Science still backs a genetic component for things like happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct and yet can still effect things like social behavior and cultural adaptations to the environment.
That genetic component is between parents and children, not between neighbours who serendipitously share the same skin colour.
happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct
Which one of those is not a social construct, you'd say? Happiness -- which relies on self-reporting, or IQ -- for which a person can change their score by 10-20 points by studying test preps?
depression is based on self reported information, is that a social construct? anyway my point is that personality predisposition has a genetic component.
> In 2003, Phase 1 of the Human Genome Project (HGP) demonstrated that humans populating the earth today are on average 99.9% identical at the DNA level, there is no genetic basis for race, and there is more genetic variation within a race than between them.
Right, there is .1 % variation in genetics which, although seems like small number, manages create differences that lead to social effects. no correlation with race required, not surprising really since race is self chosen and non specific.
The point is that race is entirely made up (that's what a social construct is) and can change in an instant, so trying to lock it down by calling it a "White America" thing is wrong.
That race isn't biological isn't really up for debate, scientifically. You can believe that scientific consensus is too "woke" or has a systemic bias against the idea or whatever, but the consensus is soundly at "race is not biological".
I'm personally conservative in my political views, but I don't think that means I must reject scientific consensus.
These are awful sources, and they clearly aren't scientific, but are expressions of opinion. Wish casting, even. They're playing the old cynical same word games that are required to hold this position:
"Modern genetics has established that the biological basis of most phenotypic traits typically associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture, has demonstrated that they transcend ancestry across vast geographic distances spanning continents."
The fact that the above is also true of genes that cross species lines is, presumably, not an argument that 'species' is a purely social construct with no foundation in biology.
Another asserts that humans can't be divided into subspecies, ergo race doesn't exist. That is not science, it's wordplay.
Populations of humans were separated for millennia with very little intermixing. These populations diverged genetically, to the degree that the descendants of one population can easily be visually distinguished from one another. These groups have fuzzy edges, but they are obviously, undeniably rooted in biological reality.
The NIH is not a scientific source? The Human Genome Project isn't a scientific source? The journal literally called Science? Duke University? Science Direct? The American Medical Association? The Experimental Physiology Journal?
That's a tough thing to read on HN, I have to be honest.
The NIH site is hosting an editorial. An editorial from what appears to be the journal of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. No, it is not a valid source in support of your claim. The fact that you not only shared it but defended it, purely based on the hosting URL, is... revealing.
How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible that you can believe this, while also understanding that 23andMe can not only tell your ancestors continent of origin (a rough analog for race), but their specific region?
If you bothered to read these articles critically (instead of turning off your brain in response to a specious appeal to authority) you would see that they don't even deny that racial populations are genetically distinct. They are discernible in purely biological terms, which by definition makes them biological. The desire to present race as non-biological is purely political/ethical and not scientific, is why their arguments stoop to semantic games and emotional appeals.
You won't actually respond to the substance of my comment, because you don't want to think about this topic. I get it. It's deeply taboo, and we are hardwired not to question taboos. Think about it anyway!
They absolutely deny race exists, you just seem to want to equate genetic heritability with race.
Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions.
The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph:
> In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” The statement continues: “... The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries... Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.”
How you could deny this as not the scientific consensus, or not a full rejection of race as a biological concept fascinates me.
> Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions.
The races are visually distinguishable. This is possible because there are genetic (i.e. biological) differences between the groups, which are expressed as differences in skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. These genes aren't what defines race per se, they're merely proof that race--commonly understood in terms of membership in a geographically defined population--cannot be said to be some arbitrary social distinction with no basis in biology.
The paragraph you cite is a rhetorical slight of hand. They argue that that "pure races... do not exist". But nobody argues that "pure races" exist. This is the strawman fallacy in its most basic form.
I'm equally fascinated by your position! After a bit of thought, I might understand where we're getting mixed up.
It's possible that our disagreement comes down to a difference in what we mean when we say that race is/isnt "a biological concept". If the differences between races are insignificant compared to those between genus or species (I have no idea if this is true for all species distinctions, but i'll concede the point), and there is no existing concept in biology to account for such trifling differences as our racial differences, the it can be reasonably asserted that "race is not a biological concept". Another way to say this is "there are biological (genetic) differences between human racial populations, but they are so small that there is no analogous concept in biology/taxonomy."
Thus defined, the idea that "race is not a biological concept" is a narrow and purely semantic assertion. The problem arises when you conflate this semantic assertion with unrelated ideas like "race is meaningless" or "race isn't real". It was your use of the phrase in this latter manner that prompted my response.
Original comment:
> This is a White America thing and it is why we are in the situation we are in as a country but people want to pretend that race and culture doesn't play any role in anything.
Your response:
> It's not a White America thing to reject race as a biological concept, it's consistent with scientific study.
So you're saying the words "race is not a biological concept", but are you saying it in the narrow semantic sense in which it is true? It doesn't seem like it--an assertion about biology nomenclature would make little sense in context! It sounds like what you meant was something like "race is meaningless." But that is an entirely different assertion which (as I have been vainly arguing in previous comments) is not proven nor directly asserted by the papers you linked.
I suppose I'm trying to say that even though "race isn't a biological concept" is true in a narrow sense, it doesnt support your (apparent) assertion that race is meaningless.
Ah yes, this is what I presumed was taking place, I just needed you to say it.
Race is absolutely real, in that it is a social construct. Race is not, as you say, a biological concept. There are no sets of genetic traits that mark someone as of one race or another, but race has been loosely defined by various groups at various times to include traits that are heritable, such as skin tone and facial structure. Almost always, the group defining race are doing so in an effort to subjugate or stratify others in contrast with themselves, so usually racial classifications are done ignorantly and hatefully.
But, as a biological concept that can be defined, you're right that race does not exist. Though you argue this is semantics and therefore unimportant, which I find odd.
You don't consider semantic issues to be important. Wild! Words seem very important to me and to the people I talk to, I've not really ever met someone in my life who didn't think what words meant was important.
You could have done that without replying, and in my experience the folks who feel the need to announce their departure from a conversation are the ones who tend to be the trolls…
Doubly so when the topic is race and the position is that race is biological (you’re not even the first, sadly).
This is a bit complicated and I'm going to do a bad job of explaining it.
The argument is that there are population clines, which are biological, and then those population clines are divided into races by choosing to ignore or use specific traits at a certain point along the cline. This choice isn't biological, which makes race a social construct.
The underlying population clines aren't always along the same gradient. Skin colour and physical size might be gradients that run a different way across a continent; skin colour might change north to south to north again due to sun intensity, while physical size might change based on altitude and terrain. There's no disagreement that both skin colour and size are partly biological, but the decision to use one over the other to differentiate races is social.
All the things that differentiate race are genetic, sure, but which things are used to categorize people into race is socially constructed. Why do people base racial categories on skin color but not, say, finger length or whether you can wiggle your ears? Biology can't tell you that.
The "asleep" lie is that "black" means anything genetically. Every trait you want to attribute to "black people" is also found in people who wouldn't qualify as "black" culturally.
