Biology of Race

[antiquity]

@EyeDentist

In other words, you continually modify your use of the term ‘race’ so as to allow it to account for any new information with which you are confronted. From a science perspective, that sort of malleability renders a concept literally meaningless.

This also piqued my interest. Although ignorant in other areas, I am a PhD scientist. I don’t mean to sound like I’m giving my CV, but only to demonstrate that I have trained at the top Universities, published over 50 papers in scientific journals, and evaluate students’ understanding of scientific concepts for a living.

The thing that immediately stands out about"raj" is that he was never taught to think like a scientist. This would not necessarily be a criticism, as there are very bright people who really struggle when taking difficult science courses, especially in physics or chemistry. However, it becomes a criticism when he develops strong opinions about things he does not understand, and will not accept it when others very clearly explain his shortcomings. As the current department chair in Chemistry and Biochemistry, I have to deal with students like this, who fail a course from a faculty member and will not accept that their understanding of the material was flawed or they did not grasp it to the extent required to receive a passing grade and advance to the next course in the series.

I would be quite surprised to learn if “raj” has any scientific training. Therefore, it is also not surprising that he is not able to comprehend or argue scientific concepts to the extent of those that possess training.

[Aragorn]

@EyeDentist

What it does is demonstrate that race, as you present it, is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. Consider:

‘Africans are all one race.’

But some Africans are faster than others, who in turn have greater endurance.

‘Really? OK, in that case there are TWO African races.’

In other words, you continually modify your use of the term ‘race’ so as to allow it to account for any new information with which you are confronted. From a science perspective, that sort of malleability renders a concept literally meaningless.

Bingo. Or witness above, the other poster asserted that Germans, Basques, and Slavs are each separate races in addition to Celts–despite the fact that the most likely origin of the Celts comes from central Europe, i.e. in regions of modern day France, Germany, Czech republic, Switzerland (the clean quiet white people!), Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, or other areas where Slavs are numerous. So now they’re different ALL different races, not just nationalities.

ugh.

[Aragorn]

@antiquity

As the current department chair in Chemistry and Biochemistry, I have to deal with students like this, who fail a course from a faculty member and will not accept that their understanding of the material was flawed or they did not grasp it to the extent required to receive a passing grade and advance to the next course in the series.

As an aside, I really don’t understand this kind of attitude from students. I mean, I understand asking for grace because of non-school problems, or even because you (the student) screwed up and know it and want a second chance. Perhaps you thought the professor was a terrible teacher (perhaps, but college is supposed to help you learn how to teach yourself material). I do not understand the attitude you speak of, and I’ve witnessed it as well. It boggles the mind.

[therajraj]

[quote=“EyeDentist, post:576, topic:228119, full:true”]

As have virtually all geneticists and biologists.[/quote]

Darwin, WD Hamilton, Crick, Watson, EO Wilson, Dawkins & Pinker all accept the biological reality of race.

@EyeDentist

Until you provide an actual definition of the term race, contentions about factors that purportedly co-vary with it cannot be evaluated.

@therajraj

I could keep going. the point is this hardly not ‘significant enough’ to represent a fundamental taxonomic category of genetic importance.

If that were the case, race would already be well-ensconced in the taxonomic classification system. (It’s not.)

@therajraj

Because there’s variance within races as well. Just as Africans from West Africa have higher percentage of muscle twitch fibres that are good for sprinting while East Africans have a high muscle twitch fibres for long distance running.

That doesn’t mean the concept of race is invalid.

What it does is demonstrate that race, as you present it, is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. Consider:

‘Africans are all one race.’

But some Africans are faster than others, who in turn have greater endurance.

‘Really? OK, in that case there are TWO African races.’

In other words, you continually modify your use of the term ‘race’ so as to allow it to account for any new information with which you are confronted. From a science perspective, that sort of malleability renders a concept literally meaningless.

I read your argument before I just didn’t recall it when you first posted it. But you’re just posting Lewontin’s fallacy over and over again.

[quote]

The problem here is the assumption that genetic variation within a human group is comparable to genetic variation between human groups. In fact, the two are qualitatively different. When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.). Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.

This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct. Some two decades after Lewontin’s study, this apparent paradox became known when geneticists looked at how genes vary within and between dog breeds:

[…] genetic and biochemical methods … have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical in many respects to other members of the genus. […] Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves. Eighteen breeds, which included dachshunds, dingoes, and Great Danes, shared a common haplotype and were no closer to wolves than poodles and bulldogs.

[…] there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species. (Coppinger and Schneider, 1995) [/quote]

A Modern Myth

[therajraj]

@ActivitiesGuy

@anon50325502

Ya, that’s it…

“Children whose parents swam and encouraged them to swim had a much lower chance of drowning and a much higher chance of participating in swimming competitively. The study reported that Black American children were much less likely to have a parent who knew how to swim, have friends who knew how or enjoyed swimming, or have a parent who encouraged them to learn to swim. Knowing this, it would make sense to say that one cause of the underrepresentation of Black Americans in competitive swimming is that they just aren’t encouraged to participate.”

Hm. I figured it was their low IQ.

They’re overrepresented in most sports.

Why don't black Americans swim?

[therajraj]

[quote=“MoreMuscle, post:574, topic:228119, full:true”]

You’re so out of your league. If you had ANY training in reading and analyzing research you would understand there are “limitations” or “gaps in the literature” in virtually every study. [/quote]

I know but this one I pointed out is a pretty bad one.

[quote=“MoreMuscle, post:574, topic:228119, full:true”]
You would understand that said studies were posted simply because Native Africans and African Americans (or Africans in the Carribean) share similar ancestors but exhibit starkly different health markers. Even in the self reported study the amount of obese subjects was 50%…very similar to US numbers.

For example, if AA are 10-20% caucasian then their risk for hypertension should decrease rather than increase since Europeans don’t demonstrate increased risk of hypertension. This would stand for virtually every disease in the realm of metabolic syndrome.
Simply put, mixing us with Whites should decrease incidence of these diseases, but instead it has come to increase this.

Interestingly enough, this pattern stands for Native Americans and Mexicans Americans as well.

There are so many conclusions that could be drawn…but you seem to find some sort of genetic cause as the only cause…everytime. [/quote]

It was a random shot in the dark, if you noticed my response had question marks in it.

@MoreMuscle

Your desire to be a White Supremacist

Are you dumb? Not because you’re black but because of this comment.

I have already pointed out numerous times Asians and Jews are smarter on average than whites.

I’ve also said blacks generally finish at the top when it comes to most physical ability measurements.

How does that make me a white supremacist? At least figure out your slurs.

[ActivitiesGuy]

@therajraj

They’re overrepresented in most sports.

Sure. Because they are encouraged more to participate in those sports.

Yet again, if you actually read the link you quick-Google-black-people-can’t-swim-and-posted, you would have seen that the discussion in that article is almost entirely about the sociological reasons (that pesky environment again) and zero “Black people can’t swim because of their heavy bones” thinking. Really, you should read the whole thing, but here are a few highlights, since I know it’s a sore spot when people ask you to read links:

---

Typically, those children who could not swim also had parents who could not swim.

“Parents who don’t know how to swim are very likely to pass on not knowing how to swim to their children,” says Ms Anderson.

---

The major reason behind the problem could lie in the era of segregation says Prof Jeff Wiltse, author of Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.

“The history of discrimination… has contributed to the drowning and swimming rates,” says Prof Wiltse.

In his work he identified two periods of a boom in swimming rates in the US - in the 1920s and 1930s when recreational swimming became popular and the 1950s and 1960s when the idea of swimming as a sport really took off.

The first boom was marked by the construction of about 2,000 new municipal pools across the nation.

“Black Americans were largely and systematically denied access to those pools,” he notes. “Swimming never became a part of African- American recreational culture.”

In the northern US that segregation in pools ended in the 1940s and early 1950s, but many white swimmers responded by abandoning the municipal pools and heading off to private clubs in the suburbs where segregation continued to be enforced.

“Municipal pools became a low public priority,” he notes.

After the race riots of the 1960s, many cities did start building pools in predominantly black areas, says Prof Wiltse, but there was still a problem. Many of the new pools were small - often only 20 by 40ft (six by 12m) and 3.5ft (1m) deep.

---

That’s a whole lotta discussion about social and environmental reasons why black people are less likely to become competitive swimmers and zero mention of their genetics.

Are you familiar with the phrase “hoist by his own petard?”

Because this happens to you, like, a lot.

[anon50325502]

@therajraj

@ActivitiesGuy

@anon50325502

Ya, that’s it…

“Children whose parents swam and encouraged them to swim had a much lower chance of drowning and a much higher chance of participating in swimming competitively. The study reported that Black American children were much less likely to have a parent who knew how to swim, have friends who knew how or enjoyed swimming, or have a parent who encouraged them to learn to swim. Knowing this, it would make sense to say that one cause of the underrepresentation of Black Americans in competitive swimming is that they just aren’t encouraged to participate.”

Hm. I figured it was their low IQ.

They’re overrepresented in most sports.

Why don't black Americans swim? - BBC News

sigh
Where does the majority of the black population live? Urban areas, right? Cities like Detroit and Baltimore. What do these places have in common? They’re mostly landlocked, there are few public swimming options, and very very few private option. If you drive through Baltimore City, you don’t see swimming pools except occasionally in the wealthier areas.

If swimmimg comes up what do black people often joke about? Not being able to swim. Not swimmimg is as much a part of black culture as rap music. It’s stigmatized in the black community.

I literally know black dudes, in the Navy, that only swim when they’re required to by the Navy (for qualification) and it actually scares them to do it. We had numerous black recruits in USMC boot camp that had never been swimming before. These are all environmental factors that result in less black swimmers.

I know I often say that you’re dumb, but that’s more of a heat of the moment you’re blowing my mind with stupidity sort of thing. You’re not actually stupid, but you never seem to actually think things through.

[anon50325502]

Lol, ya… It’s funny, my 16 month old son has been swimming more times than many of my adult black friends.

A bunch of us used to go to Hilton Head beach when I was stationed in SC and none of the black dudes would ever get in the water. Most wouldn’t even put their feet in.

[thunderbolt23]

@anon50325502

Where does the majority of the black population live? Urban areas, right? Cities like Detroit and Baltimore. What do these places have in common? They’re mostly landlocked, there are few public swimming options, and very very few private option. If you drive through Baltimore City, you don’t see swimming pools except occasionally in the wealthier areas.

If swimmimg comes up what do black people often joke about? Not being able to swim. Not swimmimg is as much a part of black culture as rap music. It’s stigmatized in the black community

This also reminds me of and tracks with the “why are there no blacks in golf?” question - the answer to which is access and culture. It isn’t because they don’t have the physical or mental abilities to succeed in golf and they are self-sorting themselves into other athletic avenues for natural reasons. The answer to this question is the same answer to the question “why are there so few poor Appalachian whites in golf?” Access and culture.

Same for swimming.[quote=“anon50325502, post:584, topic:228119”]
You’re not actually stupid, but you never seem to actually think things through.
[/quote]

Agree to disagree on this one.

[SkyzykS]

@anon50325502

Lol, ya… It’s funny, my 16 month old son has been swimming more times than many of my adult black friends.

It was an early childhood imperative in my house. I have no memory of not swimming.

Mom on swim team+Dad in Navy= genetics!

[ActivitiesGuy]

@anon50325502

Lol, ya… It’s funny, my 16 month old son has been swimming more times than many of my adult black friends.

@SkyzykS

It was an early childhood imperative in my house. I have no memory of not swimming.

Preaching to the choir, but this is merely reiterating further that raj’s idiotic attempt to connect “black people can’t swim as good as everyone else” to “biology of race” is silly, and that racial differences in swimming participation are almost entirely driven by environmental factors. It’s actually quite impressive - he probably couldn’t have picked a worse example than “blacks and swimming” to make a point about “biology of race” (and in a now-classic move, the article he posted undermined his point, since it was written entirely about sociological and environmental reasons why blacks are less likely to participate in swimming and made zero mention of biology or genetics).

I, like Skyz, basically have no memory of not knowing how to swim. My mom had us (me and my younger brother) into the pool as toddlers and taking swim lessons by the time we were 5. Neither of us every cared to join the swim team, but we knew how to swim because our parents viewed it as an important life skill, as did most parents in our (upper-class, suburban, & mostly white) neighborhood.

@thunderbolt23

This also reminds me of and tracks with the “why are there no blacks in golf?” question - the answer to which is access and culture. It isn’t because they don’t have the physical or mental abilities to succeed in golf and they are self-sorting themselves into other athletic avenues for natural reasons. The answer to this question is the same answer to the question “why are there so few poor Appalachian whites in golf?” Access and culture.

^Agreed.

I anxiously await raj posting an article about the preponderance of white quarterbacks in the NFL as evidence that blacks aren’t smart enough to play the position.

[therajraj]

@ActivitiesGuy

@therajraj

They’re overrepresented in most sports.

Sure. Because they are encouraged more to participate in those sports.

Yet again, if you actually read the link you quick-Google-black-people-can’t-swim-and-posted, you would have seen that the discussion in that article is almost entirely about the sociological reasons (that pesky environment again) and zero “Black people can’t swim because of their heavy bones” thinking. Really, you should read the whole thing, but here are a few highlights, since I know it’s a sore spot when people ask you to read links:

---

Typically, those children who could not swim also had parents who could not swim.

“Parents who don’t know how to swim are very likely to pass on not knowing how to swim to their children,” says Ms Anderson.

---

The major reason behind the problem could lie in the era of segregation says Prof Jeff Wiltse, author of Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.

“The history of discrimination… has contributed to the drowning and swimming rates,” says Prof Wiltse.

In his work he identified two periods of a boom in swimming rates in the US - in the 1920s and 1930s when recreational swimming became popular and the 1950s and 1960s when the idea of swimming as a sport really took off.

The first boom was marked by the construction of about 2,000 new municipal pools across the nation.

“Black Americans were largely and systematically denied access to those pools,” he notes. “Swimming never became a part of African- American recreational culture.”

In the northern US that segregation in pools ended in the 1940s and early 1950s, but many white swimmers responded by abandoning the municipal pools and heading off to private clubs in the suburbs where segregation continued to be enforced.

“Municipal pools became a low public priority,” he notes.

After the race riots of the 1960s, many cities did start building pools in predominantly black areas, says Prof Wiltse, but there was still a problem. Many of the new pools were small - often only 20 by 40ft (six by 12m) and 3.5ft (1m) deep.

---

That’s a whole lotta discussion about social and environmental reasons why black people are less likely to become competitive swimmers and zero mention of their genetics.

Are you familiar with the phrase “hoist by his own petard?”

Because this happens to you, like, a lot.

I posted it for the statistics. We live in a world run by shitlibs, where it’s pretty much always environmental (except homosexuality of course).

They even outright deny that buoyancy in the article (without evidence) which has already shown to be true.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246160620_Buoyancy_of_African_Black_and_European_White_Males

[SkyzykS]

@ActivitiesGuy

he probably couldn’t have picked a worse example

Nope. Not likely. To have found a lesser example would actually require some real knowledge of the subject and be able to select a worse example.

This is the main reason I may opine a bit on scientific and social discussions, but generally avoid making bold pronouncements. I have a pretty strong intuitive sense of the world as I’ve experienced it but have been wrong enough times to know that it isn’t an anomaly when I am.

It seems that Rajs big mistake in all of this is that he comes to a conclusion then looks for information to support it, instead of studying a subject and coming to a conclusion based on the information given.

[ActivitiesGuy]

@antiquity

This also piqued my interest. Although ignorant in other areas, I am a PhD scientist. I don’t mean to sound like I’m giving my CV, but only to demonstrate that I have trained at the top Universities, published over 50 papers in scientific journals, and evaluate students’ understanding of scientific concepts for a living.

The thing that immediately stands out about “raj” is that he was never taught to think like a scientist. This would not necessarily be a criticism, as there are very bright people who really struggle when taking difficult science courses, especially in physics or chemistry. However, it becomes a criticism when he develops strong opinions about things he does not understand, and will not accept it when others very clearly explain his shortcomings. As the current department chair in Chemistry and Biochemistry, I have to deal with students like this, who fail a course from a faculty member and will not accept that their understanding of the material was flawed or they did not grasp it to the extent required to receive a passing grade and advance to the next course in the series.

I would be quite surprised to learn if “raj” has any scientific training. Therefore, it is also not surprising that he is not able to comprehend or argue scientific concepts to the extent of those that possess training.

Politely and succintly put.

@SkyzykS

It seems that Rajs big mistake in all of this is that he comes to a conclusion then looks for information to support it, instead of studying a subject and coming to a conclusion based on the information given.

I think that’s accurate. It’s particularly galling to watch him post a link where the title superficially relates to a point he wants to make (Black people aren’t good at swimming!) while ignoring the supporting content inside the article which undermines his desired conclusion (i.e. an article that takes a deep dive into the sociological and environmental reasons why black Americans are less likely to swim than white Americans and does not even touch on biology and genetics).

This is also true of anti-vaxxers. Once they have an idea in their head, they become irrationally attached, to the point where they are incapable of critically evaluating any evidence presented to them. They see only what they want to see (“Vaccines cause autism! I read this article on the Age of Autism site…”) and any attempts to engage them in a serious discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the “evidence” devolve into…well, this.

Perhaps this all can be used to start a new thread on “Mentality of Raj” where we parse apart what we know of raj to determine whether his mindset is derived from biologic or environmental factors.

[BrickHead]

@chrono

And Celts and Slavs are not “Nordic”. The proto-Celts were from the Hallstatt culture.

I can travel fifteen to 30 minutes outside of my home, to Ridgewood or Greenpoint, and point out dozens of Slavs of Nordic race.

Yeah, the Celts were from Halstatt culture and their racial makeup was Nordic.
Race: Nordic (white)
Culture: Halstatt
Linguistic and cultural group: Celtic

Another example:
Nationality: Polish
Cultural and linguistic group: Slavic
Race: Nordic (white)

[treco]

I think Raj has trolled the lot of you in a long term and stupendous fashion.

[SkyzykS]

@ActivitiesGuy

Perhaps this all can be used to start a new thread on “Mentality of Raj” where we parse apart what we know of raj to determine whether his mindset is derived from biologic or environmental factors.

That could be interesting. I read an article in Scientific American that did ffmri studies on different people which found that Indians were predisposed to have a better understanding of subjects like ethics and faith due to a larger area of the brain which is credited for determining such things.

I’m not going to say he got short changed on that share of grey matter yet though. There are too many factors that could affect an individual- like being kicked by a cow (you know how those indians are with their their cows.) or a car accident (asian drivers…).

[BrickHead]

@SkyzykS

I read an article in Scientific American that did ffmri studies on different people which found that Indians were predisposed to have a better understanding of subjects like ethics and faith due to a larger area of the brain which is credited for determining such things.

Serious question: Doesn’t this show that there are racial differences?

I have not read every post in the thread but I don’t understand why the guy is getting so much heat. He made some observations, read some stuff, and has come to a different conclusion than others here. I seriously don’t know what’s wrong with this. I’ve read only some of his posts and I haven’t come across anything hateful or dangerous. He believes something different. I don’t know why that warrants such unrelenting bashing.

I’ve come to my own conclusions after living where I do and being exposed to various literature. I’m just treading a fine line–and admittedly in some way feel nervous posting in this forum–because politically incorrect people can actually be persecuted in this day and age (all because of their THOUGHTS), even if such politically incorrect people are law-abiding, cordial, compassionate, and peaceful, and my face and name is known to many here and anyone can easily find them in my personal thread in the BB forum. It’s really amazing.

[EyeDentist]

[quote=“therajraj, post:580, topic:228119”]
I read your argument before I just didn’t recall it when you first posted it. But you’re just posting Lewontin’s fallacy over and over again.

The problem here is the assumption that genetic variation within a human group is comparable to genetic variation between human groups. [emphasis mine] [/quote]

Am I correct in inferring that human group is a synonym for race? If that is the case, sigh. But also, it compels me to ask: Would you mind providing a definition of the term human group?

[quote=“therajraj, post:580, topic:228119”]
When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection,[/quote]

While the assertion “When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection” is reasonable, its implication–ie, that all such genes code for phenotypic traits that are of evolutionary import–is not. This is because many genes become over-represented not because they convey an evolutionary advantage in and of themselves, but rather because of their physical proximity (in the genome) to a gene that does convey evolutionary advantage. This is called the hitchhiker effect:

“When a genetic variant arises that confers a strong advantage on the host organism, natural selection ensures that its frequency will increase in the population, perhaps eventually becoming predominant. However, genes aren’t passed down the generations in isolation; instead, each is inherited along with sizeable chunks of neighbouring genomic regions. These genomic chunks are only broken up by the process of meiotic recombination, in which sexual organisms shuffle their two inherited genomes before passing them on to their offspring. Crucially, the consequence of this chunkiness is that selection, by acting on one functional variant, can also inadvertently change the frequency of tens or even hundreds of nearby neutral variants—a phenomenon known as hitchhiking.”

Lewontin’s Paradox Resolved? In Larger Populations, Stronger Selection Erases...

PS The link you provided didn’t work (for me)