Is race a social construct? If not, how many races are there?

>>1640106
Race isn't real, but tribalism is. If you don't look like me, then I'm not as naturally inclined to trust you because you aren't from where I'm from.

Is it so hard to believe that different lineages of humans have different mutations the may very well infact affect things like intelligence?

>>1640106
Yes. What people usually mean by race is ethnicity, and it mostly comes up when one ethnicity is intentionally racialized in order to distinguish it from the default, usually White WASP in America.

>>1640111
>is it so hard to believe something that has been debunked multiple times

>>1640106
No but the current definition of race is wrong. It should be divided by body structure, not skin color.

>>1640111
But isn't that based more on genetics rather than skin color?

>>1640111
>is It so hard to believe debunked pseudoscience bullshit

Yes it is.

>>1640106
I honestly don't believe in the intelligence meme because the brain sizes between races isn't significant enough for there to be a difference in intelligence. I do believe certain ethnicities can do things better than others.

>>1640106
>Is race a social construct?
In the sense that there are a set of maybe half a dozen "races" which humans can be neatly categorised into, yes.

That's all people mean when they say race is a social construct. Not that humans literally have no biological differences between ethnic groups

>>1640106
I prefer to think of it as "racial classification is a social construct" myself

After all, you can either go by skin tone, which contains ∞ in-betweens, skull size, geographic origin... it just gets to be dumb

People who try to use it as a justification for calling anything racist are retards who discredit the notion of discriminating based on something you can't change tho.

>>1640106
>Is race a social construct?
no, race is a real thing, but some specific 'races' aren't real (e.g. jews actually are just white) and are therefore social constructs

>If not, how many races are there?
only 4 to 6 depending on definition. e.g. mongoloid (asian), negroid (african), caucasoid (european), australoid (native australiasian)

>What defines a human "race"?
it's an archaic term meaning the human species

>>1640120
And how the fuck do you suppose that would clear things up.

And I would argue that the current usage of race is not exactly based on skin color. "White" is more than just skin color, else people wouldn't question if Greeks were white and would warmly accept pale koreans and japanese as fellow whites. Obviously that's not how things go. It's a cultural label more than anything and in particular a western one. The designation of "Asian" being the most laughable. Everyone from the sub-continent to Japan are similar enough to be grouped into one race?

Of course genetic variation in humans exists, but where we divvy the lines is up to whimsy more than science.

Is "white" a modernish concept?

>>1640174
As in the last 300-200 years? Yes, and who qualifies as white has shifted as well. Originally it was just anglo-saxons and their germanic counterparts who were truly "white". Over time this expanded into a sort of pan-europeanism and now we're at the point where the US census counts Arabs as white.

File: zimmerman.jpg (169KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 600x400px

>>1640180
Don't forget white Hispanic.

Man left Africa where he was confronted evolutionary pressures which selected for traits which were most conducive to reproductive success in that respective environment.

If you want to call them races, or sub-species, or breeds, or populations, or x, y, z, it does not matter, yes race or whatever word you want to use for it, is a social construct, its an arbitrary distinction used to facilitate taxonomic classification. Does this mean the phenotypical variation found in different populations of humans is a social construct? No, differences exist and they are not just skin deep and no this does not justify racism.

>>1640111

>is it hard to believe a pseudo science which has already been debunked

Yes it is.

>>1640106

Like everything it's nature and nurture.

I believe that race exists in terms of skin colour/ ethnicity etc. but to say that an asian or an african is an entirely differen't species to one another is a load of shit, as it scientifically doesn't hold up.

You know that phrase, there is no race, except the human race?

Well that quotation has merit.

>>1640106

Technically yeah but its not arbitrary if thats what you're asking. Depending on which classifications you categorize race from, there are 5 primary races:

Caucasian (europe, north africa, middle east, west asia, etc.)
African (sub saharan)
Asian (steppes of asia, china, parts of india)
Native American (north and south america, carribean)
Pacific Islander (aborigine, somoan, etc.)

These are very general categories, but they have noticable physical (pigmentation, eye and face structure, slight bone differences) and cultural (religious, etc.) differences between them.

>>1640106
It's a social construct in the sense that we draw a line between genetic distances and observe a phenotype.

I would say it's more accurate to describe races as subspecies. Anyone who tells you that race is pseudoscience and that cognitive abilities don't differ between races aren't observable are being politically correct.

An example is East Asians of the poorest income bracket out scoring the highest income blacks. IQ for blacks and whites are virtually the same no matter the country. Mestizo iq has a .8 correlation with the amount of European ancestry.

>>1640230
You dropped your edge there adolf

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-01 at 11.26.05 am.png (600KB, 840x766px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 840x766px

>>1640230

>iq for blacks the same in each country
>there have been no gains

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/
>Blacks aren't outperforming whites

http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

It's a pseudo-science, boss.

What about the warrior gene?

>>1640259

Happens in every one, pal.

File: 1424127990001.jpg (72KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 850x400px

It's mainly, but not entirely, a social construct.

>>1640268
But shouldn't europeans (Nords to be exact) be more propense to have this warrior gene? Why are black the most propense to have it?

>>1640277
>But shouldn't europeans (Nords to be exact) be more propense to have this warrior gene?
No?

>Why are black the most propense to have it?
Not discounting you but I'll need a source.

>>1640111
>Is it so hard to believe in pseudo-scientific nonsense?

>>1640243
I don't have time to debunk that article on my phone. One thing I noticed is comparing IQs at age 11, when blacks actually develop faster.

Listen to this without bias:
https://m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

File: 13407223_960927817361778_1348819690621836020_n.png (53KB, 924x636px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 924x636px

>>1640300

>heh, I was almost forced to """"debunk"""" evidence which acts as counter evidence to mine

You're an idiot if you still believe in that pseudo science.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?m=1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjnkV_j0yk

http://www.livescience.com/163-big-brains.html


Deal with it lad, it's been debunked.

>>1640282
http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com.ar/2011/03/racial-controversy-of-violent-gene.html
I know it's a blogspot but it has its sources there. I'll post more if I can later.

>this is the first thread I see when coming back here

>>1640119
Debunked when and by whom?

>>1640324
& Humanities was a mistake.

>>1640106
Fuck, marry, kill

>>1640243
they aren't outperforming whites on iq tests tho

>>1640328

Dr. Richard Neisbitt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5J13sSto8

>>1640318
>if I keep calling it pseudoscience maybe the data will go away
>muh debunked Flynn effect

https://m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

https://m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

The gap can't be closed between whites and blacks no matter how we try.

>>1640339

>gap can't be closed

>rejects evidence of closing gap

>muh sound cloud pseudo science

>denying evidence which debunks this.

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

Though I suppose it doesn't surprise me that racists like you tend to have low iqs too.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Take your pseudo science and shove it up your arse.

Jesus, if I wanted an argument with a mental deffective I would have visited a special-ed school.

>>1640106
When I was in university my intro to psychology professor stated that "the differences between races are small compared to the difference within a race".

What does this mean? When I heard this I just discounted it as some progressive liberal pseudoscience shill talk.

File: image.jpg (143KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 800x1067px

ITT:

>what are phenotypical traits

>>1640360
>>>/pol/
Racist.

I hate political correctness. I want my science back.

>>1640352
You didn't link me to a study where the gaps have completely closed at adult age, which is impossible. IQ is BOTH nature AND nurture, not just one.

You can improve black nurture as much as you want. If white and Asian nurture is equal, they will out score blacks every time.

Just accept it and give up your religion of egalitarianism.

https://m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

>>1640360
Do you see people in this thread denying that they exist? Like really I'm not sure what you're getting at.

>>1640352
not him but it's funny how suddenly iq is relevant to you people when politics is brought up

File: image.jpg (25KB, 562x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 562x530px

>>1640369

Alright, let me rephrase then.

ITT:

>is race a thing
>no, race doesn't exist
>what about ethnicities?
>okay yeah

>>1640376
But ethnicities are mostly cultural and linguistic too.

Humans run the gamut in appearance, if you wanted to split people up based on phenotype you'd have to draw a couple hundred borders per continent and even then you'd have to quantify what exact nose + forehead shape makes you a member of x group. It's a labor no one wants to start.

Race is painting with very broad strokes. Koreans and Indians don't look very similar but they're the same race. Swedes and Greeks with the same dilemma. African tribes can actually have more genetic difference and look surprisingly distinct from one another (hutus and tutsis are a famous example) but again, thrown into the same race.

Where we draw the lines is questionable, the fact that people look different is acknowledged.

>>1640353
it's just a dumb platitude. it's based on the way genetic mutations accumulate in populations. there are more random mutations within populations than there are between distinct populations, but not all of those mutations are meaningful or expressed phenotypically, so it's a misleading factoid.

>>1640337
can't watch the whole video but this about twins is true
I had identical twins in school and one was rather smart, other was dumb as fuck
and they were always fucking together

File: image.jpg (681KB, 989x1280px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 989x1280px

>>1640394

Because it is difficult to determine you believe it doesn't exist, full fucking stop?
So between Saorise here and >>1640360 there is absolutely no fucking difference in inherited traits at all?

I realize unless you are an utterly blind dolt that you can perceive the variations in appearance, yet because they can be numerous between a Korean and an Indian, you posit that there is no point in distinguishing the two?

What the fuck?

>>1640106

Are dog breeds a social construct?

>>1640411

This guy gets it.

>>1640407
Why are you putting so many words in my mouth. I'm saying that racial distinctions are not very clear cut, and in fact are mostly cultural. Not that differences between humans don't exist.

So when race realists or whoever posit that there are real scientific differences between white people and black people for example what they're saying isn't entirely incorrect. It's just the definitions of "white" and "black" are so broad and arbitrary as to be almost useless. At least on a genetic level. And in fact are kind of vague if we're speaking phenotypically too.

People who don't believe in racial differences must not believe in evolution.

Your brain consumes around 20% of your calories. Do you really think there wouldn't be intelligence differences after tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments?

File: 1450556826852.jpg (26KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x377px

>all these retards thinking it has to either be one extreme or the other

>>1640416

>black skin
>white skin
>vague

>epicanthic fold brown eyes
>rounded blue eyes
>vague

Again, I completely understand where you come from about those realists who think the aforementioned differences can constitute some grand different categorization as a whole other SPECIES, that's looney.

But the inverse of declaring all humans utterly the same in every way is equally as looney to me.

Just because the differences are minute does not mean they don't exist.

Just because the definition can be warped does not mean a line can't be seen, and doesn't warrant ever evolving categorization and acknowledgement.

Just because it is hard doesn't mean it isn't real.

>>1640425
Your brain comsumes a tenth of that nazi. Stop being a coward, show your face racist

>>1640368

how the fuck do you even measure equal nurture? you seem to be saying that if two people are of the same socio-economic status then they have the same nurture, which is insane

Also you're failing to account for that fact that IQ tests skew against people who's upbringing has taught them that they are less intelligent (which I would argue american society does for blacks). The same phenomenon can be seen when you test white people in sporting prowess.

>>1640110
what does that have to do with tribes? is that from the time when all tribes within a certain area looked exactly the same you fucking dumb faggot?

>>1640111
ethnicity? no not at all

>>1640411
>>1640414

Humans aren't dogs, nor can they be compared to them.

>>1640467
creationist detected

>>1640447
>whites being bad at sports is a social construct
Religion of egalitarianism in a nutshell.

>>1640472

race realist detected

>>1640450
I think he means that tribalism as people still think as if they were in a tribe even if tribes no longer exist. A tribe is a group of people who can all trace their ancestry back to one or so person, so they will all look similarly

It is an interesting line of thought and many actions, such as some forms of political corruption and patronage, may be explained within the a priori assumption that humans are tribalistic in nature.

>>1640486
*realist
I happen to believe man is an animal subject to the same processes that affect other animals. Really makes u think.

>>1640505
then why don't dogs hate other dogs based on their breed?

>>1640533
not enough brainpower to reach up to things like hate/love/etc...
your are avoiding the point

>>1640541
maybe humans aren't subject to the same processes that affect other animals then

>>1640533

It is a trope that preference for one's own kind is "hate" for all others.

>>1640545
when it comes to taxonomical classifications, they certainly do, or should we treat humans differently only because they have higher cognition?
you sound like a specist, it's 2016 ffs

>>1640556
what? animals classify each other taxonomically?

>or should we treat humans differently only because they have higher cognition?

you seem to think that brainpower is a noteworthy variable

>>1640573
yeah, keep avoiding the point buddy

>>1640588
you have no point

File: 1468451700455.jpg (124KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1000x1000px

>>1640556
>it's the current year

Australian Aborigines

Those things predate the Cro Magnon on the homo sapien evolutionary tree.

>>1640765
Paying hundreds for beer first thing in the morning and huffing petrol is a social construct.

Needing a parallel legal system is a social construct.

>>1640801
Australian guzzoline has to be specially made with fewer aerosol components. So that the Abos don't huff it.

Have to tell the Abos to not sleep in the street.

Abos were considered wildlife in Australia until the 1970s.

Australian government took abo children from their parents and gave them to white families. Thinking they might be able to raise them into functioning humans.

>>1640110

>Race isn't real
>Can literally tell someone's race by examining their bones

Okay cuckboy

>>1640117
ethnicity supposed to be more specific, for example: race: mongoloid, ethnic: siamese
or race: caucasoid, ethnic: irish

>>1640106
>>1640120

Species: Human

Race:
Caucasoid : whites, middle east, north indians
Mongoloid : east asians, south east asians, native americans
Negroid: africans, south indians
Australoid: native australians

notice that the categorisation use bone structure and not skin colour

>>1640865
Melansians.

races can be broken down by admixture or lack of.

caucasoids, mongoloids, some sub saharan africans, and amerindians have neanderthal DNA.

Melansians only have desnovian admixture. though desnovian shows up all over eurasia.

sub saharan negroids are pure homo sapien.

>>1640360
Who is this chink temptress?

>>1640106
Western-European
Central-European
Eastern-European
North-African
Near-Eastern
Balkan-European
Eastern-SSA
Pygmy
Austrolisians
East-Asians
Central-Asians
Amerindians
West-SSA
Aboriginals
very-simple-and-easy

>>1641133
You-can-immidiately-tell-anyone-from-these-groups-denoting-the-genetic-differences.

>>1641112
Except that's not true. The Maya lived in the tropics and were among the smartest amerindians in the continent. Hell mesoamerica and the Andes in south america were the centers of civilization in the Americas.

File: Chastain Consider the Following.jpg (636KB, 936x1202px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 936x1202px

>>1640106
It's BOTH a social construct and a biological reality.

Why can't you idiots accept that argument? Yes you can observe race but at the same time there have been groups of people of the same, biological, race that considered themselves not of the same race since shit like religion/culture/language/mere geographic location determined conceptions of race itself throughout all history.

Why must race be a single-faceted concept? Are you all fucking children?

>>1641095
https://models.com/models/yue-ning

yes there are different races, anyone that says otherwise doesn't' have eyes

>>1640883
>pure homo sapien
Incorrect,SSA-have-significant-different-hominoid-dna-just-not-neandethal-which-were-spawned-in-europe

>>1640106
>Is race a social construct?

As far as academic consensus is concerned, yes.

>If not, how many races are there?

We don't know. Race realists don't have any objective criterion for how to categorize people into different races; they don't even have an agreed upon definition of race to begin with.

> "Similarly, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like.” - Steve Salier

>What defines a human "race"?

See the above.

>>1640111
That isn't race, that's genetics

Race is taxonomy my nigga

File: reality of races.png (793KB, 1080x3566px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 1080x3566px

Are dog breeds a social construct? If not, how many dog breeds are there? What defines a dog "breed"?

t. retard sjw OP

>>1640467
>Humans aren't dogs, nor can they be compared to them.

>Dog, Social mammal
>Human, Social mammal
>Similar carnivorous/omnivorous diet
>Cohabited in a friend/ally fashion for at least the last 10,000 years
>Fairly intelligent animals as a whole, besides the derp breeds just no

We've domesticated dogs but you seem to forget that we've domesticated ourselves along with them. It's the domestication that brings out these types of differences. I don't see what the big deal is about looking at people in a similar way, they're still people but I'm just making a general statement about their 'genetic trend'. Is a corgi somehow better than a border collie? Probably not, I'm just sayin, but that's not my point.

I'm of some fucking European descent, I'm a White Male. That's what breed I am. Ok.

>>1641247
>>1641246
Wolves and Chihuahuas are the same species.

>>1641246
Dog Breeds ARE social constructs.

In fact, a lot of them are fucking artificial via humans over centuries pedigreeing them.

Enjoy your fucking analogy.

>>1640106

http://atavisionary.com/tag/human-genetic-diversity-lewontins-fallacy/

>>1641266
there's many difference between breeds. they have different characteristics, inteligence, physical appearance, etc

>social construct
try to replace your security bulldog with chihuahua

>>1641529
Selective breeding by humans isn't the same as selective breeding by the environment.

>>1640352
>heh these dumb conservatives amirite
>WHAT!? HOW DARE YOU SAY MY WIFE'S SON IS MOST LIKELY BELOW AVERAGE?! RACIST PIECE OF SHIT

>>1641238
>Race realists don't have any objective criterion for how to categorize people into different races; they don't even have an agreed upon definition of race to begin with
Maybe if the mere mention of race wasn't enough to send retards shitting their pants in outrage we could finally classify people with modern tech instead of using vague as fuck categories like black and white

>>1641539

there is no such thing as environment, humans are just as natural as everything else.

>>1640106
Phenotypes and biological differences between different groups of humans are not social constructs.

But our society's common understanding of 'race' is a social construct.

Take for example 'black people'. The term is often used in reference to the natural pigment colour, which is black. So does that also include Indians and Indigenous Australians, and Pacific islanders who also share the same natural skin colour?

No it doesn't. When dumb idiots say black guys have bigger dicks, they mean people of sub-Saharan African descent. Even though Indians, Australian abos, islanders are all 'black' they are not considered a part of the 'black' race.

>>1641255

Yes they are, but they are obviously different breeds. Technically the wolf is the 'base' animal but whatever.

>>1641570
I'd say that phenotypes are definitely a social construct. I don't phenotypes in a "different people look different" kind of way but more like "we can't reach consensus whether this guy is a gracile Mediterranid or he's already overlapping with the Atlantid strata" kind of garbage.

>>1641569
>there is no such thing as environment

don't go full retard on us now

>>1640106
nah but cuteness/attractiveness/hotness is

>>1641569

Retard detected

>>1641549

Not an argument

>>1641626
>oh god I hope this meme reply works or the bull will castrate me if I lose another argument
oh me oh my whatever DID he mean by this?

>>1641645

>getting this triggered

/his/ might not be the place for you

>>1641645

>ignores the fact that racists have low IQs

>spergs out like a retard

I think the person who posted the study was onto something.

>>1641645

>my wife's bull

You ever consider that people don't obsess over cuckoldry, it's just you?

>>1641654
>you're triggered
>still replies
hmm
>>1641658
I never ignored the fact, I pointed out the hypocrisy of lambasting people that believe blacks are stupider in the same post where you say that racists are stupider.

Not to mention that you're conveniently skipping the reason this is so and ignoring the flynn effect, which is pretty anti intellectual tbqh.
>>1641660
So why reply at all?

>>1640411
no, but race is

>>1641664

>implying blacks can't be racist

>what is BLM?

>>1641678
A fringe movement that has nothing to do with most blacks, if what liberals tell me is true

>>1640106
>Is race a social construct?
yes, but biological differences exist.

>If not, how many races are there?
depends who you ask

>What defines a human "race"?
census forms and public opinion.

>>1640106

Pretty much everything is a "social construct" by definition. Without such constructs, we wouldn't be able to think or communicate. That doesn't mean that the constructs are not based on external, independent realities.

For example "blue" is a social construct, based on human psychological perception. In nature, there exists only electromagnetic radiation. Humans construct names for different wavelengths. And those which the average human eye is sensitive to are further categorized into colors. But the perception of "blue" is very subjective and, in fact, is influenced by the background which surrounds it.

Should we therefore throw out the concept "blueness" because it is "socially constructed"?

The social construct of "race" is similarly an attempt to categorize groupings of human characteristics that everyone perceives. The problem, for modern liberals, is that others may behave differently toward different categories. Their solution is not to address the offending behavior, but to deny the categories themselves as if by claiming that "clothes" are a social construct, the emperor would now appear to be clothed.

>>1641668
>implying societies attention span is 12000+ years of understanding

>>1640475

I was referring to studies that have shown that if you tell white people to play mini-golf and tell them its a measure of intelligence they do better then if you tell them its a test of their athletic ability. The results are the opposite for blacks

>>1640106
Is RAPE a social construct? It's just molecules moving against eachother I mean c'mon it's 2015!!

>>1642081

So you are saying that if we tell blacks that IQ tests measure athletic abilities, they will do better?

>>1642138
rape is definitely a social construct.

>t rapist

>>1640106
>Is race a social construct?
No, that's fucking stupid. We have classifications for different subspecies within all kinds of species. Would you say the difference between a bloodhound and scottish terrier is a "social construct"? Or a tiger and a lion? etc.

>>1640106
Yes/thread

The idea of a social construct is a joke. The people who put forth these methods of categorization are fully aware that they do so in order to measure and understand the world better. "Social constructs" being a negative thing is entirely as a result of being an uneducated layman.

>asking humanities majors a question that is scientific in nature

For what reason?

>>1642800
>race is scientific

Fuck off adolf

File: image.jpg (34KB, 283x370px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 283x370px

>>1642640
Maybe no dividing lines at all exist in nature and all is one big whole.
Anyway that doesn't mean classifying cant be useful to understanding reality

>>1642807
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

>>1642807
Not an argument

>>1640194
>>1640119

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

there is a connection between the difference in haplogroups and mean IQ, but culture also plays a big role in a person's intelligence. It's idiotic to discount science as "psuedo science" just because we deem it uncomfortable.

your proposition is that genetics has nothing to do with anything, even with the most expensive organ in the human body, What the other side is sayin that genetics do have an effect, but isn't the sole indicator for one's IQ,

>>1642142
Not him, but I'd say if you managed to raise a number of black children completely ignorant of stereotypes about black intelligence, there would be a noticeable affect.

>>1642863
>>>/pol/

>>1642812
>>>/pol/

Race is real, fluid, gray, and causes more of a problem the more you talk about it.

>>1642897
? That paper essentially says that the conventional conception of race isn't accurate, and the differences between races are no where near as important as people thing they are. How is that /pol/ posting?

>>1642897
T_T, why? All i said was that genetics do have a factor in one's intelligence but it isn't the sole indicator.

I would even suggest that the percentage of how genetics affects IQ is only 20% while environmental factors is 80%

>>1642863
Go reread the bell curve stormfag

>>1642920
>>1642921
This exchange is over.
*sips tea*

>>1642928
why is his so antiscience? I'm not even proposing an extreme view here.

The Caucasoid race is the best, the negroid race (also called nigger race) is the worst.

>>1642933
You're not and I jumped the gun. I'm sorry, in earnestness. I am angry today

>>1642934
Ok now I found one. Go back to /pol/. You storm fags aren't gonna completely ruin this thread

>>1642946
>Implying it's wrong
95% of all the inventions were made by Europeans.

>>1642961
Dude back to /pol/
You've got no clue what you're talking about. Who discovered what when is a notoriously biased topic and I'm sure you think 'white' people invented everything, except peanut butter and the cotton gin.

>>1642746
This makes so little sense. Elaborate please. For instance, money is a social construct. Explain how race is a hard science, and able to be measured accurately, fact.

>>1642893

And I say the opposite. Without such an experiment, how can we decide who is right?

>>1642988
the existence of identifiable genetic lienages that differs from other identifiable genetic lienages. AKA a haplogroup. proves the existence of different strains of groups in the genetic pool of man.

>>1642988

False dichotomy. The concept of race doesn't have to be a "hard science" to be useful in everyday life. See how useful it is, for example, to administer "affirmative action" programs.

By your own example "money" is a social construct but I don't see anyone turning it down for that reason.

>>1643008
The stereotype threat is real though, faggot.

>>1643088

Stereotypes are not bad per se. Stereotypes enable us to get through our lives efficiently without having to evaluate absolutely everything ab initio.

>>1643106
That's not what I'm talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

>>1642975

> back to /pol/

It is interesting to observe that people who object to categorizing other people by race have no problems categorizing others by what board they read.

In fact, we might call this "Aggumentum ad polium": when confronted with facts you can't refute, attack the poster as belonging in /pol/.

>>1643074
Yes, but unless you are a genealogist willing to do a DNA analysis on a person, race is entirely a subjective guess. There are no hard phenotypes, beyond subtle bone structure. And that can vary widely.

>>1643082
I didn't say social constructs weren't significant. Money obviously works, not because it has value, but because we believe it does. Races exist because of culture and tribalism, not because genetically we are very different.

The same goes for race, everyone thinks they understand it, but humans are surprisingly 'inbred'. I believe it was within the last 20,000 years humans were down to only a several thousand breeding members. Not a geneticist but those obsessed with race are missing the point that we are far far more similar than different. Genetics may build the human machine, but the culture around them programs them.

>>1643134
back to /pol/ is equivalent to calling out the fact that the accused poster is either retarded or a white supremacist (two groups with which there is significant overlap.) They have no interest in arguing with facts themselves, so the best way to deal with them is to tell them to go back to the god damn shithole circle-jerk of a board they're from.

>>1643134
to continue: I find it incredibly amusing that you choose to defend a retarded post ("95% of all the inventions were made by Europeans") that doesn't require much work to refute. Please kill yourself.

>>1643110

This article addresses an individual's response to being part of a stereotyped group. That is the individual's problem.

It says nothing about the truth or falsity of stereotypes or their usefulness.

>>1643134
I want my safe space faggot. So go back to yours so we can circle jerk in peace. If you've got posts to make that have substance by all means go nuts. My first call of pol was unwarranted. And I apologized, I did read too fast.

The second one was to a poster saying caucasoids are the best and negroids, "nigger race", was a term he used, were the worst. That's the whole post.
Zero fucking facts to reply to genius.

He should fuck off back to pol, because it does no one any good him posting here.

>>1643153
What are you even talking about? I'm pointing out that there have been experiments conducted demonstrating a phenomenon which you said had never been looked at before.

>>1643152
>doesn't require much work to refute

Perhaps you will favor us then with a refutation based on something other than an unsupported statement of the opposite and an ad hominem attack.

>>1643165
Really simple refutation: We have no stats on how many things have been invented in human history.

>>1643106
Totally agree. But it's clearly a powerful and dangerous tool at our disposal and we should constantly monitor how we use it.

>>1643160
>The second one was to a poster saying caucasoids are the best and negroids, "nigger race", was a term he used, were the worst.

Why do you feel the need to even respond to such bait? If a dog barks at you, do you bark back?

>>1643169
Which is what i tried to say in my reply to him. I bet he can't understand it even on a second reading.

>>1643173
Yeah I do. What the fuck you wanna do about to douche.

Why are you wasting our time? Why are you barking at me barking at you. Im barking so maybe you'll leave. Maybe you feed on troll crumbles. Don't know or care too much. You will not convince me of your twisted world view. So...

Go back to pol so we can talk about this on a semi intelligent level. You have no interest in that.

>>1643162
>a phenomenon which you said had never been looked at before.

You have lost me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

So people's feelings get hurt and they are influenced by being part of a group that is stereotyped by some other group. So what? Every group is stereotyped by another. Get over it.

>>1643140
the post was asking about how is the study of race be considered a hard science, I've provided something observable that relates to the different ethinicities in the human species, "ie haplogroups" as proof of it's validity as a hard science.

>>1643165
See
>>1642975

>>1643169

So 95% could be as true as any other number.

>>1643188
Your post just declares haplogroups exist. I can't refute that. As far as I know those haplogroups understood by biologists is nothing like the average human understanding race.
All I can tell from your post is genetic groups exist. Not that racism is a codified science.

>>1643184
Anon 1:
>Not him, but I'd say if you managed to raise a number of black children completely ignorant of stereotypes about black intelligence, there would be a noticeable affect.

You:
>And I say the opposite. Without such an experiment, how can we decide who is right?


>So people's feelings get hurt
Clearly there's something more going on there, but I don't expect you to have the empathy to actually care. So yes, go on believing that the stereotype threat is just "people's feelings getting hurt" because you don't want to confront the problem of societal and institutional misrepresentations of people.

>>1643197
And it could be as false as any other number, however, I'm pretty sure that of the body of known inventions, Europeans don't come close to having invented 95%. Even if they did, if we discount things such as "lotion bottles" and only count important inventions the number would certainly reduce. IF you want to troll through every single known invention in human history to discern what percentage of them were invented by Europeans then fine, be my guest. Why is this your main talking point?

>>1643181

Your skill at polemics leaves much to be desired. I'll bet you are a terror in the playground.

>>1643214
holy shit this is /r/iamverysmart material

>>1643219

I'm not sure what /r/ is but it certainly doesn't take much intelligence to compete with people whose primary arguments are name calling.

>>1643214
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers

Irony of you barking back at me for barking at you for barking at me for barking at you is great. And tedious

I don't think we have anything to discuss. You tacitly support pol like views, I think. No reason to argue, this thread was bound to attract em like flies. I have no reason to maintain decorum for the likes of them, of which you may include yourself.

>>1643212
>I'm pretty sure that of the body of known inventions, Europeans don't come close to having invented 95%

Well, the other guy was "pretty sure" that they had. Kind of a standoff I'd say.

>>1643238

Indeed my feathers remain unruffled. It is you who are sputtering on about /pol/. Some people are able to participate in multiple boards you know.

>>1643230
WHHHAAAAAAAA my name calling. what so you pol/acks expect. You want to codify race, like the nazis. Geneticists disagree on such an endevor.
Honestly I just want storm fags to go away. Go circle jerk while we discuss race and culture from a slightly more objective view

>>1643250
Other boards
Yes me too.
I like other things than history
I don't like alt right undergrads bringing pseudo science in here wasting space. Much like our exchange. Which is undoubtly your goal. Now that you've defended pol, please go back.

>>1643254

I challenge you to quote a post where I said any such thing. By the way, the nazis also put their pants on one leg at a time. Do you object to that also?

>>1643254
what do you mean by codify?

>>1643239
The fucking point is that history is mirky. Depending who educated you, you may believe white people invented everything. That's wrong. Now post a wiki page about great inventors and point out how they're mostly white as "proof"

>>1643210
it represents how different ethnicities have different genetic lienages, its the genetic backdrop for humanity's evolutionary diversity. and what is the average human understanding of race? haplogroups just show that certain traits inherent to what we view as "races" do have a history in a person's genetic group. hence it proves that certain characteristics are inherent to certain genetic groups.

>>1643287

Are you able to post without using profanity? Just curious.

>>1643274
Maybe you weren't that poster. Even still, you're now trying to say that the nazis put their pants on like us, so if they wanted to make a hard rule/science on the concept of race that's ok or at all constructive. Because both groups eat food and wear pants. That's some logic.

>>1643296
You'd have to give me sources on that. I appreciate the discussion, but I'm not sure what your point is. There isn't a known gene for intelligence, as far as I know. I get what a haplogroup is, but if you're saying you can jimmy that into how race is commonly understood, I'd love to see where and how you came to that conclusion.

>>1643296
You just made a huge logical jump, are you not aware of that? Haplogroups prove that different populations exist, and nothing more.

>>1643304

No, let me explain it to you as if you were a small child: the fact that the nazis or any other group did "x" does not of itself discredit doing "x". That's called guilt by association and is not considered a valid argument by most adults.

>>1643297
Fuck no. Fun fact, people often take those who swear as more authoritative. Probably doesn't translate to the Internet though. What a shame

>>1643328
>people often take those who swear as more authoritative

Not I. I presume such people swear because of a limited vocabulary.

>>1643325
Well no shit Sherlock. That was my point as well. It's also commonly understood that the nazis were racial supremacists. They wanted to make racism into a science. They also wanted to sort people out by race. To be rid of them. Hitler was against smoking. He got one right. We all agree. Most of the civilized world thinks racism sucks. He got that one wrong. Almost everyone here but the visiting pol/acks agree.
This isn't an attempt to prove racism is wrong. This thread is about how people misunderstand and even abuse the concept of race to their advantage.

>>1643340
That's nice man. Thanks for sharing.

>>1643355

See how easy that was.

>>1643323
>>1643324
You people asked if the study of race can be considered a hard science, The existence of different populations is due to the existence of different distinct genetic lineages. something that is observable.

In simple terms, THe reason why black people have the common associated phenotypes they have is due to the distinct group of genes that they share with other black people. this distinct group of genes is called a haplogroup.

different racial populations is a direct result of the difference in haplogroups,

why are you people so defensive? all i'm trying to prove is that the study of races is a hard science. if you are worried that someone might say that black people have a lower mean IQ then I'm sorry but it's has some academic backing althought even the papers that show this has a preface saying that the differences in IQ due to the difference in haplogroups is minimal

I've posted a 30 year long study about IQ and genetics here. >>1642863 and they share the same sentiments, that the certain groups do have an advantage against other groups in terms of IQ but the difference due to genetics is small.

>>1643365
Uh, if it wasn't clear, I give no shits how expansive you think my vocabulary is. If swearing offends you, I'm not sure you're ready for the Internet.

>>1643376

Swearing doesn't offend me. It just says more about you than me.

>>1643304
>>1643323
your proposition is that evolution had no effects on the most important and expensive organ in the human body, the mind. that humans from other parts of the world had to undergo natural selection to adapt to their environments never affected the brain? but instead only striven to achieve small changes like the existence of eye folds or the larger femur?

>>1643372
Thank you very much for a constructive reply. This was my understanding as well, albeit limited. I'd like to note that Intelligence is poorly understood to begin with, and measuring it even more difficult. Again, many thanks for a solid post.

>>1643376
If people having differing opinions to you offends you, perhaps you're not ready for the internet.

If only that were the case

>>1643386
My proposition is you/we have no clue how it's affected the human brain. We have a limited understanding of it, intelligence and know almost nothing about consciousness.

>>1643398
Yeah I know. I need to work on my tolerance for stupid, uneducated opinions and just ignore them.

>>1643380
1950s called looking for you. I'm guessing your opinions on race might fit well there. That's just a guess, I'm not a smug fuck who thinks they know someone from a 25 word anon post.

>>1643422

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

>>1643412
>people who disagree with me are wrong and stupid
I don't like to bring age into things but you really need to do some growing up if you still think that way
Not everyone who has a differing opinion to you is wrong. Check your own ideas and opinions, make sure you're right, don't assume to be, and most of all don't think everyone who sees things in a different light to you is an idiot.
There are plenty out there, but just because they're disagreeing with you doesn't make them one.

>>1643440
Yeah this hole on 4chan is tough

Great banter by the way.

Hopefully you detect the sarcasm.

Please tell me in detail about this hole, as this thread approaching death anyhow.

>>1643455

You may have the last word. Use it wisely.

>>1640277
Blacks are not warriors. They are coward they attack in packs like wild animals. They have so singular one on one warrior honour.

>>1643447
Seriously I appreciate the sentiment.

I am 30 years old and bringing age into is kinda low, especially as you are trying to improve decorum

Sadly the one thing me and some pol/acks agree on- there are plenty of stupid people with plenty of stupid opinions, which they think are facts.

Second, I have made no assertions, other than racism is destructive and human misunderstand the concept. If you support racial science like Adolf, I have no sense of decorum. I have no shame in saying so.

I want a discussion. But when people come in with "facts", I'm going to tell them to fuck off to pol. Especially in a thread like this, which went relatively ok. I fully understand opinions are not facts. Racism is destructive- opinion. Although I think the ancedotal evidence makes it obvious
Racism is science- completely retarded opinion, deserving of ridicule.

>>1643447
See this>>1643475

What the fuck is that guy here for? He's from pol and if I have time to ridicule him I will. Sorry if feelings get hurt

>>1643468
Were you the same guy who went back and forth about the barking? You have almost nothing to say but still bark. Regardless I wonder what your end game is. Shitpost all day I suppose. Good luck

>>1640106
Races in humans are the same as breeds in dogs, so yes they are real. How many are there? There's probably no real answer to that

Given that Chinese and Japanese are literally more genetic differentiated (meaning higher Fst) than Europeans and West Asians, no the layman definition of race is false.