Derail from "Video on race baiting"

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

No, evolutionary biologists do NOT use "race" as a placeholder for anthropological subgroups. Again, the conventional SOCIAL CONSTRUCT that we identify as "race" is a set of definitions that are so subjective and arbitrary that they're next to useless in legitimate scientific discourse; they can be superimposed on that research if you squint at it hard enough, but they don't actually FIT.

Yes, ancestral groups, ethnic groups, clines, clusters, even language groups can be classified and identified, but few if any of these correspond to recognizable American racial groupings. There's no scientific reason to attempt that correspondence since our present definitions of "race" are INDEED arbitrary and meaningless.

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

Because ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Especially in America.

In China and Russia, the consensus is on the reverse point: yes, human races biologically exist.

In Chinese and Russian languages the words for "race" and "ethnicity" are virtually interchangeable, as are the social attitudes towards both. Case in point: I believe you are aware to our eastern counterparts there is no such thing as "the Chinese race." It is more accurately referred to as "Chinese races" or "Chinese ethnicities."

"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.

Don't mind at all. I am, and I do.

But I think the difference between you and me is that I tend to support the majority view because the minority view is carrying what very much appears to be a lot of social/political baggage that it is attempting to justify scientifically. I can't give the minority view the benefit of the doubt since I know where most of that baggage actually comes from.

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.

Really, it's as simple as understanding that the American definitions of "race" were constructed to serve a political agenda, not a scientific one. Even when those definitions made sense -- at least for the sociopathic aims for which they were created -- they have no real basis in objective reality and are scientifically unsound. In that sense I'm forced to question the judgement of any researcher who believes that any characteristics can be attributed to an identifiable "black race."

This is because, scientifically speaking, "the black race" isn't a real thing. As far as I'm concerned, attempting to analyze the genetic traits of "the black race" is a bit like is a bit like performing a meta study on the crew composition of the Starship Enterprise. It's not something any serious researcher would ever do unless he was either bored or pushing some kind of agenda.

 

[ApostateAbe]

No, evolutionary biologists do NOT use "race" as a placeholder for anthropological subgroups. Again, the conventional SOCIAL CONSTRUCT that we identify as "race" is a set of definitions that are so subjective and arbitrary that they're next to useless in legitimate scientific discourse; they can be superimposed on that research if you squint at it hard enough, but they don't actually FIT.

Yes, ancestral groups, ethnic groups, clines, clusters, even language groups can be classified and identified, but few if any of these correspond to recognizable American racial groupings. There's no scientific reason to attempt that correspondence since our present definitions of "race" are INDEED arbitrary and meaningless.

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

Because ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Especially in America.

In China and Russia, the consensus is on the reverse point: yes, human races biologically exist.

In Chinese and Russian languages the words for "race" and "ethnicity" are virtually interchangeable, as are the social attitudes towards both. Case in point: I believe you are aware to our eastern counterparts there is no such thing as "the Chinese race." It is more accurately referred to as "Chinese races" or "Chinese ethnicities."

"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.

Don't mind at all. I am, and I do.

But I think the difference between you and me is that I tend to support the majority view because the minority view is carrying what very much appears to be a lot of social/political baggage that it is attempting to justify scientifically. I can't give the minority view the benefit of the doubt since I know where most of that baggage actually comes from.

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.

Really, it's as simple as understanding that the American definitions of "race" were constructed to serve a political agenda, not a scientific one. Even when those definitions made sense -- at least for the sociopathic aims for which they were created -- they have no real basis in objective reality and are scientifically unsound. In that sense I'm forced to question the judgement of any researcher who believes that any characteristics can be attributed to an identifiable "black race."

This is because, scientifically speaking, "the black race" isn't a real thing. As far as I'm concerned, attempting to analyze the genetic traits of "the black race" is a bit like is a bit like performing a meta study on the crew composition of the Starship Enterprise. It's not something any serious researcher would ever do unless he was either bored or pushing some kind of agenda.

'No, evolutionary biologists do NOT use "race" as a placeholder for anthropological subgroups. Again, the conventional SOCIAL CONSTRUCT that we identify as "race" is a set of definitions that are so subjective and arbitrary that they're next to useless in legitimate scientific discourse; they can be superimposed on that research if you squint at it hard enough, but they don't actually FIT.'

To evolutionary biologists, "races" are populations within a species with differing gene frequencies due to differing geography. It is something I learned in the creation vs. evolution debates. Races are a core pattern of the process of speciation, and "race" really is the word they use. I copied an article about race that Ernst Mayr wrote in 2002, and you can find it in this thread. Mayr claimed:

Those who subscribe to this opinion ["there are no human races"] are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.​

See also this FAQ page about speciation on TalkOrigins.org, where you can find "race" in both the body of the text and in the titles listed in the bibliography: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. It is a scientific tradition cemented by Charles Darwin in the subtitle of his first book. Other biologists may change the words, but evolutionary biologists do not really have an alternative word to denote the same evolutionary concept. All species that occupy diverse environments for many generations follow the pattern of races, and, as Mayr pointed out, humans are apparently no exception. See this freely downloadable study by Tang et al: "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies." Assuming four race clusters, over 99.8% of 3000 subjects accurately self-identified their own race against genetic testing.

'In Chinese and Russian languages the words for "race" and "ethnicity" are virtually interchangeable, as are the social attitudes towards both. Case in point: I believe you are aware to our eastern counterparts there is no such thing as "the Chinese race." It is more accurately referred to as "Chinese races" or "Chinese ethnicities."'

Yes, I believe it. Leonard Lieberman et al's paper, "The Race Concept in Six Regions: Variation Without Consensus," explains the Chinese scientific perspective further:

Over 80 percent of these papers [utilizing the concept of race] investigated biological differences of ethnic groups in China, while indicating they were all of the same Mongoloid race.Over 80 percent of these papers investigated biological differences of ethnic groups in China, while indicating they were all of the same Mongoloid race. Those that examined Paleolithic fossils reported that some Mongoloid traits are present in Middle Pleistocene Homo erectus populations. Wang et al. conclude that the concept of race is deeply rooted in Chinese biological anthropology and uncritically accepted among scientists working in the discipline. They also hypothesize that the reasons for this should be sought in China’s specific social and political contexts within which science is practiced, and its relative isolation from Western anthropology.​

'Really, it's as simple as understanding that the American definitions of "race" were constructed to serve a political agenda, not a scientific one. Even when those definitions made sense -- at least for the sociopathic aims for which they were created -- they have no real basis in objective reality and are scientifically unsound. In that sense I'm forced to question the judgement of any researcher who believes that any characteristics can be attributed to an identifiable "black race."

This is because, scientifically speaking, "the black race" isn't a real thing. As far as I'm concerned, attempting to analyze the genetic traits of "the black race" is a bit like is a bit like performing a meta study on the crew composition of the Starship Enterprise. It's not something any serious researcher would ever do unless he was either bored or pushing some kind of agenda.'

This was written in response to my suggestion: "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." But, your answer did not make a seeming attempt! The suggestion still stands. I am already aware of your conclusions, so they do not need to be restated.

 

[laughing dog]

Studying _____ for years does not necessarily translate into understanding _____.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Studying _____ for years does not necessarily translate into understanding _____.

I disagree. Time studying a topic does indeed translate into understanding a topic. But, I would agree if you were to claim that time studying a topic does not translate into BEING CORRECT about the topic.

 

[laughing dog]

Studying _____ for years does not necessarily translate into understanding _____.

I disagree. Time studying a topic does indeed translate into understanding a topic.

Well, your posts prove otherwise.

But, I would agree if you were to claim that time studying a topic does not translate into BEING CORRECT about the topic.

If one understands a topic, one should be correct about it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah. Should.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Abe,

Why do you insist on proving the how scientific race is in political threads?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Abe,

Why do you insist on proving the how scientific race is in political threads?

A lot of politics concerns race, and, when politics is divorced from the science, you have bad politics. Being wrong about science means being wrong about politics.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Abe,

Why do you insist on proving the how scientific race is in political threads?

A lot of politics concerns race, and, when politics is divorced from the science, you have bad politics. Being wrong about science means being wrong about politics.

And how does your discussion of the existence of race relate to this OP?

 

[Underseer]

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.

Cite, please, because that is quite at odds with what I've been reading.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A lot of politics concerns race, and, when politics is divorced from the science, you have bad politics. Being wrong about science means being wrong about politics.

And how does your discussion of the existence of race relate to this OP?

That would be the first post I made in this thread. The narrator attributes modern racial inequalities of poverty and incarcerations to the historical pattern of racial injustice, and it serves as his premise for his ambiguously-conspiracist anti-authoritarianism. My general response is that both modern racial economic inequalities better follow from the patterns of the genetics of intelligence measurements, and the inequalities of incarceration better follow from inequalities in actual crimes committed, which plausibly follows from genetic differences though not as certain as the cause of the intelligence differences.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Cite, please, because that is quite at odds with what I've been reading.

See post #20.

 

[fromderinside]

It is a topic I have studied for years.

Your statement statement is not a sufficient statement to testify as if it were evidence or as if to what one is testifying is scientifically sound.

Go back through your years of study and cobble together a consistent or emerging thread of scientific theory on the topic you have studied for years. Recitations and 'see my authority' are not suitable scientific argument.

Wikipedia's review " A People's History of the United States" demonstrates how such a cobbling should be done. I've seen nothing in your writings that approach that minimum level of narrative. The wiki article should leave substantial doubt about validity what Zinn wrote. Never is there a point where you permit even a shred of doubt about the validity of your opinion. Let's leave your opinion at that rather than as an alternative to Zinn's posture or that of others about the basis for racism and slavery. Your preaching just isn't doing it.

BTW has anyone established whether systems, leaders, general sentiment, something else, or several of those mentioned are basic to development of systems and cultures.

My sense is that Zinn chose those who he quoted selectively with a conclusion in mind, just a tad more worth looking at than ApostateAbe's 'intelligence' bleating (yeah, this is an opinion).

I really want to get back to whether the OP is a good analysis of from whence race baiting arises. I'd really like to get rid of such as race baiting and other false 'reasons' for why things as they are in the black community primarily in the US. Thanks for the video underseer.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It is a topic I have studied for years.

Your statement statement is not a sufficient statement to testify as if it were evidence or as if to what one is testifying is scientifically sound.

Go back through your years of study and cobble together a consistent or emerging thread of scientific theory on the topic you have studied for years. Recitations and 'see my authority' are not suitable scientific argument.

Wikipedia's review " A People's History of the United States" demonstrates how such a cobbling should be done. I've seen nothing in your writings that approach that minimum level of narrative. The wiki article should leave substantial doubt about validity what Zinn wrote. Never is there a point where you permit even a shred of doubt about the validity of your opinion. Let's leave your opinion at that rather than as an alternative to Zinn's posture or that of others about the basis for racism and slavery. Your preaching just isn't doing it.

BTW has anyone established whether systems, leaders, general sentiment, something else, or several of those mentioned are basic to development of systems and cultures.

My sense is that Zinn chose those who he quoted selectively with a conclusion in mind, just a tad more worth looking at than ApostateAbe's 'intelligence' bleating (yeah, this is an opinion).

I really want to get back to whether the OP is a good analysis of from whence race baiting arises. I'd really like to get rid of such as race baiting and other false 'reasons' for why things as they are in the black community primarily in the US. Thanks for the video underseer.

I didn't mean to argue from my own authority. I meant it to inform someone who was writing as though I was new to the topic. I am sorry you got the wrong idea. Just because I have studied the topic for years does not mean I am more likely to be correct about it.

 

[fromderinside]

Your statement statement is not a sufficient statement to testify as if it were evidence or as if to what one is testifying is scientifically sound.

Go back through your years of study and cobble together a consistent or emerging thread of scientific theory on the topic you have studied for years. Recitations and 'see my authority' are not suitable scientific argument.

Wikipedia's review " A People's History of the United States" demonstrates how such a cobbling should be done. I've seen nothing in your writings that approach that minimum level of narrative. The wiki article should leave substantial doubt about validity what Zinn wrote. Never is there a point where you permit even a shred of doubt about the validity of your opinion. Let's leave your opinion at that rather than as an alternative to Zinn's posture or that of others about the basis for racism and slavery. Your preaching just isn't doing it.

BTW has anyone established whether systems, leaders, general sentiment, something else, or several of those mentioned are basic to development of systems and cultures.

My sense is that Zinn chose those who he quoted selectively with a conclusion in mind, just a tad more worth looking at than ApostateAbe's 'intelligence' bleating (yeah, this is an opinion).

I really want to get back to whether the OP is a good analysis of from whence race baiting arises. I'd really like to get rid of such as race baiting and other false 'reasons' for why things as they are in the black community primarily in the US. Thanks for the video underseer.

I didn't mean to argue from my own authority. I meant it to inform someone who was writing as though I was new to the topic. I am sorry you got the wrong idea. Just because I have studied the topic for years does not mean I am more likely to be correct about it.

So why the theory without detailed support?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I didn't mean to argue from my own authority. I meant it to inform someone who was writing as though I was new to the topic. I am sorry you got the wrong idea. Just because I have studied the topic for years does not mean I am more likely to be correct about it.

So why the theory without detailed support?

If you think I have been short on citations on anything specific you are curious about, then feel free to ask.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And how does your discussion of the existence of race relate to this OP?

That would be the first post I made in this thread. The narrator attributes modern racial inequalities of poverty and incarcerations to the historical pattern of racial injustice, and it serves as his premise for his ambiguously-conspiracist anti-authoritarianism. My general response is that both modern racial economic inequalities better follow from the patterns of the genetics of intelligence measurements, and the inequalities of incarceration better follow from inequalities in actual crimes committed, which plausibly follows from genetic differences though not as certain as the cause of the intelligence differences.

And so what do you suggest, using your genetics argument, we do politically to deal with economic inequalities and inequalities in incarceration?

 

[ApostateAbe]

That would be the first post I made in this thread. The narrator attributes modern racial inequalities of poverty and incarcerations to the historical pattern of racial injustice, and it serves as his premise for his ambiguously-conspiracist anti-authoritarianism. My general response is that both modern racial economic inequalities better follow from the patterns of the genetics of intelligence measurements, and the inequalities of incarceration better follow from inequalities in actual crimes committed, which plausibly follows from genetic differences though not as certain as the cause of the intelligence differences.

And so what do you suggest, using your genetics argument, we do politically to deal with economic inequalities and inequalities in incarceration?

The most useful application of such information, for now, is to better inform the public of what they should NOT do. I don't know what Matthew Cooke explicitly suggests if anything, but his arguments seem to suggest revolution. Even after a revolution with the intent in part to resolve inequalities, racial inequalities will remain. So, what is a better way to respond? Before the last few decades, genetic differences meant there was little you could do except tolerate the realities, enact slow eugenics or wage genocide. But, now is the beginning of the era of genetic engineering, not to be brushed aside as mere science fiction, as it is already happening with positive effect for domestic plants and animals. This year, alleles for human intelligence are being discovered, and they are being found to vary by race. As the science develops and many more such alleles are discovered, wealthy clients will fund genetic engineering to greatly increase the intelligence of their germs. This will increase the racial intelligence gaps, as the people of genetically-engineered high intelligence will tend to mate with their own race (Jews, Asians and whites). But, democratic action can redirect this tendency so that races of low intelligence may receive the benefits of genetic engineering for intelligence. It would have the potential of equalizing the races for the first time in human history. That is my crazy long-term vision, but, if it is too crazy, then settle for now on what you should NOT do: overthrow of the oppressive racist capitalistic tyranny that is keeping blacks poor and jailed or whatever.

 

[Arctish]

That is my crazy long-term vision, but, if it is too crazy, then settle for now on what you should NOT do: overthrow of the oppressive racist capitalistic tyranny that is keeping blacks poor and jailed or whatever.

Why not?

Your argument for increasing the distribution of certain genes is interesting, but it doesn't solve the problems of insane, unsustainable incarceration rates, the militarization of our police forces and concurrent increase in police state tactics to suppress dissent, or the ability of the wealthiest 1% to influence the outcome of every political process to the disadvantage of the bottom 99%.

If our current system is an oppressive racist capitalistic tyranny, we should overthrow it and replace it with something less racist, less oppressive, and less tyrannical.

 

[RavenSky]

It is a manifesto...

Irony

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And so what do you suggest, using your genetics argument, we do politically to deal with economic inequalities and inequalities in incarceration?

The most useful application of such information, for now, is to better inform the public of what they should NOT do. I don't know what Matthew Cooke explicitly suggests if anything, but his arguments seem to suggest revolution. Even after a revolution with the intent in part to resolve inequalities, racial inequalities will remain. So, what is a better way to respond? Before the last few decades, genetic differences meant there was little you could do except tolerate the realities, enact slow eugenics or wage genocide. But, now is the beginning of the era of genetic engineering, not to be brushed aside as mere science fiction, as it is already happening with positive effect for domestic plants and animals. This year, alleles for human intelligence are being discovered, and they are being found to vary by race. As the science develops and many more such alleles are discovered, wealthy clients will fund genetic engineering to greatly increase the intelligence of their germs. This will increase the racial intelligence gaps, as the people of genetically-engineered high intelligence will tend to mate with their own race (Jews, Asians and whites). But, democratic action can redirect this tendency so that races of low intelligence may receive the benefits of genetic engineering for intelligence. It would have the potential of equalizing the races for the first time in human history. That is my crazy long-term vision, but, if it is too crazy, then settle for now on what you should NOT do: overthrow of the oppressive racist capitalistic tyranny that is keeping blacks poor and jailed or whatever.

You think Jews are a race?

And you think that oppressive racist capitalistic tyranny should not be overturned?