https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411130810.htm
B-b-b-b-but I thought race isn't biologically real?
Infants show racial bias towards members of own ethnicity
-
Conclusion doesn't follow the premise. It hasn't been established that infants can only respond to biologically real racial categories.
Now throw a fit.Lol. What exactly do you think the infants are perceiving if race isn't biologically real? How would they understand what race is if race isn't something that can be visually perceived?
-
To be racist is to be human. Just like gay.
I think this analogy doesn't really work.
Most people are not gay. But everyone is basically wired to prefer interactions with people racially similar to themselves, as the above study shows.Dismantling "systemic racism" is sure going to be pretty tough if it requires genetically altering such a deep-rooted human tendency, right?
-
Lol. What exactly do you think the infants are perceiving if race isn't biologically real? How would they understand what race is if race isn't something that can be visually perceived?
Don't bother trying to debate them. We've had these debates dozens of times on SJMR, the wokesters always got pwned, some mod had to delete the threads to hide their humiliation. They have no arguments because data contradict their ideology. All they can do is accuse people who believe in science as being "racist" the same way they accused Shiao of colluding with white supremacism.
-
It’s not clear to me that “kids can perceive phenotypes and show bias toward their own” really relates in any meaningful way to “race is biologically real.”
No one debates race is real (social constructions are real) or the meaning the term race has for people has some biological foundation. The arguments that follow are where people debate, and a baby’s biases are not really germane to those arguments.
-
Conclusion doesn't follow the premise. It hasn't been established that infants can only respond to biologically real racial categories.
Now throw a fit.
Lol. What exactly do you think the infants are perceiving if race isn't biologically real? How would they understand what race is if race isn't something that can be visually perceived?Perceived physical differences. No social constructionists disputes these exist. That’s not the dividing line between the sociology-genomics status quo and HBD types. It’s also worth noting that child psychology focused on this age documents myriad misperceptions and altered perceptions—these are important for parents to manage.
The strongest case you can make from this is that children recognize that blacks, whites, and Asians don’t look alike. Your task to make a positive argument from this observation to the genetic categories of race being real. We both know you can’t.
I predict you’ll dodge and either make a new argument or start bloviating about logic.
-
The recognition of perceived physical differences is literally in the intro textbooks. If you don�t know what the freshmen do, you�re not qualified to be making critiques.
Specimens of discrete biological clades being visually distinguishable 75% of the time is an important criterion regarding how subspecies are defined in zoology, which is in intro text books. If you don't know this, you're not qualified to rant against biologists.
The strongest case you can make from this is that children recognize that blacks, whites, and Asians don’t look alike. Your task to make a positive argument from this observation to the genetic categories of race being real. We both know you can’t.
Again, morphometric differences between biological clades are exactly how subspecies are defined in zoology. Morphometric differences between different populations of humans are greater than those among any other animal species (not counting domesticated breeds), and are in fact greater than morphometric differences between separate species in genus Pan and genus Gorilla.
-
98% of all people in the United States fall onto a definable racial cluster. Infants and dogs being able to perceive the physical differences between these clusters indicates them to be easily at subspecific differentiation from one another. Genetic distance between these clades indicates the same (in many cases, genetic distance as measured as FST is greater between divergent clades of humans than between some separate but closely related species, like coyotes and grey wolves).
-
Are you claiming that distinct biological clades of humans do not really exist, cannot be charted in their separated ancestry going back thousands or tens of thousands of years, and that these clades as biological categories do not cor/relate with morphometric differences and other medical differences?
Whether infants can perceive and react negatively to these differences indicates the biological/morphometric differences between human clades are large enough to in themselves have societal impact. Different clades of humans have existed with minimal mixing for hundreds of years in North America -- in any other zoological context, such maintenance of separated biological taxa with minimal interbreeding for such a long time would actually be counted as evidence of fully species-grade differentiation (see for example coyotes and grey wolves).
-
David Reich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.htmlI have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to cor/relate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
Historical categories of race being "socially constructed" does not in any way equate to there being no real discrete biological categories of humans. All taxonomic categories of any form of life are socially constructed; principles of taxonomy are social constructions.
Real biological categories or clades of humans that exist do largely cor/relate to historical folk conceptions of race; an exact 1-to-1 cor/respondence would not be necessary and lack of that does not somehow logically render biological categories of human race being nonexistent. -
Can you provide a link where Reich says this?
Real biological categories or clades of humans that exist do largely cor/relate to historical folk conceptions of race; an exact 1-to-1 cor/respondence would not be necessary and lack of that does not somehow logically render biological categories of human race being nonexistent.