Is race real?
Or is it a sociological construction?
I was watching this video:
and was reading the comment section.
Here is a scientist at Amren talking about it:
What is /pol/'s stance on the issue?
I'm not talking about which is more "important."
All of sociology is beholden to psychology, which is beholden to biology, which is beholden to chemistry, which is beholden to physics, which is beholden to math
race is a sociological concept
Race? No. The US Government currently considers most hispanics, and everybody from Europe, the middle east, and north apefrica to be "white."
Ethnic groups? Very real. Early humans developed largely independent for tens of thousands of years.
Even my black friends agree that race is a biological difference that pertains to geographical location.
We always have the "in snow, whites win, in sun blacks win" arguments.
I don't get why most of /pol/ can't find any decent blacks to discuss this shit with. As long as you don't point out flaws in racial difference everyone is happy.
Statistics are measurable differences which can be correlated with the factors associated with race (skin, genetic heritage, etc.).
This shows that such factors are indicative of different groups of peoples with real differences.
Ergo, race is a real thing and not a construct.
Race is a valid heuristic. People considered "black" have identifiable biological characteristics distinct from those considered "white." Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their ass.
to a great extent, yes
we typically think of a "species" as a group of organisms where all members can produce viable offspring
however, we call lions and tigers different species, but lions and tigers can produce viable offspring
numerous other examples exist in nature
thus, it is clear "species," like "race," is not a rigid divider of organisms but merely a convenient taxonomic concept
Anyone who takes the terms "white" or "black" to mean literal skin color is a fucking moron. It is greatly understood white colloquially means "of European descent". Therefore, it is directly tied to ethnicity.
only the "ology" part, really
the movements of society are not a social construct, since social constructs are by definition built by the movements of society
the study of sociological phenomenon is a social construct, but that's neither here nor there
>Race is not real
>Able to tell someone's race
Make up your mind, people.
You can't say race is not real while you can differentiate 2 different human by race.
>Race is not real
The fact that evolution made different human populations is undeniable. Compare the skulls of an austrailian abo to a chinese man. such a big difference, you cannot seriously say they are the same being biologically.
It's a social construct in the same way intelligence or color is. It's something based on reality for which we came up with fairly arbitrary restrictions and definitions for.
As for whether it's real:
Of course there's real biology behind it. That's why black people have black kids.
The only argument people really try to make is that race is an arbitrary grouping/poorly defined, therefore it doesn't exist.
Well, show me a definition of species that works for all life. Show me a definition of dog breed that isn't just a list of vague physical characteristics. Just because something is poorly defined doesn't mean it's not based on something real.
people don't argue that it's based on something not real. it's based on the gene as a unit of inheritance
what people argue is how useful it is. just because it's based on genetics doesn't mean it's automatically useful.
Race in the sense of the 'white race' is very sketchy scientifically, but ethnicities are obviously real and similar ethnicities can be classified through a range of factors into 'races'. The biological differences have been proven and are quite obvious so yes, biological differences between human populations exist, but trying to classify all of humanity into 5-6 races is pretty silly.
>people don't argue that it's based on something not real
I've done both Sociology and Anthropology. They do argue that. You're full of shit and now you're back pedaling.
Sociology is a pseudo-science at best and I can't wait until it is purged from academia. What's even more criminal is how the universities willfully teach Sociology and garbage like "white male privilege" as a requirement but completely exclude Genetics. It is an incredibly biased movement rooted in liberal ideals and fails to show the other side of the "argument" that's rooted in actual science.
People do argue that. I've had that argument here on /pol/.
They argue that race is too poorly defined. What is white? What isn't white? Are Slavs white? Are Jews? Etc, etc.
And that if it can't be defined well, if you can't come up with solid justifications to call Asians a race and South Asians not a race, then it's a false term.
I disagree with all of that and say race is real and our poor definitions do nothing to discredit that
>horse and donkey breed to make a mule
>horses and donkeys are different species
>African and European breed
>lol thats a human, race is a social construct
How is race not a thing excluding my feelings?
>I've done both Sociology and Anthropology. They do argue that. You're full of shit and now you're back pedaling.
>I disagree with all of that and say race is real and our poor definitions do nothing to discredit that
and you provide what evidence?
I studied quantitative Sociology which is basically statistics, why do you hate statistics? They're quite useful. Also my uni never talked about any of that 'privilege' crap, you just need to go to a good institution.
...You've lost me. Your first line is repeating what I said ("They do argue that") while also saying I'm full of shit.
What are you arguing? What are you accusing me of backpedaling on? What part am I supposed to be providing evidence for?
b-but Bill Nye, the children's show host with a B.S. in engineering, said race don't real
bill nye is not the only one to have said that
>By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.
>A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
Talk to a Geneticist. In fact there's a video interviewing one here in this thread.
"Race is not real" "Race is a social construct" "There's no difference between black and white"
Yes there is. And I'd much sooner trust someone who is capable of breaking it down to the biological level, since that is what we're debating afterall, than a Sociologist who has never even taken a science course beyond basic Biology or basic Chemistry. Seriously dude, get fucked.
Work together? Perhaps. But if I possess genes I think are more useful, then why should I be forced to live in a society where we are being coerced and even manipulated to interbreed. In fact we're being completely indoctrinated and lied to about these facts of racial differences between people.
I'd much rather be a doberman, than a terrier, for example.
It is word play, as he states in this video. That's all this is. You're misleading and manipulating people using word play. You and I, and everyone else understand colloquially what the word "race" equates to. All you and other Sociologists are doing is nitpicking the nuances of the language while simultaneously lying to undergraduate students and the general public with semantics.
#1: the race of a patient can give information that is medically actionable: it's part of a medical history and can be indicative of predisposition to certain diseases
#2: a geneticist can take a sequenced genome, analyze it based on single nucleotide polymorphisms via software, and tell you the race of the individual
there being greater variation between individuals than between races does not mean that different races don't, on average, have different levels of certain traits
that's all you can say on "race". it doesn't matter what you call it. race, ethnic groups, muh heritage, whatever the fuck, it still boils down to the fact that niggers are on average more stupid, chinks are on average more intelligent.
>You're misleading and manipulating people using word play
none of this makes race a real, distinct feature of the genome, though
and I bet you don't know what SNPs actually are
>and I bet you don't know what SNPs actually are
well, they're single nucleotide polymorphisms, like it says on the fucking label
which is to say, a difference of a single nucleotide when comparing otherwise identical sequences of two individuals
they can be grouped to form haplotypes, but I guess you believe haplotypes don't real because they're artificial constructs too, right?
Well, to play devils advocate, a mule is born sterile, therefore it is not a viable offspring. A mixed race human is capable of breeding, therefore is a viable offspring. There is a difference here.
there is no "race"
its species. Different human species. And yes its reality. The reason why we don't use this prefix is it seems somewhat degrading when applied as an adjective. Well some on average are smarter or dumber than others it doesnt really matter. We can technically all get together, what seperates us is not the color of our skin or where we came from but our culture and norms. Hate construct is something that will never go away until ayyylmaos show up or a huge catastrophic event happens that validates our fragile existence.
MLKs dream was to just see people as people, not see a black man or a white man or whatever. Its sad his dream was hijacked into the first BLM movement but it was inevitable. People will never understand that if we all got along we could be more powerful than ever and change our way of life for the better. The jews know this too, which is why they have added all these obstacles and diversions
The density of brain matter being equal, that means that the brains of smaller volumes contain less neurons and less neural connections than brains of larger volumes? Do I really have to the think for you? Are you one of those niggers with a smaller cranial vault?
>some of the race deniers are more intelligent than their opponents and are making us look dumb.
Beware anyone that posts haplogroup charts, Europedia maps or mentions lactose intolerance.
If I was you I would point out to those young youths that blacks do not win in the sun they are completely visible to us and we are a better shot.
They win in the night because they naturally blend in.
Is this bait?
Of course race is real. As real as dog breeds.
Different breeds have different physical abilities, IQ levels, behaviors...etc. Even though they're still all the same species
You really think we all evolved exactly the same way in radically different environments for 200,000 years??
Race is a social construct. Which aligns remarkably well with geographic ancestral populations at a genetic level.
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population
Don't let that stupid faggot off. He's doing his word play bullshit. Skull size has a direct correlation to cranial volume which has a direct correlation to brain size. It's also not phrenology. Stupid fuck is using words he doesn't understand.
This is somewhat misleading.
Animal of same Genus can mate but success of that animal to have offspring is close to null in real world scenario.
Only reason hybrid spices exist is human intervention and without humans they wouldn't be for this world.
Why can't I meme for once? You've been doing it for a while now, that's bullying senpai.
That's nonsense senpai. All memes are the same because they're a social construct.
Yes its biological. I dont remember the source, but the genetic difference between whites and blacks iš larger than the difference between homo sapiens and neanderthals. So its actually a subspecies.
>Everything you know, is a social construct to one or another degree
>is a social construct to one or another degree
>to one or another degree
How does it feel to be a retarded yanklander that you are?
So the genes that code for, say, black skin were constructed by society?
If you want to have a separate conversation, fine. But don't act like I'm somehow wrong because you have a different personal standard than the guy I was responding to.
Interestingly, atomic theory absolutely IS a social construct. Why not stop at the molecular level? Why not proceed past mesons to quarks? Why is the atom meaningful in a way that no other level of understanding is not?
Pic guy here with a serious question. Is National Socialism growing or shrinking? Are moral concerns about National Socialism valid? Just wondering.
The genetic distance between Whites (British) and Blacks (Bantu) is 0.23:
The FST between the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) is 0.103 which is half the White-Black difference despite the two being classified as separate species:
The FST between two gorilla species, Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei is 0.04 or 1/6 the difference between Blacks and Whites:
The FST between humans and Neanderthals is less than 0.08 or about 1/3 the Black-White difference:
The FST between humans and homo erectus is 0.17 which is 3/4 the Black-White distance:
Thus, whites and blacks are more genetically distant than two different chimpanzee species, two different gorilla species, humans vs. Neanderthals, and humans vs. homo erectus.
There are no races. If we determine rqae based on genetics, then every person is different. Everyone rolls based off of their parent's attributes. You can find people of different ethnicities that are more genetically similar than people of the same ethnicity.
If it were so simple, you would have just explained rather than attempted to put words in my mouth. Nice try, though. You just convinced everyone here that atomic theory is a social construct.
>protip: if it has the word "theory," it's intrinsically a social construct.
Look, that guy's a moron. But you're incorrect in thinking that there are no objectively measurable facts. Even if we don't have a word or a concept for light in the wavelengths that constitute green, the waves will still have the same range of lengths. We don't need to be able to measure it. We don't need to understand it. We don't even need to exist. It will be the same.
But that's absolutely wrong, you utter simpleton.
That's missing the point of both phrenology (which is a largely miscredited scientific field) and physiology, which is in fact a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.
Kind of like how forensic scientists can use a program like FORDISC to determine with relative accuracy the race of a human skeleton, among other factors like age, sex, when relevant plot points are input into the program.
What the OP is talking about is race versus culture, which is of course very obviously a social construct.
So that would be an interaction between atoms. You're still dancing around your untrue assumption that electrons are not constituent parts of atoms, which now that I think about it doesn't just deny chemistry, but it denies the historical context of science in terms of how the atomic model was developed.
You don't understand word "Sociaty" do you?
It means People, Atoms are thing that people found, names, explained. This means by your definition its a social construct.
You fucking monkey.
you're right I don't understand that word
>It means People, Atoms are thing that people found, names, explained. This means by your definition its a social construct.
no it doesn't, because atoms would exist in absence of society
my definition was something that society creates
but atoms would exist without society
it's like, how can you be this stupid?
>you said everything is a social construct, but you're wrong
If you define a social construct as something like a useful abstraction, yes everything is a social construct.
It's a bit of an autistic argument to be honest tough, and leftist use social construct argument in a marxist way, there is no point in debating them.
Doesn't matter if they exist or not, there are plenty of things we have yet to discover, as soon as we will, People will name them, they will explain them and thus making it a social construct, by your own definition.
Change the definition you fucking moron to something that actually means social construct.
Yes, it's real. Humans have subspecies just like so many other animals do.
Different subspecies of humans exhibit different facial features, skeletal structures, skin colors, average hair colors, genetic features, muscular features, and vascular features.
It's not necessarily even anything to be ashamed of. I don't get why people are so eager to jump on the "all humans are exactly the same" boat despite overwhelming physical evidence that such is not the case.
We weren't talking about electrons. We were talking about atomic theory. Which you then conflated with electron interaction, which involves subatomic particles. You're moving the goalposts again. I can't be surprised, though, because that's exactly the genesis of this conversation: atomic theory as a social construct.
Animalia would still consist of species and races/subspecies with differing genetics between them, even if us humans were absent. Therefore, race or subspecies cannot be a social construct.
Genes influence behavior and physical attributes.
The concept of races is a simplification of this. Generalities can be drawn but not everything is expressed in observable phenotypes readily.
Well the genius nobel prize winner that discovered DNA says Race is real.
Before faggots started calling him racist.