That’s not the discussion being had here. Race as a social construct is the commonly held belief that racial differences aren’t biologically meaningful and race is a product of society.
You are moving the goal posts and making up your own definition of a social construct.
??
That’s the commonly held belief. Look it up.
If your view is that biological differences are real and meaningful, you have a dissident view on race.
No, that’s actually not the debate going on here. Haven’t come across anyone here who has tried to argue that. Please find them.
Just google race is a social construct.
How about… you do that.
1 Like
Believe it or not @lil.greggy you have a dissident view on race. You can sound cool to impress these idiots but they are either too pathetic to openly state their opinion, or can’t defend it.
I’ll reshare this post: @lil.greggy
It’s cute that you seriously believe that you’re the lone genius here.
5 Likes
No actually, it’s quite common for smart people to trick themselves into believing things that have complex theories or explanations but are insanely wrong.
Why does this not include 40 yard dash times? Fake news
Yes,
Ashkenazi Jews, French-Canadians, Old Order Amish, and Louisiana Cajuns are a race based on their susceptibility to Tay-Sachs disease.
Sub-Saharan Africans, Spanish-speaking South & Central Americans/Caribbean islanders, Saudia Arabians, Indians, Turks, Greeks, and Italians are a race because they’re susceptible to Sickel Cell.
Oh, and white and black Americans are a single race since they share SNPs associated with obesity.
I’m not sure how you don’t get that?
4 Likes
That table comes from this guy…
A few highlights:
Rushton’s controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research
A 1993 study reanalyzed data from a study Rushton had published on the relationship between race and crime and found no strong relationship between the two
The biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace criticized Rushton in his 1996 review of the book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1996):
Virtually every kind of anthropologist may be put in the position of being asked to comment on what is contained in this book, so, whatever our individual specialty, we should all be prepared to discuss what it represents. Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an amalgamation of bad biology and inexcusable anthropology. It is not science but advocacy, and advocacy for the promotion of “racialism.”
Robert Sussman, an evolutionary anthropologist and the editor-in-chief of American Anthropologist, explained why the journal did not accept ads for Rushton’s 1998 book:
This is an insidious attempt to legitimize Rushton’s racist propaganda and is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the “science” of Rushton’s trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists
In 2000, after Rushton mailed a booklet on his work to psychology, sociology, and anthropology professors across North America, Hermann Helmuth, a professor of anthropology at Trent University, said: “It is in a way personal and political propaganda. There is no basis to his scientific research.”
A 2003 study in Evolution and Human Behavior found no evidence to support Rushton’s hypothesized relationship between race and behavior.
In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy.
In a paper for the International Journal of Selection and Assessment in 2006, Steven Cronshaw and colleagues wrote that psychologists need to critically examine the science used by Rushton in his “race-realist” research. Their re-analysis of the validity criteria for test bias, using data reported in the Rushton et al. paper, led them to conclude that the testing methods were biased against Black Africans. They disagree with other aspects of Rushton’s methodology, such as his use of non-equivalent groups in test samples
(Go ahead, give us another spiel about how all of this criticism was just because he’s not politically correct, anyone that talks about racial differences gets blackballed, etc)
1 Like
I often mistake Kanye West and Justin Bieber because race is clearly a sociological construct has no meaningful biological differences.
LOL
Still waiting for you to find the person that said race is 0% biological
Find me a scientist who studies racial differences in intelligence and doesn’t have his work listed as “controversial”
I assume there’s a biological trait for garbage music that they both share.
None of this research was considered controversial until the second world War and the nazi atrocities were revealed.