I'm not racist but I can't wrap my brain around this argument. First off, how to we compare the similarity of populations? Just typical gene frequencies? Then how is it the case that two average representative individuals in two different populations are more similar to each other than that same average individual and a random other member of their own population?
>>16144695>Reddit >No link to peer reviewed study Exactly. It's probably feel good "we're all the same" bullshit propaganda because we can't have science calling blacks whites and Asians different subspecies.
>>16144695>I'm not racistlow IQ
I'm racist Science has long since proved that the races evolved differently and the some races are superior to others in various characteristics.
>>16144695it's a stupid argument, but i'll help it make sense for you.>average male is 5'10">average female is 5'4">variation across the sexes is 6" >male height stdev is 3">therefore male variation in height is (including 3stdev) over 18">female height stdev is 2">therefore female variation in height is (including stdev) over 12">ergo, there is more diversity in height among men (women) than there are between men and women>ergo, an average male is more similar to an average female than he is to another malethat's the argument they're making. either they're too stupid to understand their own argument, or worse they understand the argument and are actively going out of their way to mislead people.
>>16144695>I'm not racistWhy not
>>16146052Science is a social construct and racism has social consequences. I cannot do science if I am racist.
>>16144695This is nothing more then fucking semantics and someone that tries to sound smart and utterly, utterly failing in forming coherend sentences.People like these make me want to barf in my mouth.
>>16144695>I'm not racistThen I don't care what you think because you're anti-reality.
>>16146077>Science is a social constructNo it isn't.>I cannot do scienceThat's all you needed to post.
>>16144695You and ten friends all go to different banks with 20 dollars. Exchange it for quarters you all now have 100 quarters. Take each quarter flip is once. And then set it to the side. Comparing any two quarters might result in high diversity. 1945 tails quarter mint D no mistakes. Vs 2023 head quarter. State, mint S and major mistake on the Mississippi back side. But out of 100 quarters. 40% is heads. 30% is before 2000. 50% is after 2016. And when compared to your other ten friends. You all find about the same amount of heads vs tails. 5% difference at most. And 15% difference with date of coins. But it all averages out.
>>16146077
>>16146127you'd need 25 dollars for 100 quarters retardclearly you are a vantablack bantu of the darkest shade
>>16146090Science says some women have a penis. That statement is a social construct. Science is a social construct regardless of what theoretical definition of science you might have floating around in your head. In practice, based on observation, science is a social construct.
>Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16,17. Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.Put simply, genetic variation within the species generally predates the formation of the races, such that the genes which account for any genetic constructions of race account for a relatively small variation within the species, and it is perfectly conceivable to have two people from different races with more in common with each other genetically than two people from the same race.Put even more simply, most genes that vary within humans have fuck all to do with "race".
>>16146399Another way of thinking about this is if you drew a different set of completely arbitrary genetic lines, you could produce wildly different "races" that would still have a genetic component and those lines would not conform to current racial groupings.Humans didn't neatly sort into permanently distinct genetic groups and then have all their DNA mutate into racially specific variations.It's almost like race is a social construct or something.
>>16146052Because there's nothing inherently virtuous about IQ. Yes, I prefer being around intelligent, conscientious people but race only correlates.
>>16146393So your definition of social construct is effectively useless, got it.
>>16146399>most genes that vary within humans have fuck all to do with "race".That's not quite true, because "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data". For example, allele A of gene B is present in both population 1 and population 2. But 90% of the individuals of pop1 have it, while only 10% of pop2.That gene has something to do with race even though it's present in both races.
Forensic DNA phenotyping is sophisticated enough to nearly always correctly predict not only the continental-level "race" of someone (African / Caucasian / Oriental) but can even determine the subcontinental ethnic grouping.It's true what anons say ITT that most human genetic diversity is present in all races, but they ignore the frequency.If you have the gene for lactase persistence, allowing you to fully digest lactose as an adult, then you could a member of one of the tiny ethnic minorities in China or Africa which typically feature this gene, but it's much more likely that you're Caucasian.Race isn't just about the absolute genetic diversity present in a population, it's about the distribution of those genes within the population.Consider the MAOA promoter gene involved in serotonin metabolism. Most people have 3 or 4 copies of this gene, some people have only 2 copies.People with only 2 copies have been repeatedly found to be much more likely to engage in violent antisocial behaviour, regardless of environment.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912004047>Since prior research has revealed that the distribution of the 2-repeat allele varies by race (e.g., Reti et al., 2011, Widom and Brzustowicz, 2006), the analysis begins by examining the allelic distributions by race. As Table 1 shows, the 2-repeat allele was carried by 0.1% of Caucasian males and by 5.2% of African-American males.Let that sink in. Whilst it's accurate to say that this example of genetic diversity is found in both black and white Americans, it's found in 1 in 20 black men but only 1 in 1000 white men.Race isn't simply about absolute genetic diversity, it's about the frequency with which those alleles are distributed.
>>16144695>Then how is it the case that two average representative individuals in two different populations are more similar to each other than that same average individual and a random other member of their own population?It's true that for any single genetic trait and other single-gene characteristics, two people within the same population will differ from each other (in statistical terms) more so than will two population groups do. But if you take the aggregate of all such genetic traits, the difference between two people within the same population will stabilize around a mean that indicates little overall genetic distance whereas for two population groups, the distance will gravitate towards a mean that is much larger.
>>16147131Would this hold true if you added a non-human primate to the mix, like chimpanzees?
>>16147131>>16144695Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
>>16147112Correlation isn't causation for the umpteenth time.
>>16147082As are most social constructs including most of socially constructed modern "science".
>>16147082Why would society construct something useless? Is money useless?
>>16147554Science begets technology and engineering which are quite useful you sniveling little faggotPlease return from whence you came>>>/lit/>>>/lgbt/>>>/plebbit/
>>161471742500 years ago Hanno the navigator, a major naval figure from Carthage, set sail on one of the great voyages of discovery. He sailed from the Mediterranean out of straights of Gibraltar to explore the coast of Africa with a fleet of 60 ships, he worked his way down the coast past Mauritania to subsaharan Africa where he found that the people all had "burnt skin" which is to say they were negroes. After meeting people like this for a while every time his ships landed he eventually came to an island off the coast of what is now Cameroon that was filled with burnt skin people who were very hairy and extremely unruly. He named this tribe "Gorillas".Because Hanno was not influenced by our modern ideas of species he had to call things as he saw them and he was unable to differentiate between gorillas and African negroes other than that the gorillas were hairier.
>>16147244Finally someone with a brain.
>>16144695Principal component analysis of all the genes or fst between groups. Look at the pca and see how much of the total variation is due to race.
>>16148378Imagine believing in pca with arbitrary cutoffs and definitions
>>16144695This reddit post is the result of a misunderstanding of a widely misinterprered paper
>>16148306To this day, a lot of people still have difficulty differentiating between humans and other members of the ape family
>>16144695>I’m not a racist, but…Is always prefaced by some racist, saying or promoting racist ideologies.
>>16146077>Science is a social construct and racism has social consequences.>I cannot do science if I am racist.Does not follow.
>>16149258so?
>>16149258what if said racism is backed by lots of verified data?Can objective truth be racist?
>>16148324Copypasting a portion of an argument from a book isn't having a brain.
>>16147120>Race isn't simply about absolute genetic diversity, it's about the frequency with which those alleles are distributed.But the issue is was that specifically a racial correlation or an ethnic group correlation? The population dynamics governing Black Americans is completely different than the population dynamics governing Black Africans. Just like in another thread I pointed out concerning diabetes rates people are projecting allele prevalence onto race without doing proper comparisons.What is the prevalence of the MAOA gene in black African populations? We know Black Americans are roughly 400 years removed from Africa and moderately bottlenecked if you take into account parts of their population/genome dying off during slave ship transportation and some of them not surving long enough or having a chance to reproduce during slavery. Those events could have easily increased the frequency of the MAOA genes since their population wasn't always +40 million. It's beginning phases was several hundred thousand.
>>16150586That's not from a book, dumbass. It's a quote from the original research article that some redditard misinterpreted, and seemingly nobody knows exists.
>>16150636>But the issue is was that specifically a racial correlation or an ethnic group correlation?What does it change? You can always zoom in or out.
>>16149187Its almost as if the great apes are a continuum rather than a handful of distinct individual species
>>16144695Well, there you have it. Porn pictures of anime girls are exactly the same as pictures of renaissance paintings because there is more variance between individual anime girls and their stretched orfices than there is between these two groups.
>>16146399>and it is perfectly conceivable to have two people from different races with more in common with each other genetically than two people from the same race.It's actually not. This is literally impossible. This is possible only under the retarded "more variance within than without"-slogan in the very same sense as shuffling a deck of cards could result in a perfectly sorted deck.
>>16150956>This is literally impossibleIn no way is it impossible and given the limited number of genetic variation within humans and the number of people on earth it almost certainly regularly occurs.And that's even before you account for interbreeding between the races and shit like the Negrito people who are Black people collectively more closely related to East Asians than Africans or Australians. It's almost like races are a social construct or something.
>>16144695I am racist, because I believe distinctions can be made about different genetic populations of humans. I think everyone who is honest and understands the subject even a little is racist. Even if you don't want to call these distinctions races the distinct groups still exist. I also think if the African pigmies and Australian aborigines were extinct and all we found were bones it would not have been controversial to call them non human hominids.
>>16145968The second one, they know what they are doing and they do it anyway. Because to these people the outcome matters far more than the truth.
>>16146399l5Shoo shoo smelly Jew.
>>16151202wolves/dogs/coyotes diverged more recently than the human races. Taxonomy is a social construct. Stay mad.
>>16151085>it almost certainly regularly occurs.No, it actually doesn't. It literally never happens. Even assuming that ALL variation is within race and ZERO without, it would still be impossible due to how ridiculously unlikely it is. >given the limited number of genetic variationYou cannot shuffle a deck of 52 cards to get the same order someone else has gotten, and you expect to shuffle who knows how many tens of millions of nucleotides and expect to find magic like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that anti-racist activists have zero knowledge about elementary statistics. Ignorance is your greatest strength.
>>16151085>In no way is it impossible>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
>>16147112>That gene has something to do with race even though it's present in both races.Not really, too lazy to explain but search for "neutral genetic drift" to quickly get the reason as to why that isn't the case.
>>16144695>I’m not racistWell you should be. Those low impulse savages should be thankful we allow them to exist, let alone live amongst us. They have done nothing to advance mankind in the entire history of humanity.
>>16151526>literally the very next paragraph>On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase equation M47 This is illustrated by the fact that equation M48 and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphismsDon't try that bullshit on me.
>>16152387Are you actually retarded? That paragraph is about admixed populations. You literally even included it in your quote. Of course a mixed-race African American is sometimes more similar to some non-African-Americans than he is to other African Americans. Of course a Hispanic is sometimes more closely related to non-Hispanics than Hispanics. Wow, a mixed-race individual is sometimes classified as either one of his parents' races, so the concept of races is bullshit!So how about just considering geographically distinct populations?, e.g., Europeans and Africans? The probability that a European will be closer to any African than he is to any European will drop to zero even with just 1000 loci, and merely 100 loci is enough to drop this probability to zero when considering only the centroids. And even these numbers are surely way too high, since the data actually included Asians too.
>>16153561>the races aren't admixedYou fail world history
>>16153828>>the races aren't admixedCorrect. Which is why you need to sample only a handful of genes to conclusively separate a European from an African.
>>16154336>Correct.>Among those who identified as Black: The average proportion of white ancestry was 18%
>>16154341You're trolling, aren't you? See: >>16153561 >Wow, a mixed-race individual is sometimes classified as either one of his parents' races, so the concept of races is bullshit!
>>16154530>Wow, a mixed-race individual is sometimes classified as either one of his parents' races, so the concept of races is bullshit!I didn't say the concept of races is bullshit. I said it's a social construct.And your average Black person being 18% white speaks to more than the occasional kid with parents of different races getting lumped into 1.And that's just fucking Blacks in the USA. Shit get even blurrier if you look elsewhere in the world or at other groups in the USA like Latinos or Natives.If the only way to define and construct races genetically is to look as a limited number of genetically isolated populations who are generally not representative of who is identified as belonging to a particular race, the races aren't fucking based in genetics.
>>16154530Just admit you don't understand what race is, you fucking retard.Race, particularly the definition of white, is defined and redefined as necessary for political purposes and for the purpose of ensuring white genetic survival. This is why your mongrel ass is considered white today when 70 years ago you'd have been in the colored line with the negroes.Also, race is not "bullshit" (in case that was a strawman). It is the most powerful unifying principle in the world and it took the entire world by storm which is why white people run the entire planet.
>>16155301>the races aren't fucking based in genetics.Well it sure is incredible then that fewer than a hundred genes can conclusively separate Europeans from Africans. It is so incredible, in fact, that you need to continuously bring African Americans, Latinos, and other mixed race individuals into this to _pathetically_ try to discredit the findings of the paper in question. Europeans, Asians, and Sub-Saharan Africans are very distinct, and very easily separable on genetic level. You literally can not address this fact, so you keep bringing African Americans into this ad nauseam. "But what about muh African Americans?!? They sometimes get mixed with Africans!!!!!!! So Europeans can't be any different from Africans either!111" >>16155410>Just admit you don't understand what race is, you fucking retard.Stopped reading right there. Let the adults talk. Your input is worthless.
>>16155430>get blown out>your input is worthlessAs expected.
If race isn't real how come the left openly only want to abolish the white race, not race in general?
>>16155914It brings me joy to know that you spent effort on your message, and I simply snapped it away with adblock without ever reading it.
If race isn't real, how does affirmative action work
>>16156200>it would still be like that if it were a social constructIt's MIGHTY suspicious and you know it
>>16156203What do you try to convey when you call it a social construct? Do you think that "social construct" = "not real"?
>>16156209So race is socially constructed yet, if you show literal infants who haven't been socialized to understand race they can still sort the pictures of socially constructed races into the correct boxes. How does that happen?
>>16156209Leftists are the ones who make this equivalence. You haven't explained away their telling hypocrisy, just tried to prove you possess a richer social ontology than me (you don't)
>>16156221I'm sure they can sort them in other ways too. >>16156224Clearly I do. Your observation is about as meaningful as "race is a word". Yeah, great, you're right... and so?
>>16156237Irrelevant. If they can sort the allegedly socially constructed races without being socialized to recognize races.. then how do they achieve such high accuracy?
>>16156239>without being socialized to recognize races>how do they achieve such high accuracy?They don't.
>>16156244Oh, you're just lying now lmao. You could easily find out I'm telling the truth here with a simple Google search. Wanna try again? It's not too late to delete your post
>>16156249How about you sort a bunch of pictures sukujuurenmukaisesti? Can't? Is the concept not real, then?
>>16156253https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-babies-see-race/This is a fact dude. Even the liberal mainstream media acknowledges this fact that babies recognize race, and worse even discriminate based on it. Of course they have to spin it and say you need to fix that bias early. And naturally, they fail to see their hypocrisy because babies have not yet been socialized. Indeed they lack the cognitive capacity to understand social roles. Hell they can't even talk! And yet... They can sort faces by races. In the exact same categories that are allegedly socially constructed. Mighty curious, don't you think? :-)
>>16156256>Mighty curious, don't you thinkWhat is mighty curious is you arguing about social constructs without knowing what they are. Also, since you failed the task I gave you, I guess the concept's not real. It's was elvish for race, by the way.
>>16144695>I'm not racist but I can't wrap my brain around this argument.It's simple, bigot. The difference in height between a typical man and a typical woman is much smaller than the difference in height between a male midget and a male basketball player. Therefore the smaller difference is inconsequential. She can reach the high shelf all on her own without your help. :^)
>>16145968Or do they mean variance as in literally the variance? In this case it would still apply since if the [math] \sigma [/math] of male height is 3'', then [math]\sigma^2 =[/math] 9'' > 6''. Either way the argument is retarded and displays either a misunderstanding (retardation) or an attempt at deceit retards from those who know better.
>>16156256>scientificamerican.comthats a propaganda webite, not a outlet of scientific information
>>16146393There's a difference between science and (((science))).
>>16156258It's in the name. Socially constructed. It appears it's you who doesn't know what it means.
>>16156284Right. That must be why I've been here trying to paint an obvious social construct to not be a social construct. That's probably why I wasn't able to group pictures according to sukujuuri until what is meant by that social construct was explained to me. Oh wait, that was all you.
>>16156289Elves don't exist you fucking autist.
>>16144695Lewontin's fallacy
>>16156276How is the 6" a variance? The second central moment between men and women would be 0.
>>16145949superiority is a value judgement, which is non scientific. Focus, faggot.
>>16156332You're right. I suppose one would have to take the variance of the averages of the groups. Which in this case would give a variance of 18.
>>16156283Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of (((science))). Science will not disagree with (((science))) so there's no functional difference between them.
>>16144695For example, the blood types vary globally, but South American indians always have O. Things like that.
>>16155410>white people run the planet because they were the first to invent the social construct of race>not because they, as white people, were predisposed to qualities that would help them run the planetlmao
>>16156340Psychopath detected.
>>16156283
>>16155430Over 8% of the world is Latino. If your model for the races is so shit that you have to throw out a continent's worth of people, it's a shit model.
>>16158351Latinx*
