https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5630192/
Compare suicide and drug overdose rates between different racial groups.
Does denialism of biological racial differences entail public health consequences?
Europeans have higher propensity to loneliness from introgressed neanderthal DNA
-
Most people in medical sciences acknowledge that biological variations among humans related to medicine, which can be predicted according to ethnicity, such as propensity of some ethnic groups to specific diseases like sickle cell or tay sachs, have societal importance.
We can chart stunning disparities regarding suicide and drug overdose rates between racial groups; those happen to coincide with variation in neanderthal introgression at the relevant alleles impacting psychology. Why exactly should propensity to loneliness or disaffect have less importance regarding public health than ethnic propensity to any other condition? -
"Why exactly should propensity to loneliness or disaffect have less importance regarding public health than ethnic propensity to any other condition?"
It's not in the association that there would be a problem, nor in the distribution of genetic difference to geographically situated ethnic/racial groups, it's in the explanation that these differences "cause" social outcomes like suicide.
"Happening to coincide" isn't enough. What is the theory that links these traits (the paper you linked is about sunlight and skin) to suicide or loneliness? You better have a good story or a better model.
-
I lived in Europe. I felt soooo lonely that I wanted to turn back to my third world non-european close-knit country.
America is better than that. However, i also feel very isolated and lonely here too. I seek out friends from my home country. Few americans are close friends.
-
I lived in Europe. I felt soooo lonely that I wanted to turn back to my third world non-european close-knit country.
America is better than that. However, i also feel very isolated and lonely here too. I seek out friends from my home country. Few americans are close friends.
-
"Why exactly should propensity to loneliness or disaffect have less importance regarding public health than ethnic propensity to any other condition?"
It's not in the association that there would be a problem, nor in the distribution of genetic difference to geographically situated ethnic/racial groups, it's in the explanation that these differences "cause" social outcomes like suicide.
"Happening to coincide" isn't enough. What is the theory that links these traits (the paper you linked is about sunlight and skin) to suicide or loneliness? You better have a good story or a better model.Doubt he could wrap his brain around a model that includes more than two variables.
-
Too many holes in the implied argument. Try to do it syllogistically OP. First, once again, you cite evidence that does not argue for or presuppose race in a way that challenges the construction view. Nor does it even come close to the speciation or sub-speciation view you’ve promoted before.
But let’s presuppose, contrary to common views in the authors own fields, that the authors have a fringe view of race like that seen at Mankind Quarterly. It’s not at all made clear that you *have* to say race as a distinct genetic category in humans like it is in chimps (templeton and others rely on such genetic comparisons to discount race as a biological category).
It needs to actually be a good why this is necessary. Because there is an empire of medical sociology detecting racial differences in mental health outcomes too, and sociologists rarely (not never) deny the social construction view. It’s perfectly fine too recognize health clustering within the view you are criticizing. Thus, if you think such evidence challenges of you, we are justified in saying that you do not understand the view you are criticizing.
In short, the way you frame the science is bad, but if it were good, your conclusions about the effects of the “denialism” in sociology would not logically follow, as indicated by research coming to remarkably similar conclusions and sociology, including research using biomarkers. What are you alleges impossible is actually where I see the bulk of money along with Crim right now.
-
FTFY
"People with European ancestry have a greater propensity for a lot of things, whining among them. At least, that's what I learned in sociology courses"
People with European ancestry have a greater propensity for a lot of things, winning among them. At least, that's what I learned in sociology courses where I was spoon fed hatred of Y T's position of global dominance.
-
OP has never established scientific support for race as a category. Repeatedly, we’re given articles that argue no such thing. And from articles that argue or presu ppose that there is no such thing, we are told that this is a consensus view that sociologists refuse to acknowledge. Occasionally, when the necessary background literature is demanded, we either get (1) more literature suffering the problem, (2) something predictable from fringe research in preprint ecosystems (see “ Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bi oRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation” by C arl son and Har. Ris), or (3) something outside of frin ge ecos ystems, but produced by scholars who *acknowledge their views on ra ce as margin alized in all rele vant fie lds.*
-
A s many sociolo gists have responded, nobody in socio logy den ies that there is some biolog ical clust ering within groups. What most de n y is that th ese di ff er en ces are co here ntly subc ategor ized by wh at mo st would bi olo gically c all ra ce.
I usu ally c it e m ore co mplic ated research for this, but the Ame rican S oci ety for Hu man Gen etics has an acce ssible statement on this that is ful ly in line with soci ology.
“ • Ge netics de m on strates that humans ca nnot be divided into biologically distinct subca tegories. Although there are clear observable cor re lations betw een vari ation in the human geno me and ho w indiv iduals identify by race, the study of human genetics chall enges the tradi tional c oncept of different ra ces of humans as biolog ically sep arate and distinct. This is validat ed by many de cades of research, inclu d ing rece nt exam ples.”
They also cite a prime example one of the key evidences cited in intro classes
“• Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned. There is considerable genetic overlap among members of different populations. Such patterns of genome variation are explained by patterns of migration and mixing of different populations throughout human history.7 In this way, genetics exposes the concept of “racial purity” as scientifically meaningless.”
And in case anyone says we are taking them out of context:
“ Although a person’s genetics influences their phenotypic characteristics, and self-identified race might be influenced by physical appearance, race itself is a social construct.”
Can be read in “ ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy” in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
I’m not linking to articles, because it sometimes proxies a uni login address.
-
OP, you spent a lot of time on this. The first one got trolled, and you stuck with it, trying to get them to stop. You were even committed enough to start this second thread. It would appear that you really wanted to talk about this.
So why is it that you stuck with the spammed one, and apparently even returned to it, but not the one where you received substantive responses? Are you just going to leave this one hanging then tell people you responded to all of it when it comes up again?