I've seen countless people on this site dispute the existence of intelligence as a variable trait altogether. Like, everyone is born with the exact same intelligence, no one's mind inherently works better or faster than anyone else's.
This will go even further. The Soviet communists denied the existence of genetics as a whole. Why shouldn't the American communists do the same?
In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience". Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.
Also family specific. HLA is pretty sensitive to that. But HLA compatibility wouldn't define a "race", or be a very meaningful tool to define human groups (it's almost too sensitive and would favor inbreds).
Let's just say that it might not be hard to get a compatible transplant across Alabama.
There are inbred areas, but it's not like some tribes on specific islands.
There are a few oddities though. Some tribe in Africa has a high rate of syndactyly, which I think has become the norm there. Since it doesn't impede strength, and has low impact on dexterity, those people still climb trees, hunt... and have techniques adapted to this particularity. But here it's just a recessive gene reaching "critical mass". And since it doesn't prevent them from having a normal life it goes on.
Very inbred pakistanis (like inbred arabs) have high rates of very heavy handicaps (then again it's recessive diseases at very high rate).
That page has been a constant edit war for over a decade. You go there on different days of the week and see completely different narratives. Just look at the talk page, there are 102 pages of arguing and conflict.
They would be scientists more than you mayos if you didn't steal all their tech from wakanda and enslave them. 🤬 Ignore the 300,000 year advantage they had before the earliest whites showed up.
Differences in glomerular filtration rate also can't exist between races, which is why they decided to remove the race term from the equation which was previously used to make it more accurate: https://mobile.twitter.com/lizstein_/status/1265078654381387777
because race is a social construct and doesn't exist in biology
It's actually true. There's not enough differences between human groups to define "races" in the biological sense (like you can do for dogs or cats).
Now that doesn't mean there aren't biological differences, and there aren't groups you can define around phenotypical traits.
It's basically a technicality because we use the word "race" for humans in a sense that isn't biological (and could be considered a social construct, because it's hard to map it to a thorough biological definition).
That doesn't mean that different group of that "social construct" can't have different IQs for instance. Or that we can't recognize each other based on that.
It's basically a technicality because we use the word "race" for humans in a sense that isn't biological (and could be considered a social construct, because it's hard to map it to a thorough biological definition).
At what % classification accuracy would you accept that pca analysis and k-means clustering can accurately predict an individual's race based on genetic data?
I'm not saying there's not distinct groups that you can divide based on genetics or phenotype. It's entirely possible.
Differenciating biological races still takes more than that. It's a matter of definition.
Simple example : just look at the size difference between two races of dogs. They can't still reproduce, but they have incredibly different phenotypes. Humans are way more homogeneous all around. We have extremely similar bone structure (even though you can note differences), skin differences are mostly color (and thickness, even then not by a lot), eye and hair color...
To the untrained eye it would be very hard to "classify" a skeleton by race. Now if you saw skeletons from an average pitbull, chihuahua, and great dane side by side you'd have no difficulty telling them apart.
So that's why there are difference in human, definite genetic groups, but not enough to reach the bar for distinct "races".
It could happen over time, but it's made less and less likely since we all tend to mingle. There are very few people who are genetically isolated and they're unlikely to remains so for millenia anyway.
Ok, given N measurable phenotypic traits that vary between genetic population groups what would you consider a sufficient Mahanalobis' D(N) to characterize different genetic population groups as distinct races?
Then again it's just a question of vocabulary. There are groups we can identify and separate. Apparently the specialists in those fields agree it's not enough for separating "races".
But then idiots who really want to use that word will try to argue, when that doesn't change the point.
It's like when you show SJWs that POCs can be racist but suddenly they define racism by the more recent definition used in social sciences that it needs to be "systemic" (as opposed to the older definitions which were just about the belief that there are races of human, and that some are superior).
Now I worked on genetics but since that wasn't my focus, I don't know the right word to differenciate human phenotypic/genetic groups, but there must be one somewhere.
Really going out of your way to avoid having any benchmark for evaluating your claim that genetics can't be used to differentiate biological races. You're privileging the hypothesis that biological races don't exist and it seems no evidence to the contrary will sway you.
Then again it's just a question of vocabulary.
So our disagreement is semantic and not based in science.
Apparently the specialists in those fields agree it's not enough for separating "races".
Not really, specialists in those fields agree that 'race' is a politically charged term and refrain from using it to avoid courting controversy. If you instead choose to simply refer to different groups as 'human populations' (as David Reich does) nothing actually changes in terms of the implications that these distinct populations have characteristic distributions of various traits which will impact their behaviour and outcomes relative to other population groups within a multi-ethnic society.
It essentially takes this and instead of having k=4 and getting blue, green, yellow and red, uses k = 20 and more finely divides population groups.
The trade-off here is that k=20 provides more precision but little actionable advice for the average person trying to build a mental model of the world.
I can understand the urge to have people filter less of their experiences through a racial lens. This lens provides a map of reality, but all maps are wrong - and the failure mode of this particular map can have devastating consequences. Mindlessly repeating 'race is a social construct' won't work if you're also constantly talking about the importance of race consciousness, racism, racial privilege etc.
Maps are constructs, doesn't mean they don't reflect reality.
So our disagreement is semantic and not based in science.
Yes, except in that field the semantics they use don't allow to use "race" for humans.
Taxonomy has a huge vocabulary, I don't know why people get so triggered they can't use the one word they'd like because boomers used to call everything "race".
If you instead choose to simply refer to different groups as 'human populations' (as David Reich does) nothing actually changes in terms of the implications that these distinct populations have characteristic distributions of various traits which will impact their behaviour and outcomes relative to other population groups within a multi-ethnic society.
That's what I'm saying too. People get fixated on the word instead of discussing the reality. But AFAIK that word doesn't apply here.
Mindlessly repeating 'race is a social construct' won't work if you're also constantly talking about the importance of race consciousness, racism, racial privilege etc.
That's also a problem I have with SJWs. Words have definitions, and can have several in different fields. If you're a scientist you're used to prefacing anything with the exact definition you'll be using.
Here we'll use "race" or "ethnicity", in the USA it's even used on official documents. Then some people will slide into pseudoscientific biology to try and make a point...
In social issues perception is reality, so the social sciences will see race very differently (here it's more about identity, or how other identify you). And in its context it is the definition that is useful and meaningful.
I'd rather do away with that word and just talk about the genetic and social realities.
And if we're going into classification, it's extremely hard to find a decent multivariate models to classify humans. Usually we'll go with a few genes variants that tend to cluster into what we consider ethnic groups. But even then we don't have a great model either.
Just look at the mess around DNA ancestry services and how they suck at calling some specific ancestries (native americans for instance). Either through lack of data and/or lack of a good classification algorithm. So even if someday we were at the point where we could genetically define biological races in humans, it's far from settled science today. And that's excluding the whole social and historical bagage around that notion.
If you visit the talk page of the article, you'll see some far-left editors trying to delete "hate facts" (and succeeding). I read the article 1 year ago and it was based af, I checked it last month and it had been neutered
Heh, their current top post https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gwdr9d/oc_people_killed_by_police_forces_annual_rate_per shows that Hispanics in the US are killed at the same rate as in Mexico, and blacks at the average rate among African countries, suggesting a link between killings and criminality among other things. Of course comments locked after 3 hours, too many people kept noticing the hidden redpill I guess.
Ever since my franchise MetroPCS store became the third stop of the Great Jog of St Paul, I wondered why these antifa white nationalists all seemed so dim. This page helped a lot thanks!
My posts are demand-influenced. People feel the need to positively influence themselfes from others. The idiot is a part of the social system and as such has a vital part to play in society as he provides the chance for others to look down on him as he's doing such idiotic things. The internet has desensitised the general public. Someone whos erratically yelling things isn't as off-putting as it used to be when the village idiot was doing that job. People demand weird content that is crossing the boarders of social norms. People putting their bathroom usage on social media seem to be what people want to see. Actually, they are weird, much weirder than most of the other content here. As you can see, this content gets upvoted. You may not like it, but this content is satisfying the need for which people come to this subreddit.
![[/r/DataIsBeautiful] Pageviews for the Wikipedia article "Race and Intelligence" since March 1st](https://i.redd.it/xnrduvd07q251.png){kind=link}
73 comments
1 AutoModerator 2020-06-03
What if you... clicked my link to DeuxCHAT... Haha just kidding...
Unless...?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
18 damocles_paw 2020-06-03
tl;dr: Differences in intelligence can't exist because race is a social construct and doesn't exist in biology.
I'm not even kidding. This is actually what the article says.
16 low-info-upvoter 2020-06-03
evolution stops at the neck
14 Giulio-Cesare 2020-06-03
https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/dog-breed-intelligence-comic.png?fit=625%2C910
10 ZumWegwerfenBitte 2020-06-03
DON'T link the stone nazi comic omg
6 JannesCantBreathe 2020-06-03
Burgers?
-19 [deleted] 2020-06-03
[deleted]
20 Tyestor 2020-06-03
this is human supremacy propaganda
-2 [deleted] 2020-06-03
[deleted]
5 le_ebin_trolecel 2020-06-03
You mean like racial and sexual differences in grey and white matter percentages in the brain?
11 ason 2020-06-03
https://i.redd.it/skn11u5gjh141.png
20 Msmit71 2020-06-03
Why highlight the entire fucking thing like what is the point
10 Giulio-Cesare 2020-06-03
maybe he likes yellow
6 ToQuoteGuyFieri 2020-06-03
I, the Whizzard, have made the dissertation you see before you!
1 PanFiluta 2020-06-03
my wife? she's Asian
4 FulcrumandTorque 2020-06-03
This picture selectively edits some of the quotes.
Example: https://i.imgur.com/V8UxOoJ.png
8 Serr-noz 2020-06-03
A lie with the power to destroy countries
5 TheOneTrueDonuteater 2020-06-03
Everyone knows that the brain never changes. It's not like concussions are well known to change behaviour!
14 Evil_Patriarch 2020-06-03
I've seen countless people on this site dispute the existence of intelligence as a variable trait altogether. Like, everyone is born with the exact same intelligence, no one's mind inherently works better or faster than anyone else's.
15 damocles_paw 2020-06-03
This will go even further. The Soviet communists denied the existence of genetics as a whole. Why shouldn't the American communists do the same?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism#Effects
2 username_suggestion4 2020-06-03
Well I bet if you brought that up in kindergarten your teacher would deny it too.
You have to understand what stage of life this site caters to.
11 Swagbag6969 2020-06-03
That literally isn't an argument though it's goal post shifting. Organ transplants and bone marrow are EXTREMELY race specific.
1 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
Also family specific. HLA is pretty sensitive to that. But HLA compatibility wouldn't define a "race", or be a very meaningful tool to define human groups (it's almost too sensitive and would favor inbreds).
Let's just say that it might not be hard to get a compatible transplant across Alabama.
2 Amplitude 2020-06-03
Reminder that Arabs and Pakistanis are the most inbred people on earth.
1 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
There are inbred areas, but it's not like some tribes on specific islands.
There are a few oddities though. Some tribe in Africa has a high rate of syndactyly, which I think has become the norm there. Since it doesn't impede strength, and has low impact on dexterity, those people still climb trees, hunt... and have techniques adapted to this particularity. But here it's just a recessive gene reaching "critical mass". And since it doesn't prevent them from having a normal life it goes on.
Very inbred pakistanis (like inbred arabs) have high rates of very heavy handicaps (then again it's recessive diseases at very high rate).
11 poshl0st 2020-06-03
Anthropology isn't even a science. First sentence from the Anthropology page claims Anthropology is a science. None of this shit is actually measurable, and it's a 'science'.
We're fucked. Post truth society.
9 Yeetsauce100 2020-06-03
My favorite part about that article is how its basically all just desperate attempts to explain away the data
1 lasermancer 2020-06-03
That page has been a constant edit war for over a decade. You go there on different days of the week and see completely different narratives. Just look at the talk page, there are 102 pages of arguing and conflict.
5 pm_me_ur_badoonkas 2020-06-03
explains all the black scientists
13 Ordinary_Jew 2020-06-03
They would be scientists more than you mayos if you didn't steal all their tech from wakanda and enslave them. 🤬 Ignore the 300,000 year advantage they had before the earliest whites showed up.
3 donpendejo 2020-06-03
Neil
DeGrasse
Tyson
5 fuktigaste 2020-06-03
Colors are a social construct. We as a society has decided what wavelengths are called what, and where we draw the line between them is arbitrary.
Therefore all colors are identical.
4 mqL49J 2020-06-03
Their "no-original-research" policy means you're basically reading hot takes from BuzzFeed.
4 4070 2020-06-03
Society is a racial construct
1 ffbtaw2 2020-06-03
We (don't) live in a society!
3 EyeOfTheWitch 2020-06-03
The guy's name is Reich, that's something both sides can appreciate.
3 The_High_Seraph 2020-06-03
Differences in glomerular filtration rate also can't exist between races, which is why they decided to remove the race term from the equation which was previously used to make it more accurate: https://mobile.twitter.com/lizstein_/status/1265078654381387777
1 Lehk 2020-06-03
Every. Damned. Time.
3 dudebussy1m40 2020-06-03
lmao 2 senteces in and the wikipedia article is already coping
2 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
It's actually true. There's not enough differences between human groups to define "races" in the biological sense (like you can do for dogs or cats).
Now that doesn't mean there aren't biological differences, and there aren't groups you can define around phenotypical traits.
It's basically a technicality because we use the word "race" for humans in a sense that isn't biological (and could be considered a social construct, because it's hard to map it to a thorough biological definition).
That doesn't mean that different group of that "social construct" can't have different IQs for instance. Or that we can't recognize each other based on that.
2 ffbtaw2 2020-06-03
At what % classification accuracy would you accept that pca analysis and k-means clustering can accurately predict an individual's race based on genetic data?
1 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
I'm not saying there's not distinct groups that you can divide based on genetics or phenotype. It's entirely possible.
Differenciating biological races still takes more than that. It's a matter of definition.
Simple example : just look at the size difference between two races of dogs. They can't still reproduce, but they have incredibly different phenotypes. Humans are way more homogeneous all around. We have extremely similar bone structure (even though you can note differences), skin differences are mostly color (and thickness, even then not by a lot), eye and hair color...
To the untrained eye it would be very hard to "classify" a skeleton by race. Now if you saw skeletons from an average pitbull, chihuahua, and great dane side by side you'd have no difficulty telling them apart.
So that's why there are difference in human, definite genetic groups, but not enough to reach the bar for distinct "races".
It could happen over time, but it's made less and less likely since we all tend to mingle. There are very few people who are genetically isolated and they're unlikely to remains so for millenia anyway.
1 ffbtaw2 2020-06-03
Ok, given N measurable phenotypic traits that vary between genetic population groups what would you consider a sufficient Mahanalobis' D(N) to characterize different genetic population groups as distinct races?
1 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
Then again it's just a question of vocabulary. There are groups we can identify and separate. Apparently the specialists in those fields agree it's not enough for separating "races".
But then idiots who really want to use that word will try to argue, when that doesn't change the point.
It's like when you show SJWs that POCs can be racist but suddenly they define racism by the more recent definition used in social sciences that it needs to be "systemic" (as opposed to the older definitions which were just about the belief that there are races of human, and that some are superior).
Now I worked on genetics but since that wasn't my focus, I don't know the right word to differenciate human phenotypic/genetic groups, but there must be one somewhere.
1 ffbtaw2 2020-06-03
Really going out of your way to avoid having any benchmark for evaluating your claim that genetics can't be used to differentiate biological races. You're privileging the hypothesis that biological races don't exist and it seems no evidence to the contrary will sway you.
So our disagreement is semantic and not based in science.
Not really, specialists in those fields agree that 'race' is a politically charged term and refrain from using it to avoid courting controversy. If you instead choose to simply refer to different groups as 'human populations' (as David Reich does) nothing actually changes in terms of the implications that these distinct populations have characteristic distributions of various traits which will impact their behaviour and outcomes relative to other population groups within a multi-ethnic society.
It essentially takes this and instead of having k=4 and getting blue, green, yellow and red, uses k = 20 and more finely divides population groups.
The trade-off here is that k=20 provides more precision but little actionable advice for the average person trying to build a mental model of the world.
I can understand the urge to have people filter less of their experiences through a racial lens. This lens provides a map of reality, but all maps are wrong - and the failure mode of this particular map can have devastating consequences. Mindlessly repeating 'race is a social construct' won't work if you're also constantly talking about the importance of race consciousness, racism, racial privilege etc.
Maps are constructs, doesn't mean they don't reflect reality.
1 UnalignedRando 2020-06-03
Yes, except in that field the semantics they use don't allow to use "race" for humans.
Taxonomy has a huge vocabulary, I don't know why people get so triggered they can't use the one word they'd like because boomers used to call everything "race".
That's what I'm saying too. People get fixated on the word instead of discussing the reality. But AFAIK that word doesn't apply here.
That's also a problem I have with SJWs. Words have definitions, and can have several in different fields. If you're a scientist you're used to prefacing anything with the exact definition you'll be using.
Here we'll use "race" or "ethnicity", in the USA it's even used on official documents. Then some people will slide into pseudoscientific biology to try and make a point...
In social issues perception is reality, so the social sciences will see race very differently (here it's more about identity, or how other identify you). And in its context it is the definition that is useful and meaningful.
I'd rather do away with that word and just talk about the genetic and social realities.
And if we're going into classification, it's extremely hard to find a decent multivariate models to classify humans. Usually we'll go with a few genes variants that tend to cluster into what we consider ethnic groups. But even then we don't have a great model either.
Just look at the mess around DNA ancestry services and how they suck at calling some specific ancestries (native americans for instance). Either through lack of data and/or lack of a good classification algorithm. So even if someday we were at the point where we could genetically define biological races in humans, it's far from settled science today. And that's excluding the whole social and historical bagage around that notion.
1 MemriTVMemes 2020-06-03
Well it‘s true
1 I_Shah 2020-06-03
Well race and gender actually doesn’t exist. It’s better to compare intelligence by nationality or ethnicity
16 arcticlizard7 2020-06-03
What happened around March 6th?
29 low-info-upvoter 2020-06-03
maybe Bernie lost a primary and the berniebros were seething about the low information voters supporting dementia daddy?
18 chdfbjffgkk 2020-06-03
Why didn’t they vote for Bernie, stupid ni ... i mean low information voters
13 trosdetio 2020-06-03
If you visit the talk page of the article, you'll see some far-left editors trying to delete "hate facts" (and succeeding). I read the article 1 year ago and it was based af, I checked it last month and it had been neutered
9 Krystalana 2020-06-03
Wikipedia's approved editor cliques has long been the same sorts of pseudointellectual agenda posters that bore reddit.
7 DrunkenRecidivist 2020-06-03
Don't let pizzashill in here or I'll have to btfo him on this argument for like the 4th time
3 JannesCantBreathe 2020-06-03
He stays away from here because he gets absolutely destroyed every time he comes here and the Jannies here don't ban the meanies that destroy him.
3 kermit_was_wrong 2020-06-03
You mean, downvoted by fugees while being obviously right and astoundingly obnoxious about it.
Yeah that happens all the time.
3 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2020-06-03
Only when discussing the femo*d question.
1 JannesCantBreathe 2020-06-03
COPE
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-06-03
I see someone got assfucked by pizza at some point and still seethin’
1 JannesCantBreathe 2020-06-03
Dilate
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-06-03
Yes, that’s what pizza did to you.
2 Redactor0 2020-06-03
Hello newfag!
4 AllhailEmperorNathan 2020-06-03
Did you find it on r/dataisbeautiful? Because if you did I just reposted it...
5 low-info-upvoter 2020-06-03
na, I took the screenshot myself, the "/r/DataIsBeautiful" in the title is just tongue in cheek lol, it'll probably get y'all-ed
5 Krystalana 2020-06-03
4 le_ebin_trolecel 2020-06-03
Kek
2 publicbenis 2020-06-03
Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/dataisbeautiful.
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-06-03
Heh, their current top post https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gwdr9d/oc_people_killed_by_police_forces_annual_rate_per shows that Hispanics in the US are killed at the same rate as in Mexico, and blacks at the average rate among African countries, suggesting a link between killings and criminality among other things. Of course comments locked after 3 hours, too many people kept noticing the hidden redpill I guess.
3 tallcelvolcel 2020-06-03
Ever since my franchise MetroPCS store became the third stop of the Great Jog of St Paul, I wondered why these antifa white nationalists all seemed so dim. This page helped a lot thanks!
2 mukerflap 2020-06-03
im glad after all this protesting BLM is finally fixing racism
1 SnapshillBot 2020-06-03
My posts are demand-influenced. People feel the need to positively influence themselfes from others. The idiot is a part of the social system and as such has a vital part to play in society as he provides the chance for others to look down on him as he's doing such idiotic things. The internet has desensitised the general public. Someone whos erratically yelling things isn't as off-putting as it used to be when the village idiot was doing that job. People demand weird content that is crossing the boarders of social norms. People putting their bathroom usage on social media seem to be what people want to see. Actually, they are weird, much weirder than most of the other content here. As you can see, this content gets upvoted. You may not like it, but this content is satisfying the need for which people come to this subreddit.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 DontTakeMyForeskin 2020-06-03
What happened the 7th of march?
1 tschwib 2020-06-03
This sub: Oh no the closed drama because somebody saight something slightly rightwing
Also: Let's talk about genetic difference in intelligence among races