asked about drug abuse, AND THEN HE OR SHE IS DRUG TESTED, it is found that whites abuse drugs far less often, blacks far more often, and blacks are far more likely to lie about it. And there are many such studies. See the citations within the American Renaissance article here: http://www.amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/. Too many otherwise-reputable organizations parrot the bad argument about drug abuse rates, which should set off alarm bells about the power of the ideology to mislead public thought. American Renaissance is a pro-white organization, and they really should not be the only ones correcting the scientific fallacy, so it is a shame that they are alone in this, in my opinion. It makes them look trustworthy, and they are not. They have their own ideological bent.

 

[dystopian]

It is a manifesto that rapidly fires many of the pro-black anti-authoritarianism positions and arguments. As expected, it ignores the perspective that racial inequalities may follow largely from innate psychological differences, as that perspective is obviously too ridiculous to consider and we are all past that, and it must be all about the history of racial oppression that continues in the justice system. So, the speech proceeds into the ambiguous capitalistic conspiracism. There is one argument that may have relevance: at 4:25--it was claimed that blacks are incarcerated for drug crimes at a rate far higher than whites, though the illegal drug use between whites and blacks are equal. If so, then the inequality of conviction plainly follows from the system, not from the inequality of crimes objectively committed. It is an argument I heard before, it is very widely cited, and I was skeptical of it, because it seemed to conflict with the general racial patterns of crime, so I investigated further, to see if I could find a critical response. And, yeah, a seemingly-good critical response is provided by Jared Taylor. It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence" (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/about). So, they asked each person, "Have you used meth in the past month?", they tally the results, and they find that the drug abuse rates are about equal. Problem: such a conclusion assumes that each race tells the truth about drug abuse at an equal rate, and it turns out that is wrong. Wrong, as in conflicting with a very-well-established fact. For any study in which a subject is asked about drug abuse, AND THEN HE OR SHE IS DRUG TESTED, it is found that whites abuse drugs far less often, blacks far more often, and blacks are far more likely to lie about it. And there are many such studies. See the citations within the American Renaissance article here: http://www.amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/. Too many otherwise-reputable organizations parrot the bad argument about drug abuse rates, which should set off alarm bells about the power of the ideology to mislead public thought. American Renaissance is a pro-white organization, and they really should not be the only ones correcting the scientific fallacy, so it is a shame that they are alone in this, in my opinion. It makes them look trustworthy, and they are not. They have their own ideological bent.

Oh look, a completely unexpected change of pace from apostateabe... oh wait, never mind.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence"

You are not from a rural area I take it?

 

[ApostateAbe]

It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence"

You are not from a rural area I take it?

I have lived all over the country--rural, urban and suburban--but I generally prefer to make my judgments based on published data, not my own personal life experiences.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You are not from a rural area I take it?

I have lived all over the country--rural, urban and suburban--but I generally prefer to make my judgments based on published data, not my own personal life experiences.

So have you in the last 20 years lived in a rural area? Because meth (and now heroin) has been rampant throughout the country. It is not a secret, you see it everywhere. These are not the users who are going to participate in surveys. As the video does say, they are victims too.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I have lived all over the country--rural, urban and suburban--but I generally prefer to make my judgments based on published data, not my own personal life experiences.

So have you in the last 20 years lived in a rural area? Because meth (and now heroin) has been rampant throughout the country. These are not the users who are going to participate in surveys. As the video does say, they are victims too.

I have lived in an area where meth abuse is reportedly high, and I believe it, though I didn't personally observe any indications of it. If the National Survey on Drug Use and Health skipped such areas (I don't think they did), then it would be another way that the survey is misleading. I am criticizing it, not defending it.

 

[Underseer]

You are not from a rural area I take it?

I have lived all over the country--rural, urban and suburban--but I generally prefer to make my judgments based on published data, not my own personal life experiences.

If that is the case, then why have you come to the opposite conclusion of the scientists who study this data?

Scientists from a variety of different fields have long ago concluded that racial differences are merely cosmetic and that race is just a social construct, and yet you routinely do precisely what scientists don't: try to use the data to justify your racism.

Since you obviously think the consensus opinions of scientists are wrong, why haven't you published your findings and proved to them that they are wrong about race? Wait, let me guess: it's because of some kind of "political correctness" conspiracy involving a large number of scientists from a wide variety of fields, right? People who argue against the consensus opinion of science always end up resorting to conspiracy theories.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Excellent video. TY, Underseer!

It is a manifesto that rapidly fires many of the pro-black anti-authoritarianism positions and arguments. As expected, it ignores the perspective that racial inequalities may follow largely from innate psychological differences, as that perspective is obviously too ridiculous to consider and we are all past that, and it must be all about the history of racial oppression that continues in the justice system. So, the speech proceeds into the ambiguous capitalistic conspiracism. There is one argument that may have relevance: at 4:25--it was claimed that blacks are incarcerated for drug crimes at a rate far higher than whites, though the illegal drug use between whites and blacks are equal. If so, then the inequality of conviction plainly follows from the system, not from the inequality of crimes objectively committed. It is an argument I heard before, it is very widely cited, and I was skeptical of it, because it seemed to conflict with the general racial patterns of crime, so I investigated further, to see if I could find a critical response. And, yeah, a seemingly-good critical response is provided by Jared Taylor. It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence" (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/about). So, they asked each person, "Have you used meth in the past month?", they tally the results, and they find that the drug abuse rates are about equal. Problem: such a conclusion assumes that each race tells the truth about drug abuse at an equal rate, and it turns out that is wrong. Wrong, as in conflicting with a very-well-established fact. For any study in which a subject is asked about drug abuse, AND THEN HE OR SHE IS DRUG TESTED, it is found that whites abuse drugs far less often, blacks far more often, and blacks are far more likely to lie about it. And there are many such studies. See the citations within the American Renaissance article here: http://www.amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/. Too many otherwise-reputable organizations parrot the bad argument about drug abuse rates, which should set off alarm bells about the power of the ideology to mislead public thought. American Renaissance is a pro-white organization, and they really should not be the only ones correcting the scientific fallacy, so it is a shame that they are alone in this, in my opinion. It makes them look trustworthy, and they are not. They have their own ideological bent.

"Innate psychological differences..." I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that these are "cultural" differences passed on from parent to child generation after generation. "Thug culture" and "street culture" and all that.

I've always been sort of curious why this theory only seems to apply to black people. After all, Jim Crow was the law of the land in the 1960s and white supremacism in various forms remained in vogue in the south even through the late 70s. Are we to understand that every segregationist/white supremacist in the country simultaneously had a sudden and complete change of heart in 1965? That they didn't go on believing in the separation of the races or the inferiority and/or degenerate nature of black people? That they didn't instill those same beliefs in their children behind closed doors?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Excellent video. TY, Underseer!

It is a manifesto that rapidly fires many of the pro-black anti-authoritarianism positions and arguments. As expected, it ignores the perspective that racial inequalities may follow largely from innate psychological differences, as that perspective is obviously too ridiculous to consider and we are all past that, and it must be all about the history of racial oppression that continues in the justice system. So, the speech proceeds into the ambiguous capitalistic conspiracism. There is one argument that may have relevance: at 4:25--it was claimed that blacks are incarcerated for drug crimes at a rate far higher than whites, though the illegal drug use between whites and blacks are equal. If so, then the inequality of conviction plainly follows from the system, not from the inequality of crimes objectively committed. It is an argument I heard before, it is very widely cited, and I was skeptical of it, because it seemed to conflict with the general racial patterns of crime, so I investigated further, to see if I could find a critical response. And, yeah, a seemingly-good critical response is provided by Jared Taylor. It turns out that the widely-cited statistic of equal drug use comes from a survey that "collects data through face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of the population at the respondent's place of residence" (http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/about). So, they asked each person, "Have you used meth in the past month?", they tally the results, and they find that the drug abuse rates are about equal. Problem: such a conclusion assumes that each race tells the truth about drug abuse at an equal rate, and it turns out that is wrong. Wrong, as in conflicting with a very-well-established fact. For any study in which a subject is asked about drug abuse, AND THEN HE OR SHE IS DRUG TESTED, it is found that whites abuse drugs far less often, blacks far more often, and blacks are far more likely to lie about it. And there are many such studies. See the citations within the American Renaissance article here: http://www.amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/. Too many otherwise-reputable organizations parrot the bad argument about drug abuse rates, which should set off alarm bells about the power of the ideology to mislead public thought. American Renaissance is a pro-white organization, and they really should not be the only ones correcting the scientific fallacy, so it is a shame that they are alone in this, in my opinion. It makes them look trustworthy, and they are not. They have their own ideological bent.

Show

"Innate psychological differences..." I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that these are "cultural" differences passed on from parent to child generation after generation. "Thug culture" and "street culture" and all that.

I've always been sort of curious why this theory only seems to apply to black people. After all, Jim Crow was the law of the land in the 1960s and white supremacism in various forms remained in vogue in the south even through the late 70s. Are we to understand that every segregationist/white supremacist in the country simultaneously had a sudden and complete change of heart in 1965? That they didn't go on believing in the separation of the races or the inferiority and/or degenerate nature of black people? That they didn't instill those same beliefs in their children behind closed doors?

It is my position that social/economic differences between the races follow largely from genetic psychological differences, namely genetic differences in intelligence (60% heritable) and genetic differences in criminal behavior (50% heritable). It does not follow that whites are "superior" and blacks are "inferior," as there is no cosmic scale of value of people, but it does follow that blacks are generally poorer and more criminal than whites. Whites, in turn, are generally poorer and more criminal than northeast Asians. It is not the way the world should be. A better world is one where nobody is born with a social/economic advantage over anyone else. But, as nature is completely ambivalent to our ideas of what makes a better world, the uncomfortable realities are significant genetic differences both within races and between races on average. (On average, meaning that NOT every black is genetically less intelligent nor more genetically-criminally-inclined than every white.)

 

[laughing dog]

Excellent video. TY, Underseer!

Show

"Innate psychological differences..." I'm sure you're going to try and tell me that these are "cultural" differences passed on from parent to child generation after generation. "Thug culture" and "street culture" and all that.

I've always been sort of curious why this theory only seems to apply to black people. After all, Jim Crow was the law of the land in the 1960s and white supremacism in various forms remained in vogue in the south even through the late 70s. Are we to understand that every segregationist/white supremacist in the country simultaneously had a sudden and complete change of heart in 1965? That they didn't go on believing in the separation of the races or the inferiority and/or degenerate nature of black people? That they didn't instill those same beliefs in their children behind closed doors?

It is my position that social/economic differences between the races follow largely from genetic psychological differences, namely genetic differences in intelligence (60% heritable) and genetic differences in criminal behavior (50% heritable). It does not follow that whites are "superior" and blacks are "inferior," as there is no cosmic scale of value of people, but it does follow that blacks are generally poorer and more criminal than whites. Whites, in turn, are generally poorer and more criminal than northeast Asians. It is not the way the world should be. A better world is one where nobody is born with a social/economic advantage over anyone else. But, as nature is completely ambivalent to our ideas of what makes a better world, the uncomfortable realities are significant genetic differences both within races and between races on average. (On average, meaning that NOT every black is genetically less intelligent nor more genetically-criminally-inclined than every white.)

When you draw conclusions from published data, is that any data that is published or data that has been generally certified as valid by the scientific community?

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is my position that social/economic differences between the races follow largely from genetic psychological differences, namely genetic differences in intelligence (60% heritable) and genetic differences in criminal behavior (50% heritable). It does not follow that whites are "superior" and blacks are "inferior," as there is no cosmic scale of value of people, but it does follow that blacks are generally poorer and more criminal than whites. Whites, in turn, are generally poorer and more criminal than northeast Asians. It is not the way the world should be. A better world is one where nobody is born with a social/economic advantage over anyone else. But, as nature is completely ambivalent to our ideas of what makes a better world, the uncomfortable realities are significant genetic differences both within races and between races on average. (On average, meaning that NOT every black is genetically less intelligent nor more genetically-criminally-inclined than every white.)

When you draw conclusions from published data, is that any data that is published or data that has been generally certified as valid by the scientific community?

Yes. The majority of intelligence researchers accept that American black-white intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics, as of 2013.

 

[laughing dog]

When you draw conclusions from published data, is that any data that is published or data that has been generally certified as valid by the scientific community?

Yes. The majority of intelligence researchers accept that American black-white intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics, as of 2013.

Really?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is my position that social/economic differences between the races follow largely from genetic psychological differences, namely genetic differences in intelligence (60% heritable) and genetic differences in criminal behavior (50% heritable). It does not follow that whites are "superior" and blacks are "inferior," as there is no cosmic scale of value of people, but it does follow that blacks are generally poorer and more criminal than whites.

Alrighty then.

On average, meaning that NOT every black is genetically less intelligent nor more genetically-criminally-inclined than every white.

Of course. It's simple, concise, and has a veneer of rationality without a shred of evidence to back it up, and all other factors (social, political, religious, economic) can be arbitrarily assigned higher or lower values of importance, depending on how much evidence there is for their influence at any given time.

Brilliant!

Yes. The majority of intelligence researchers accept that American black-white intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics, as of 2013.

Really?

Really.

Why in the world would ApostateAbe lie about something like that?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes. The majority of intelligence researchers accept that American black-white intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics, as of 2013.

Really?

The majority of intelligence researchers funded by the Pioneer Fund or like-minded pro white supremacist organizations accept that American black-white intelligence differences are mostly due to genetics, as of 2013.

FIFY

 

[ApostateAbe]

See the study by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker: "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," which you can find on the web. It corroborates the results of a similar survey of 1984 published in the book by Snyderman and Rothman, "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy," of 1988, and further corroborated by the accounts of those who work in the field on both sides of the fence, including Richard Nisbett, Joseph Graves, and Linda Gottfredson (I can give you specific citations for each as needed).

 

[ApostateAbe]

Why in the world would ApostateAbe lie about something like that?

Only because I am a horrible person who cares nothing for the truth.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

See the study by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker: "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," which you can find on the web.

And pretty easily at that!

Even THIS poorly-labeled graph doesn't show that the majority of experts believe the "black-white(1) intelligence differences(2) are mostly due(3) to genetics(4)."

1) It doesn't specifically mention black/white racial groups
2) Nor did the survey ask about intelligence differences
3) It appears to be the minority view that genetics is the largest factor and
4) This from the 45% of experts who believe that "genetics AND environment" together are factors.

And btw, this was a survey that was emailed to 1,237 people, of which 228 responded (and only 70 of them completed fully). The authors concede that they did not bother to identify who the respondents actually were or what their answers were based on. Nor were all of the people who RECEIVED the survey actual researchers with a background in genetics or cognitive science.

Why in the world would ApostateAbe lie about something like that?

Only because I am a horrible person who cares nothing for the truth.

This particular paper is an INCREDIBLY weak piece of evidence that actually kind of undermines the point you're trying to make, which leads me to believe you have not actually read it very carefully but trust its conclusions anyway.

I invite you to consider that you have come up with a theory that "sounds good" at face value and are farming for evidence that supports it; that the theory as you envision it may be fundamentally flawed in some important way, and that you are better off going back to the research WITHOUT a pre-determined expectation of reality and seeing what the experts actually think.

 

[ApostateAbe]

See the study by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker: "2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence," which you can find on the web.

And pretty easily at that!

Even THIS poorly-labeled graph doesn't show that the majority of experts believe the "black-white(1) intelligence differences(2) are mostly due(3) to genetics(4)."

1) It doesn't specifically mention black/white racial groups
2) Nor did the survey ask about intelligence differences
3) It appears to be the minority view that genetics is the largest factor and
4) This from the 45% of experts who believe that "genetics AND environment" together are factors.

And btw, this was a survey that was emailed to 1,237 people, of which 228 responded (and only 70 of them completed fully). The authors concede that they did not bother to identify who the respondents actually were or what their answers were based on. Nor were all of the people who RECEIVED the survey actual researchers with a background in genetics or cognitive science.

This particular paper is an INCREDIBLY weak piece of evidence that actually kind of undermines the point you're trying to make, which leads me to believe you have not actually read it very carefully but trust its conclusions anyway.

I invite you to consider that you have come up with a theory that "sounds good" at face value and are farming for evidence that supports it; that the theory as you envision it may be fundamentally flawed in some important way, and that you are better off going back to the research WITHOUT a pre-determined expectation of reality and seeing what the experts actually think.

It is a topic I have studied for years. There are many lines of evidence that indicate what the majority of intelligence researcher think, this is only one of the many, and I have not seen evidence that indicates anything contrary. Though, to be fair, intelligence researchers are alone in their conclusions. Evolutionary biologists tend to acknowledge the biological existence of human races but do not believe that races vary in intelligence due to genetics. Psychologists in general acknowledge intelligence is mostly genetically heritable but do not believe that intelligence varies between races due to genetics. American anthropologists tend to disbelieve in the biological existence of races. Intelligence researchers stand alone in their own conclusions, and they tend to be quiet about it. Only a few such intelligence researchers are willing to make such opinions known to the public, as the others tend to believe that such knowledge will do more harm than good (especially to their own careers). This survey (and the 1984 survey) was conducted with the promise of anonymity. I am willing to promote such conclusions and the reasons for them, as I believe that obscurantism about it will do more public harm than good, and it is only a matter of time before the genes are fully identified and the conclusion becomes undeniable, by which time the white supremacists will have planted their flag in the science, liberals will become the anti-scientific fringe, and it will be a very unhappy social result. It pays to have an open mind about it, and I hope I will change my mind when the evidence leads me there. I am often accused of having a disastrously closed mind about it, like I am evil, stupid, both, and worse, customarily accused by people who barely know the first thing about the topic, and I don't want to live up to their knee-jerk accusations.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is a topic I have studied for years....

Then you should already be aware that the conventional (e.g. American) conception of "race" has no support whatsoever among geneticists OR legitimate educational researchers. The consensus in that regard is that the genetic difference between, say, black people AS A RACE and white AS A RACE people is in many cases smaller than inter-racial differences among the same group. It may shock you to realize that the genes that code for skin pigmentation do not positively correlate with a particularly a huge number of OTHER genetic factors.

Though, to be fair, intelligence researchers are alone in their conclusions.

CERTAIN intelligence researchers are alone in their conclusions, yes. And these are also at odds with geneticists, cognitive psychologists, child psychologists, neuropathologists and even education specialists who disagree with that basic premise: that there is a genetic difference between black and white people as distinct groups that accounts for the intelligence gap.

But I digress...

This survey (and the 1984 survey) was conducted with the promise of anonymity.

Indeed. So among 1237 people surveyed, 228 of them participated in this study, and of those who participated, 45% of them believed that genetics AND environmental factors contributed to intelligence. Frankly I'm amazed the number was that low.

But you are veering far out of the bounds of "Most researchers believe..." and have strayed WELL into the territory of "A small, oppressed group of intelligence researchers politically incorrectly believe..." I'll grant you the latter premise.

And note that I am not even inclined to find fault with your theory IN AND OF ITSELF. But I take issue with the claim that it is a well-researched and evidence-based one; you're not the only one here with a JSTOR account.

I am often accused of having a disastrously closed mind about it, like I am evil, stupid, both, and worse, customarily accused by people who barely know the first thing about the topic, and I don't want to live up to their knee-jerk accusations.

Again are you willing to consider the possibility that your theory isn't a solid as you think it is?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Then you should already be aware that the conventional (e.g. American) conception of "race" has no support whatsoever among geneticists OR legitimate educational researchers. The consensus in that regard is that the genetic difference between, say, black people AS A RACE and white AS A RACE people is in many cases smaller than inter-racial differences among the same group. It may shock you to realize that the genes that code for skin pigmentation do not positively correlate with a particularly a huge number of OTHER genetic factors.

Though, to be fair, intelligence researchers are alone in their conclusions.

CERTAIN intelligence researchers are alone in their conclusions, yes. And these are also at odds with geneticists, cognitive psychologists, child psychologists, neuropathologists and even education specialists who disagree with that basic premise: that there is a genetic difference between black and white people as distinct groups that accounts for the intelligence gap.

But I digress...

This survey (and the 1984 survey) was conducted with the promise of anonymity.

Indeed. So among 1237 people surveyed, 228 of them participated in this study, and of those who participated, 45% of them believed that genetics AND environmental factors contributed to intelligence. Frankly I'm amazed the number was that low.

But you are veering far out of the bounds of "Most researchers believe..." and have strayed WELL into the territory of "A small, oppressed group of intelligence researchers politically incorrectly believe..." I'll grant you the latter premise.

And note that I am not even inclined to find fault with your theory IN AND OF ITSELF. But I take issue with the claim that it is a well-researched and evidence-based one; you're not the only one here with a JSTOR account.

I am often accused of having a disastrously closed mind about it, like I am evil, stupid, both, and worse, customarily accused by people who barely know the first thing about the topic, and I don't want to live up to their knee-jerk accusations.

Again are you willing to consider the possibility that your theory isn't a solid as you think it is?

"Then you should already be aware that the conventional (e.g. American) conception of 'race' has no support whatsoever among geneticists OR legitimate educational researchers."

Minority support, though not no support among geneticists (I am not sure what you mean by "educational researchers"). Academia is split on the concept of race. The academics who give the most credit to the concept of race are intelligence researchers, evolutionary biologists and medical doctors (though not all). Without race in evolutionary biology, there would be no way to make sense of evolutionary divergence. Races are thought to be populations that vary in their gene frequencies due to differing ancestral geographies, and humans are apparently no exception to the pattern. Geneticists do seem to side with the American anthropologists and dismiss the biological concept of race, but they substitute other words in place of "race," such as "ancestral group" or "population" or "ethnic group" or "cline" or "cluster," with the same meaning as "race," as understood by evolutionary biologists. It is interesting to me when they prefer "ethnic group" to describe human groups of varying gene frequencies, as it would mean that ethnicity is biological but race is not, reversed from how those words are understood among the public and how it has been understood in biology for a hundred years. Races are also commonly recognized by medical doctors, as it is essential to their practice that different races have different frequencies of genetically-influenced diseases and different drug receptivity rates. The biology of race is assumed on medical exams. Cystic fibrosis, for example, is a purely genetic disease that is ten times more common among whites than among Asians. It is true that there is more genetic variation within each race than between each race, but it does not follow that the genetic variations between each race are therefore irrelevant (see  Lewontin's Fallacy). There are significant racial variations in every system of the human body, and a good medical doctor can not possibly be blind to them. There has been drama in the last 15 years from academics attempting to make doctors blind to race, even in medical research, and medical doctors tend to react very harshly to those suggestions. The academic field thought to be most united on the point that human races are not biological are anthropologists. But, even in anthropology, there are significant divisions. A survey of anthropologists globally found that there was consensus only among American anthropologists. In Europe, the opinions of anthropologists are split down the middle. In China and Russia, the consensus is on the reverse point: yes, human races biologically exist. A minority of anthropologists in America are forensic anthropologists, and, for them, biological races are core to their practice. They identify age, sex, and race from each set of bone remains they are asked to study, and on "race" they have a high success rate.

"Again are you willing to consider the possibility that your theory isn't a solid as you think it is?"

Yes, and I do so pretty much every day. I have the same question for you, if you do not mind too much. One way to make such a consideration is to try to figure out how evolutionary divergence works without races, or maybe figure out how or why the human species would be an exception.