Race just another Social construct ?

[Alceste]

Bell curves and their implications are already a known and accepted part of mathematics, science and statistics. It's bigger than me.

I can only lead the horses to water.........

But as far as I'm concerned disbelievers will not have as accurate an understanding of the human species as me on this issue. You can't prove anything to people who are not emotionally willing to understand.

I know this sounds pompous but I can't think of a more direct way to put it.

It sure does sound pompous. Painted Wolf is studying to become a biologist. To me, this means she knows more than you about the subject of genetics. You have an chance to let her help you correct an uninformed opinion, and instead of taking advantage of a wonderful opportunity to learn more, you just claim everyone who disagrees with you has emotional blinders on. It's kind of sad.

 

[painted wolf]

eHow? Really?

Ok... let's try this again with some helpful pictures.

This image shows genetic variation within and between different populations of canids... from this paper: https://www.eeb.ucla.edu/Faculty/Novembre/vonHoldt2011GenomeResearch.pdf

You will notice that the dogs cluster very distinctively away from the wolves and coyotes... while the wolves and coyotes are closest to one another.

That, in short, is a perfect example of a super significant genetic difference.

You don't get clusters like this with humans.

Another cool figure in the paper shows that coyotes (despite being a distinctive species) actually have more dog genes in their populations than wolves do... with some coyote populations having as much as 13% of their gene pool being dog ancestry. No wolves were found with dog genes in their populations but wolf populations with coyote genes were found.
Red wolves in particular are essentially more coyote than wolf at this point... though still with zero dog.

Genetics is a complicated business... It's easy to gloss over but difficult to actually understand.

It's especially tricky when we humans have a phenotypic variation that seems so intuitive. It just "feels right" to say that people who look different must have significant genetic differences between them, when the reality is just the opposite.
Skin color in particular a very poor judge due to the fact that skin tone is coded for by at least nine different genes working together and so even the most minor variation in one of those genes can have a large impact.

When you get to even more nebulous ideas like "athletic ability" then you might as well give up.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

You will notice that the dogs cluster very distinctively away from the wolves and coyotes... while the wolves and coyotes are closest to one another.

That, in short, is a perfect example of a super significant genetic difference.

You don't get clusters like this with humans.

Another cool figure in the paper shows that coyotes (despite being a distinctive species) actually have more dog genes in their populations than wolves do... with some coyote populations having as much as 13% of their gene pool being dog ancestry. No wolves were found with dog genes in their populations but wolf populations with coyote genes were found.
Red wolves in particular are essentially more coyote than wolf at this point... though still with zero dog.

Thank you for the lesson on canids genetics. BUT....

Genetics is a complicated business... It's easy to gloss over but difficult to actually understand.

Agreed.

It's especially tricky when we humans have a phenotypic variation that seems so intuitive. It just "feels right" to say that people who look different must have significant genetic differences between them, when the reality is just the opposite.

We both agree that there is some genetic difference between the various ethnic/genetic groups of man. The problem with your genetic argument is that it gives us no frame of reference for how important these human genetic differences are (or aren't) in the real human world. To know that answer we have to study the real world and make the most intelligent comparisons possible also considering the complicated influence of environmental factors.

In some areas the differences do not seem that significant but in other areas, the differences are what I would call significant and are a factor in the disproportionate representation in some areas of society.

I've already talked in this thread about African-Americans and athletics favoring fast-twitch muscles. I've not yet mentioned things like Ashkenazi Jews and their disproportionate representation in the higher intellectual fields; physics, philosophy, etc. (and their higher IQ and density of interconnecting neurons). I call it significant.

Skin color in particular a very poor judge due to the fact that skin tone is coded for by at least nine different genes working together and so even the most minor variation in one of those genes can have a large impact.

Agreed. I don't think skin color has significant meaning. Genetic/ethnic groups do have some significant meaning though.

 

[painted wolf]

We both agree that there is some genetic difference between the various ethnic/genetic groups of man. The problem with your genetic argument is that it gives us no frame of reference for how important these human genetic differences are (or aren't) in the real human world. To know that answer we have to study the real world and make the most intelligent comparisons possible also considering the complicated influence of environmental factors.

Genetics is the study of the real word.
The vast majority of genetic variation in humans is in regards to disease resistance/susceptibility. And while these genes are generally grouped by lineage (haplogroups), they are not grouped by "race".

In some areas the differences do not seem that significant but in other areas, the differences are what I would call significant and are a factor in the disproportionate representation in some areas of society.

And what are the influences of social pressures on these numbers? How do you account for the role stereotyping and other soft pressures change things vs. what is pure genetics?

Thus far all I'm getting is "it looks right to me" and very little substance.

I've already talked in this thread about African-Americans and athletics favoring fast-twitch muscles.

Most athletes favor fast-twitch muscles...
So sorry... but once again, that doesn't support your point at all.

Indeed there are more than 150 genes that influence your proportion of fast to slow twitch muscles... and a change in a single nucleotide of one of those genes can switch it off from one generation to the next.
So, simply having parents with working copies of the gene doesn't mean you will have working copies yourself.

I've not yet mentioned things like Ashkenazi Jews and their disproportionate representation in the higher intellectual fields; physics, philosophy, etc. (and their higher IQ and density of interconnecting neurons). I call it significant.

I call it seeing what you want to see.

Could you provide a scientific paper on the density of neurons?

Agreed. I don't think skin color has significant meaning. Genetic/ethnic groups do have some significant meaning though.

Given that every human can potentially belong to two very different genetic/ethnic groups due to the nature of genetic inheritance it doesn't seem very convincing to me.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Genetics is the study of the real word.
The vast majority of genetic variation in humans is in regards to disease resistance/susceptibility. And while these genes are generally grouped by lineage (haplogroups), they are not grouped by "race".


And what are the influences of social pressures on these numbers? How do you account for the role stereotyping and other soft pressures change things vs. what is pure genetics?

Thus far all I'm getting is "it looks right to me" and very little substance.

Most athletes favor fast-twitch muscles...
So sorry... but once again, that doesn't support your point at all.

Indeed there are more than 150 genes that influence your proportion of fast to slow twitch muscles... and a change in a single nucleotide of one of those genes can switch it off from one generation to the next.
So, simply having parents with working copies of the gene doesn't mean you will have working copies yourself.

I call it seeing what you want to see.

Could you provide a scientific paper on the density of neurons?


Given that every human can potentially belong to two very different genetic/ethnic groups due to the nature of genetic inheritance it doesn't seem very convincing to me.

wa:do

I believe you. You obviously know more than me, so I'm very glad you chip into these debates. Every time you do, I learn something on a subject I find very interesting. Thanks for that!

 

[George-ananda]

I believe you. You obviously know more than me, so I'm very glad you chip into these debates. Every time you do, I learn something on a subject I find very interesting. Thanks for that!

Alceste,

Ohh......so you gals are tag-teaming me are you......I saw these responses at 2:25 AM after my trip to the bar ........Old George-Ananda is not as dumb as you think....Tommorow I will unsheath my sword again...
peace...

Oh, and that Painted Wolf wants scientific papers now...little does she know I write two or three a day

 

[painted wolf]

Oh, and that Painted Wolf wants scientific papers now...little does she know I write two or three a day

That would make you the most prolific scientist ever! You sir are amazing! :faint:

I know it takes me at least a few days to just get an abstract right, since the language needed in a scientific paper is so exacting.

You made a dubious statement on anatomy and physiology that needs citation... asking for it shouldn't be a problem since the citation section is one of the most important parts of those scientific papers you write so many of.

wa:do

 

[Iti oj]

Markex all threads read....except this one?

 

[painted wolf]

Speaking of scientific papers.... here's another brand new one showing that our views on race(ism) is not something biologically ingrained in us but is a learned response. And that exposure to people from diverse backgrounds reduces biases against perceived "others".

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Amygdala Sensitivity to Race Is Not Present in Childhood but Emerges over Adolescence

Abstract:
Neuroimaging research in adults has consistently found that differential perception of race is associated with increased amygdala activity. We hypothesized that such neural biases unlikely reflect innate processes but instead emerge over development. In the current study, we used fMRI to examine the neurodevelopmental trajectory of the amygdala in response to race across childhood and adolescence ranging from 4 to 16 years. Thirty-two youths viewed African American and European American faces during a functional brain scan. Results suggest that differential amygdala response to African American faces does not emerge until adolescence, reflecting the increasing salience of race across development. In addition, greater peer diversity was associated with attenuated amygdala response to African American faces, suggesting that intergroup racial contact may reduce the salience of race.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Genetics is the study of the real word.

Agreed. But, like all studies, it's limited in the questions it can answer. For example, 'How does the percentage of genetic difference really effect things in the human competitive world'.

The vast majority of genetic variation in humans is in regards to disease resistance/susceptibility. And while these genes are generally grouped by lineage (haplogroups), they are not grouped by "race".

OK, fine. But how does that other minority of genetic variation effect things?

And what are the influences of social pressures on these numbers? How do you account for the role stereotyping and other soft pressures change things vs. what is pure genetics?

Ah, let me quote from that great thinker George-Ananda's previous post as it appeared to get ignored the first time.

To know that answer we have to study the real world and make the most intelligent comparisons possible also considering the complicated influence of environmental factors.


We both agree it's complicated. It's not just black and white (pun intended). And I'm not going to agree that since it's complicated we can know nothing. We can know things without perfect precision.
　
Now for my concluding remarks:


I have been observing people with an interest to this question all my life. I happen to live in a very ethnically mixed neighborhood in the Detroit area.

Let me make this analogy: The 'ethnicity is insignificant' geneticists are to me like some PhD meteroligist sitting in his Harvard lab with all the current meterological data in the world at his disposal telling me it's not raining on my front lawn. And I'm standing in the rain on my front lawn. When I tell him this, he scoffs and says I have the data here to prove it isn't. And then he says 'George-Ananda, you really have some kind of perception of percipitation problem'.

Now I trust my personal judgements over those of geneticists (as I'm actually debating an issue they cannot address). I go to a gym and shower every other day and have been observing for many decades now, and I can notice strength, muscular, size differences and in the shower I see other differences indelicate to mention. I will make the statement that on these factors African-Americans are on one end of the distribution and asians are on the other end with whites imtermediary. Yes, I consider environmental factors and the chance that I have skewed perception problems again.

Plus I spend too much time on bar stools at kareoke (sp?) bars and don't even go there with me on the ear pain from the same basic one-end, other-end, intermediary observation above with my three types of friends.

I can go on and with a thousand examples of why I believe there are significant differences in the traits and attributes of the vatious ethnic groups. To end on a positive note, we should all get along in brotherly love and appreciate each others strengths.

 

[Alceste]

Agreed. But, like all studies, it's limited in the questions it can answer. For example, 'How does the percentage of genetic difference really effect things in the human competitive world'.




OK, fine. But how does that other minority of genetic variation effect things?




Ah, let me quote from that great thinker George-Ananda's previous post as it appeared to get ignored the first time.

To know that answer we have to study the real world and make the most intelligent comparisons possible also considering the complicated influence of environmental factors.


We both agree it's complicated. It's not just black and white (pun intended). And I'm not going to agree that since it's complicated we can know nothing. We can know things without perfect precision.
　
Now for my concluding remarks:


I have been observing people with an interest to this question all my life. I happen to live in a very ethnically mixed neighborhood in the Detroit area.

Let me make this analogy: The 'ethnicity is insignificant' geneticists are to me like some PhD meteroligist sitting in his Harvard lab with all the current meterological data in the world at his disposal telling me it's not raining on my front lawn. And I'm standing in the rain on my front lawn. When I tell him this, he scoffs and says I have the data here to prove it isn't. And then he says 'George-Ananda, you really have some kind of perception of percipitation problem'.

Now I trust my personal judgements over those of geneticists (as I'm actually debating an issue they cannot address). I go to a gym and shower every other day and have been observing for many decades now, and I can notice strength, muscular, size differences and in the shower I see other differences indelicate to mention. I will make the statement that on these factors African-Americans are on one end of the distribution and asians are on the other end with whites imtermediary. Yes, I consider environmental factors and the chance that I have skewed perception problems again.

Plus I spend too much time on bar stools at kareoke (sp?) bars and don't even go there with me on the ear pain from the same basic one-end, other-end, intermediary observation above with my three types of friends.

I can go on and with a thousand examples of why I believe there are significant differences in the traits and attributes of the vatious ethnic groups. To end on a positive note, we should all get along in brotherly love and appreciate each others strengths.

Perhaps you are mistaking visible, physiological differences that are generally true between people of different ethnic backgrounds for large genetic differences?

You're more like someone who is standing in your kitchen, thumping your hand on the counter, and refusing to believe a physicist who tells you no single particle that composes the entity that is "you" is making contact with any particle that composes the entity that is " the counter". IOW, you are taking your experiential truth to be a scientific truth.

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps you are mistaking visible, physiological differences that are generally true between people of different ethnic backgrounds for large genetic differences?

Large genetic differences and small genetic differences are relative terms. Large and small must be relative to something to be meaningful terms. And since the current field of genetics, can't tell us how much genetic difference will effect our comparative performances in the real world, then we have no reference for small and large.

I not only see 'visible, physiological differences' but I also see performance differences that are significant enough to cause obvious over and under representation of ethnic groups in different areas of society. (yes, I consider environment too)

You're more like someone who is standing in your kitchen, thumping your hand on the counter, and refusing to believe a physicist who tells you no single particle that composes the entity that is "you" is making contact with any particle that composes the entity that is " the counter". IOW, you are taking your experiential truth to be a scientific truth.

Not an accurate comparison...Geneticists are not able to tell us how much effect these genetic differences will have on real world performance (it's just too complicated). Observation and intelligent analysis are our best tools.

 

[painted wolf]

Agreed. But, like all studies, it's limited in the questions it can answer. For example, 'How does the percentage of genetic difference really effect things in the human competitive world'.

You mean like the question you have been insisting you already know the answer to.... How does genetics influence human competitive ability?

OK, fine. But how does that other minority of genetic variation effect things?

it gives some people blue eyes... extremely minor phenotypic variation.

Though if you look at total variation... the vast majority of it does absolutely nothing at all. Most mutations are silent and have zero effect.

Of the mutations that do something, most of it is related to health and very little of it is related to differences in phenotypes.

[/quote] Ah, let me quote from that great thinker George-Ananda's previous post as it appeared to get ignored the first time.

To know that answer we have to study the real world and make the most intelligent comparisons possible also considering the complicated influence of environmental factors.


We both agree it's complicated. It's not just black and white (pun intended). And I'm not going to agree that since it's complicated we can know nothing. We can know things without perfect precision. [/quote]
And from that study we have seen that "race" isn't really a factor.
　

Now for my concluding remarks:


I have been observing people with an interest to this question all my life. I happen to live in a very ethnically mixed neighborhood in the Detroit area.

Let me make this analogy: The 'ethnicity is insignificant' geneticists are to me like some PhD meteroligist sitting in his Harvard lab with all the current meterological data in the world at his disposal telling me it's not raining on my front lawn. And I'm standing in the rain on my front lawn. When I tell him this, he scoffs and says I have the data here to prove it isn't. And then he says 'George-Ananda, you really have some kind of perception of percipitation problem'.

Now I trust my personal judgements over those of geneticists (as I'm actually debating an issue they cannot address). I go to a gym and shower every other day and have been observing for many decades now, and I can notice strength, muscular, size differences and in the shower I see other differences indelicate to mention. I will make the statement that on these factors African-Americans are on one end of the distribution and asians are on the other end with whites imtermediary. Yes, I consider environmental factors and the chance that I have skewed perception problems again.

Plus I spend too much time on bar stools at kareoke (sp?) bars and don't even go there with me on the ear pain from the same basic one-end, other-end, intermediary observation above with my three types of friends.

I can go on and with a thousand examples of why I believe there are significant differences in the traits and attributes of the vatious ethnic groups. To end on a positive note, we should all get along in brotherly love and appreciate each others strengths.

I think you need to expand your studies outside of bars in Detroit if you want to understand "the real world".

In the end your story here is a perfect example of why race is a social construct and not a genuine genetic reality. All of your "examples" are things that simply look right to you and thus are questionable due to bias (intentional or not)... not things that are supportable by real world data.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Oh... and I'm still waiting for you back up that neuron statement.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

You mean like the question you have been insisting you already know the answer to.... How does genetics influence human competitive ability?

It's sounds like you're conceeding the point that modern genetics can't answer the question 'How does the percentage of genetic difference between ethnic groups really effect things in the human competitive world'.

So my question to you would then be: How do we judge the significance of ethnic group genetic differences if not by observation and intelligent analysis? Or do we taboo the whole subject as society has pretty well done?

I'll keep this post short because I want the above question not to get lost in the sauce as it's a key one.

I think you need to expand your studies outside of bars in Detroit if you want to understand 'the real world'.

Good one. Clap. There are us unfortunates that don't live in New Hampshire. And for my cultural upliftment they will have the Detroit Tiger World Series game tonight at the bar and karaoke won't be till late if at all. Baseball is cultural by our standards so watch out, I should be even sharper by tomorrow.
wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Oh... and I'm still waiting for you back up that neuron statement.

wa:do

I plan on writing two or three scientific papers on that very topic tomorrow.

 

[Storm]

I plan on writing two or three scientific papers on that very topic tomorrow.

How many of your "scientific papers" have actually been published for peer review? I mean, if you write two or three a day...

 

[painted wolf]

It's sounds like you're conceeding the point that modern genetics can't answer the question 'How does the percentage of genetic difference between ethnic groups really effect things in the human competitive world'.

Actually genetics already answered that question and the answer was that there isn't any genetic difference between ethnic groups athletic abilities. The differences are between individuals.

Now they are answering real questions like:
What genes code for what kinds of muscle, for improved cardiovascular performance, higher rates of gas exchange in the blood and so on.
Not to mention the question of:
Do minor genetic variations between individuals actually have a significant impact on athletic performance over better training and equipping.

So my question to you would then be: How do we judge the significance of ethnic group genetic differences if not by observation and intelligent analysis? Or do we taboo the whole subject as society has pretty well done?

I'll keep this post short because I want the above question not to get lost in the sauce as it's a key one.

Answer: People have already tried doing that and guess what... they found there isn't significant differences between ethnic groups abilities.

As for genetic differences I've already answered this a few times, but I'll try one last time.

The only differences are between haplorgoups... haplogroups are based on shared ancestry (one set for males and one set for females) and can be used to trace our migration patterns around the globe.

What haplogroups don't show is ethnic or racial biases. There is no single haplogroup for white people or even for Gales, Basques or Nordic people.

Good one. Clap. There are us unfortunates that don't live in New Hampshire. And for my cultural upliftment they will have the Detroit Tiger World Series game tonight at the bar and karaoke won't be till late if at all. Baseball is cultural by our standards so watch out, I should be even sharper by tomorrow.

The problem isn't your culture... it's that you refuse to look beyond it for the sake of intellectual honesty. The first step toward honest intellectual analysis is to realize that you are biased and working to mitigate that.

I plan on writing two or three scientific papers on that very topic tomorrow.

In other words, you realize you got caught trying to peddle a scientific sounding falsehood as a fact and now that it's been caught you're trying to dismiss it.

Perhaps you should consider how many more of your "facts" are also mistaken?

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

You now contradict yourself. I have multiple times made the point that current genetics can not answer the question of how much difference the ethnic genetic differences make (or don't make)in the competative and comparative real-world human society. My point went unchallenged. The interplay of different genes and how they all effect each other is too complicated.

And now you try to tell me:
　
[

Actually genetics already answered that question and the answer was that there isn't any genetic difference between ethnic groups athletic abilities.

You can not fail to challenge my statement and make your statement above. They can not both be true as they contradict.

You're like a wolf that painted herself into a corner now (couldn't not say that).

 

[painted wolf]

You now contradict yourself. I have multiple times made the point that current genetics can not answer the question of how much difference the ethnic genetic differences make (or don't make)in the competative and comparative real-world human society. My point went unchallenged. The interplay of different genes and how they all effect each other is too complicated.

And now you try to tell me:
　
[

You can not fail to challenge my statement and make your statement above. They can not both be true as they contradict.

You're like a wolf that painted herself into a corner now (couldn't not say that).

Actually I did answer it before, you just ignored it... genetics between ethnic groups is unimportant because there isn't any real variation there.
The variation is between individuals not groups.

And yes, it is complicated... 150+ genes isn't something like blue eyes where you only have a single nucleotide change in a single gene.

The largest contributor to athletic ability isn't as much genetics as it is training and other factors. You can have all the athletic alleles possible and still be a fat slob.

The fact that you have repeatedly ignored this information is not my fault.

wa:do