I just don't see how any scientist, being objective, could claim that race is purely a sociological construct. Can't a scientist see something like pic related, and notice how it took tens of thousands of years of evolution for these differences to develop?
Am I just ignorant about something? It seems like if someone tries to say that race is real, they will always get labeled as uneducated and pseudo-scientific. I don't get it.
Other urls found in this thread:
science.sciencemag.org
sciencemag.org
washingtonpost.com
twitter.com
I'm an anthropologist and I had to explain this to my students last week. Let me take a deep breath.
Are you finished taking that breath? Tell us what transpired.
they dont want to get found out.
Alright.
Basically, race is a social construct because people around the world have different systems of classification (taxonomies) to classify human groups. The lack of agreement across cultures shows that classification systems are arbitrary.
That doesn't mean biological differences don't exist or an illusion. It's just that there is a mismatch between real biological variation and the way people classify groups.
That's the gist of it. Do you need examples?
I'm answering from mobile.
Then pray tell professor, what would alleviate this so-called mismatch between existing classification systems and real verifiable genetic differences between the races?
so what we need is a universally accepted interpretation of real biological differences?
But people always claim that because humans are bad at classifying groups, that race does not exist. They are using "race is a social construct" to "prove" that there is no such thing as differentiation between human groups.
All racial realists know that the way in which race is classified is a social construct, but that doesn't mean there are no differences between us.
There's no reason to alleviate anything It's a natural characteristic of human cognition to different lump things into categories that are much simpler than reality. There's no escape from our drive to categorize.
For example, how many colors exist in reality and how many color terms do you actually know?
And couldn't I just as easily say that the way in which we classify dog breeds is a social construct, and arbitrary? Yet nobody would claim that all dog breeds are the same and there is no difference between them. You could argue that any classification system used by humans is a social construct.
Someone link to that Swedish TV video guy who proves race is real and visits a load of scientists, both the "DNA type" and the "Sociologist" type, and discovers the latter sort are mentally ill.
I think they canned his 2nd series as the facts were (((inconvenient))).
>arbitrary
When you can tell someone's race from their bones it ceases to be arbitrary.
Yes. We anthropologists having been trying to come up with a universal taxonomy for over 100 years and so far nothing.
The most objective way to categorize genetic variation now is using mutations and lumping people into haplogroups, but even there there isn't a lot of agreement since you can arbitrarily divide haplogroups into subhaplogroups.
What I meant to ask was what would I take for professionals such as yourself to accept that race is a very real phenomenon and ought to be part of anthropological and human biological thinking. Why is there such a fear of classifying humans when every other animal is classified and subclassified?
Anthropology is not hard science
But no matter how you slice it, it seems beyond delusional to claim that all difference between human groups are purely a social construction....does it not? I mean scientists can look at different skull structures and reliably tell what their origin is. It took thousands and thousands of years for that to happen. And yet modern science might claim that no, we are all the same.
You can tell, for sure, but there's always within-group variability.
Look it up: Kennewick man, a native American who had European skeletal features.
Because biologically speaking race doesn't make anyone genetically different.
Culture is a concept none of you seem to understand.
Some of it is, some of it is bullshit.
We all ready do that. We identify people by country of origin,continent, religion, and economic beliefs. What else do you want.
Because there is almost negligible genetic difference between different "races" most of which come down to minor changes in physical appearance with no effect on the seven characteristics of an organism that are used to classify different life forms.
Same thing with dog breeds, a German Shepard to a Chihuahua are all cannis lupus familiaris.
Reminder that biologists have no problem classifying any finch with slightly different physiology or color as a different species but spit on the idea that humans could be objectively considered the same way.
>dude all different species lmao
You realize the top 2 picks for med school are pre med majors and anthro majors?
Anthropology is extremely holistic. You've got some hard science along with what people deem as softer science.
How does skull shape matter? It would be akin to categorizing people by their proclivity to various genetic disorders.
>four different species
How up your own ass are you? Able to tell differences from bone, dna differences, muscle differences, skull/brain differences, disease trends and disorders. Probably even more. Humans were spread out for a very very long time and the only way there could not be a difference is if you don't believe in any form of evolution. You fucking retards claim others ignore science but this is staring you right in the face and you ignore it.
Actual scientists (biologists) can and do study various genetic and physiological aspects of race. Retarded navel gazing anthropologists and other social "scientists" are not doing science and should be defunded for wasting everyone's time and money.
>this thing that every single culture has ever done throughout all of human history is "arbitrary" because they are not all in perfect agreement with one another
Lol
modern science doesn't exist
Well he didn't pop out looking like that because the society he was living in was European like. Genetics is messy stuff and Native Americans are not really native to America they came from the east.
Yes, they are NOT purely a social construction! There's no question that biological variation is real, and biological traits tend to be clustered in space.
Somehow, over the past 30 years the public began to misinterpret anthropological knowledge of biological variation. Obviously, that was due to politics, etc. Academia has become too politicized, and many cultural anthropology professors are not well trained. They don't take classes in physical anthropology or genetics, so they have little understanding about biological variation in humans. They teach their students that race is an illusion and that there are no measurable biological differences across human populations, which is obviously wrong.
>the same species
Genetic heritage, obviously. The one that matters most, and guides all the others. But the fucking anthro apologists are too big of faggots and scared of being called eugenicists
There's little agreement over how to classify species in biology, too. It's not just anthropologists who struggle with this problem.
But it's ridiculous to say that Germany Shepard and Chihuahua are exactly the same. I mean that just makes no sense. The way their genes are expressed is profoundly different.
You can also come up with arbitrary taxonomic trees for ANY organism. The fact you cannot ake up your mind doesn't make the differences go away
At that point, you're 'discovering' stuff for grants.
Your earlier example of true number of colors vs number you know is actually a really good analogy. Yes, there are infinite colors because you can infinitesimally modify a wavelength to get a different color, but how useful is that? How useful is it to group humans by .001% differences?
t.engineer
Dog breeds are a social construct. The pursuit of "pure breed" dogs have resulted in genetic abnormalities where examples of breed separated by decades look dramatically different.
It's easy to tell the differences between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans indeed. There's no question about it. Now try to distinguish European from Indian skeletons. Or European from Ethiopians. most people see these different 'races', even though the phenotypical differences aren't so clear-cut.
If you CHERRY PICK groups that are absolutely different like Australian aboriginals and east Asians, you'll find enormous differences. They are real, I'm not questioning them. The problem is that often we split groups that aren't that different biologically into separate races, thus showing why 'race is a social construct'.
Remember that a lot of people on this board unironically believe that Europeans with brown eyes aren't really white.
Unless you want people to start carrying id cards with haplo groups on them, I don't know what you want.
They are both domesticated dogs that can breed with each other. Not sure what distinction you want.
Small genetic differences can result in enormous phenotypical differences.
There was a study showing that native-Americans from Southern Mexico (Mayans) are genetically more distant from native-americans from norther Mexico (Seri) than Europeans are from East Asians.
They don't have to, you can tell from the skin, hair, and eye colors, facial features, hair morphology, and height
I'm assuming you understand what 'arbitrary' means.
Dude admitting that races are different and classifiable doesnt mean you will all of a sudden turn into some race hating, race war glorifier. I still go on an individual basis and have a few black friends. It's just sad when people let guilt and emotions cloud their judgement. Everyone needs to know the differences but at the same time dont let hate and anger rule you like some of the people you see on here. I will admit anger is easy to fall into when you learn some of the statistics, historical/current africa , see examples of the difference in your daily life, and then have people act like nothing is wrong and want to give those people a free pass because of something years ago that we had nothing to do with. People look at the past with current morals and that's just plain retarded.
Working in the medical field, the reality of races is assumed. You could legit be sued for treating black & white patients identically.
As a quick example, bone density is significantly higher in East africans, making tooth extractions significantly more challenging.
I can't speak to what other bullshit "scientists" are doing. As another said, they're probably just following trends for grant money.
You cherry picked crania there. That's a mistake that 1940s anthropologists used to do.
If you want to be scientific, collect a random representative sample of crania around the world and try to classify them in racial groups.
Bump for interest
>Working in the medical field, the reality of races is assumed. You could legit be sued for treating black & white patients identically.
Nope.
It's not .001% difference though. How is pretending nothing is different when there are obviously differences.
That makes no sense at all, lol
Why are cats and dogs different species?
>Being this awful at epistemology.
So all I need to do to prove species don't exist is:
Come up with an entirely different classification system, and convince a significant % of people to agree.
You're sincerely paid for this shit? KYS, or get a real job - such as an uber driver.
Nope. We do it all the time, faggot.
Different relative risks, etc.
Not even going to read your shit. I do it every day.
Biologists don't always agree on what a species is.
I don't know to what end you want recognition for distinct eye colors existing.
Different risk for sickle cell anemia are merely a social construct.
Are you sincerely arguing this?
Seriously, KYS, and stop stealing good taxpayers money. You're a god damn parasite.
Yeah, we're interested (if what you say is true). Is there a facially plausible explanation, a propaganda based explanation, or is the matter simply not discussed.
In physical chemistry, we often tell budding chemists that early chemistry is a lie, and that they'll learn the truth later.
Intro Chemistry: "For now, just think of electrons in orbits."
Physical Chemistry: "Electrons maintain regions of probability"
Quantum Mechanics: "Listen, we don't know what the fuck an electron is. We're pretty sure that it's in multiple places at once, all without traveling in the in-between spaces."
Different relative risks are based on statistical propensities. They are not based on actual genomic variation.
So the categories that you use are, to some extent, arbitrary. Yes, I understand that blacks have a higher risk to develop certain diseases, but that's not always 100% for sure.
Read the article. It's a group of geneticists arguing that we should be doing genetic tests instead of using people's self-identification. It's just a more accurate (and scientific) way to classify, and a safer way practice medicine.
You realize medical papers would be rejected IMMEDIATELY if results weren't statistically adjusted by race?
This is basic, entry level shit.
Again, get a real job.
I never said that sickle cell anemia is a social construct. Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you read? I wrote that genetic differences are absolutely real.
Is this thread making you anxious? Do you feel that your worldview and biases are under attack? Is your anxiety preventing you from focusing on what I actually wrote?
I read it and its basically worthless and by a guy named Yuddel. It doesn't have any suggestions except using family data when possible and then slaps race on there, like wtf thats worth an article?
Essentially "When you have more relevant information use it."
You're obviously not reading what I said.
Try focusing on the argument next time.
You may want to look at this.
sciencemag.org
The Seri (Native Americans from Mexico) are more different from the Maya than Europeans are fom East Asians.
And you adjust your stats based on race, meaning that you classify all native-Americans as members of the same category. That's just BAD medical practice!
Group overlaps occur because you're going by a single criterion. If you plot two or more variables, distinct clusters appear.
I can confirm this user is based. Please don't pretend anthropolgists don't use the scientific method.
Multi mode fiber optic data transmission relies on light being distinguishable with in a certain fidelity that is beyond the scope of visual color distinction.
And stated earlier, identification of disease propensity by halo groups is more useful than self identification.
I'm ok with cluster analysis of genomic data. That's the most objective way to determine the existence of groups. I'm not going by a single variable.
Here is the problem:
1) Run a cluster analysis on genetic data.
2) Then run another on anthropometric data from the same populations.
You'll find that there are mismatches between groups obtained by comparing genetic and phenotypical differences. Sometimes genetic differences don't result in great phenotypical differences, sometimes they do.
This is pretty fucking embarrassing, the professor is saying there are biological differences but calling it a social construct just means that we are using imprecise categories. He isn't saying all the races are equal or even similar. I think the better question is, why is the fact that race is a social construct even relevant?
How could whites and niggers be the same race? Are you retarded?
Some people build their identities on the belief that they are superior because of their skin colour, ignoring the fact that they speak and act like uneducated niggers.
These people are so ingrained in that belief that when they perceive it to be challenged they double down and ignore 99% of what's being said.
scientists don't claim that race is a social construct
SAGE
The category if 'hispanic' is an example of how race is a social construct.
Argentinians, Mexican native americans, Peruvians, are all 'hispanic'. Obviously, the category doesn't correspond well to biological differences. That's why we say 'hispanic' is a social construct. This has huge consequences to how these people are treated, determines who marries whom, who befriends whom, etc.
I didn't say that. You're kidding, right?
I'm using his example to establish that there's a "useful resolution" for establishing racial groups in homo sapiens, and that diving into miniscule differences may be interesting anthropologically, but isn't necessarily useful in medicine, forensics, etc. Ignore the actual number, it's the to illustrate the larger picture. I honestly couldn't tell you what the actual percent difference in genetics is between a pure blood aryan (lol) and a nigger.
this is Sup Forums they want to believe they're genetically superior while typing from their basements as highschool drop outs
Yes, but there is still a tolerance for the wavelength to distinguish between colors, which is my point - there is a "useful resolution" for classifying things like colors and people.
This man is wrong.
The REAL reason that sicence can't agree on what race is is because any study into the origin of certain racial groups has been shut down by social justice types.
Like, let's just read this article
washingtonpost.com
>There's no gene for "pseed"
Really? So, all of these horse breeders are just wasting their time?
>The first study, “A Level Playing Field? Media Constructions of Athletics, Genetics, and Race,” examines news media coverage implying that genetic differences lead particular racial groups.
This is NOT about media coverage. This is about muscle strength and distribution.
>there's not agreement about race so there's no reason to explore it or talk about it
>people made mistakes in the past so let's scrap the idea of differences between race
literally a fucking retard. you postmodern science deniers are scum.
>you racist white bois are jealous of bbc!
>uhhh, race doesn't exist and there's no difference between them
>fucking white males gotta die! we need more peoople of color cause they have different ideas
>race is a social construct and there's no difference
i'm sorry to tell you but stupid gets removed one way or another. you liberals aren't meant to continue to exist
this is as far away from science as one can get
And my point was that the useful distinction is not always compatible under all circumstances.
I was referring to the fact that non-scientists can't agree on how to classify human groups.
Scientists can, to some existent. Most scientists today agree that haplogroups are a good way to categorize people based on genetic differences.
Yet how you determine what the cutting point for haplogroups is still debatable.
I'm not a postmodern science denier... Read my other posts. Obviously you didn't put a lot of effort in understanding what I wrote.
How exactly is this not scientific?
Can you elaborate on that?
Disagreements aside, you can use your incomplete knowledge of what electrons are to make predictions and interventions, right?
>thinks you can decipher haplogroups strictly by looking at a person
WEW LAD
It's just a semantic game. They choose to define "race" as meaning the same thing as "species." So they just expand the definition to include all homo sapiens.
But all scientists will acknowledge differences between groups. Just instead of calling it "race" they instead talk about stuff like "clinal variations" or "allele frequencies." Then idiots who don't know anything about science, such as sociologists, take this to mean that genetic differences are not taxologically significant, which is not at all the case.
The regions of electron density are based on statistical extrapolations and probabilities. I don't know what you mean by electron "interventions."
>interventions
Nuclear power plants, neutron bombs, etc.
This is a good answer.
That's more of a nucleus interaction. This is the bombardment of one nucleus with another nucleus. See chart.
Nuclei are much easier to study (and therefor understand) than electrons.
I always loved the idea that nuclear fission is just the worlds most badass poolhall break.
social scientists are the ones who believe race is a social construct and they aren't real scientists.
This desu
Race is clear cut in anthropology
I know, but you wouldn't be able to understand atomic nuclei without having some undertsanding, albeit incomplete, of electrons. Science is never perfect, the explanations are never definitive. But as long the explanations yield predictions and allow us to make 'intervention', they are sufficient.
I'm an anthropologist. Let me tell you the view from an insider. Yes, the social sciences are politicized and filled with bullshit and pseudoscience, but some of us still try to keep the standards high.
Race is more than melanin levels. Yes there are minor differences in genes but it's not drastic enough to say we are different species like some retards in this board like to think.
We have different haplotypes and they get spread around (even if you racemix). Those haplotypes will still be in the general population.
>Basically, race is a social construct because people around the world have different systems of classification (taxonomies) to classify human groups. The lack of agreement across cultures shows that classification systems are arbitrary.
that doesn't mean the classification is arbitrary. it means that their classification is wrong.
if some bumfuck tribe in the amazon thought the moon was made out of cheese, would that mean that our western scientific understanding of the moon as being made of rock is a "social construct"?
no.
it would mean that bumfuck amazon tribe is wrong.
god i don't understand who these post modern relativists cannot grasp that.
(to be fair, the western conception of race has no always been true, and like all science our models have gotten better and better with time to the point where we can now use genetics to identify and determine race instead of solely physical features. but that doesn't mean race is a social construct, or race as a concept is false. it just means our models sucked back then compared to now. just like all scientific theories sucked back then compared to now)
>that doesn't mean the classification is arbitrary. it means that their classification is wrong.
All (folk) classifications are wrong because they are arbitrary. That doesn't mean we will, some day, find better ways to classify human groups. There has been a lot of progress in genetics...
Just look around in this board. A lot of people here unironically say that Italians aren't white. Others say that Mexican Mestizos should be considered white. Some say that Australian aborigines aren't even human! There's little agreement emerging from the discussions on Sup Forums over how to classify race. That's why we say these classification systems are arbitrary and subjective.
>Just look around in this board. A lot of people here unironically say that Italians aren't white. Others say that Mexican Mestizos should be considered white. Some say that Australian aborigines aren't even human! There's little agreement emerging from the discussions on Sup Forums over how to classify race. That's why we say these classification systems are arbitrary and subjective.
No, they're just wrong. Just like that bumfuck Amazon tribe and their theories on what the moon is made of.
We can use genetics to classify race now. That is the best model.
However, for practical purposes, physical appearance and self-identification still suffices. I remember a study showing a 99. something concordance with self described race and genetic ancestry.
Do you mean "predictions"? That's the scientific method. Sure. Some sciences are more advanced that others. Spectroscopy is hyper-accurate; whereas Newtonian mechanics is largely accurate, and then there's junk science (e.g., global warming) that have no (or contrary) predictive value.
Want to know where an electron is? There it is