Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Socially Constructed Idea of Race      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 26
Socially Constructed Idea of RacePage 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
>>>example, Polar bear, brown bear, black bear and so on.

Thats a poor example. Black bears and Polar bears have more differences than mere fur colouring...whereas humanity the ONLY difference is skin colour...
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 3/31/2012 9:52:07 AM


I think we need separate some of the wheat from the chaff in this discussion. Specifically, we need to separate 'people' from 'propositions'.

On the one hand, there are people who are racists, plain and simple.

Yet on the other hand, there is also the proposition about whether or not races are indeed ontologically real in an evolutionary-biological sense.

The latter question -- the proposition -- is still more or less an open one.
(my emphasis)
Not really. It isn't as if we're proposing registration of a new breed of purebred cow that can be kept in isolation and selectively mated until the officials are satisfied it will breed true when kept in those conditions.
And therein lies the problem for those who claim 'biological races' of homo sapiens exist.

Because what it comes down to, if one is making the claim that 'biological races' exist, are the defining characteristics.

Are redheads a 'race'? Are short people? Are the Old Order Amish? Are people who can run fast a 'race', in more ways than one?

Where are the boundaries, and what do they look like? Can they only be identified in the DNA, or is 'I know one when I see one' an adequate classification system?

Proponents of 'biological races' need to answer these questions, and then support the answers with consistent reasoning, and solid science based evidence, else the proposition fails.


Evolutionary biology is statistical, and attempts to neatly categorize all of its phenomena into neatly circumscribed definitions comprised of necessary and sufficient conditions are liable to get one into trouble.

On the other hand, some statistics will lead one out of trouble.

This is a very interesting video on the topic of 'The Genetics of Humanness: The Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes' put out by the Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny at the University of California. It features Ed Green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP2_fGKHExk

The whole video is interesting but from about 9.45 minutes to about the 11 minute mark Dr. Green explicitly points out that only 30 generations ago, which according to him is about the middle ages, we all will have had more ancestors than there were people alive. What that means, in his words, is that "you coalesce with every other person on the planet you might imagine at some point on your genome".
He also says, within the time frame referred to above - 9.45m to 11m, that "it turns out that you can reconstruct genealogies of any particular haplotype, any particular region in our genome, amongst all people who are alive today. And... in some sense this must be true, there must be this genealogy that unites everyone, you can take any two people (in this room), find the haplotype at some place in their genome and find the time that they had a common ancestor".

This ^^^ sounds like a reference to the concept of a genetic mosaic to me, not evidence that distinct groups of homo sapiens exist.

 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:49:57 AM

And how do we account for the dominance of Blacks in events requiring speed over
short distances?

I give in. How?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 4/6/2012 12:44:41 AM

If there were no "ahem" differences between the ... humans,
despite being different colours, bone structure and whatever else....
why do humans, individually and collectively... act differently?

Who is alleging there no differences? It's obvious that different cultures, ethnicities, and environments all exist.
It follows, equally obviously, that people act 'differently' because of these factors, none of which qualify as definitions of biological 'race'.
'Culture' is a social construction and is entirely malleable and even transformable within the individual.
'Ethnicity' has indeterminate boundaries and is often self-ascribed. It too has no essential and necessary connection to a taxonomically consistent and biologically valid label of 'race'.
'Environment' is transient. Transfer a fair skinned Nordic person to the Australian outback and leave them there for 40 years. They won't look aboriginal but they will have appeared to have joined the weatherbeaten deeply tanned 'race' that lives in open and exposed areas all over the globe.

In other words, 'I Know One When I See One' is not a taxonomically valid method of determining biological 'race'.



There must be a reason for our differences .... because, although humans can live in the exact same environment...they do not end up acting the same.
Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Not to say that the stereotype applies to all... but the stereotypes exists for a reason.
... perhaps, observation?

Culture is a social construction.
I'm not sure what kind of "stereotypes" you're referring to, but using such things as 'arrogance' (allegedly, the French), 'robotically practical' (allegedly, the Germans), or 'drink a lot and like singing' (allegedly, the Irish), are not valid racial descriptors. Unless one suppose that arrogant people living in places other than France (etc etc) are somehow really displaced Frenchmen, or women.
Which is obviously preposterous.

Perhaps you are referring to the kind of 'stereotypes' a poster above did, that some black people are fast runners. But again, the label 'black' has very little correlation to the various skin tones fast runners might exhibit, the stereotype also ignores that many 'black' people, even from the same places the fast ones come from, are not fast runners at all. Not to mention that there are many places where 'black' people live that have no history of producing runners, but rather the citizens are good at something else.

A vague, inaccurate, and mis-labeled stereotype is not useful for defining anything that even approaches taxonomic validity.



If the idea of Race was socially constructed.... to purposely label different types of humans... to train them to mimic the label?.... to benefit the ones who masterminded these racial chains.... How did these masterminds come to be so different, so as to be able to separate themselves and distinguish themselves from the rest... if we are allegedly the same?
On equal footing?

What do you mean by 'the same'? Differences in environment and culture throughout history are blatent, as are differing responses to similar problems. Global ecosystems and opportunity vary widely, different pressures apply to different micro-areas as well across continents.
Clever people exist everywhere, dominant cultures have risen and declined throughout history. No 'racial' explanations are necessarily implied or required.


Humans are different... for better or worse.
We are not all created equal.... but we should get equal opportunities and that should not prevent the cream from rising to the top nor should it oppress the... less ...motivated.

I agree (somewhat), but again, that's an argument that doesn't require or necessarily imply any alleged 'racial' component.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 4/6/2012 6:42:32 PM

Asian and Europeans passed through a couple of genetic bottlenecks due to climate change. Superior types survived and breed. Africans were not subjected to that bio/challenge. Suggest reviewing "IQ of Nations".

Suggest reviewing 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' , by Robert H. Thouless which describes, assesses and critically analyses flaws in reasoning and argument.
 Xray86
Joined: 2/2/2012
Msg: 31
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/11/2012 2:31:01 PM
I think this is one of the few posts regarding "race" that I've seen where a bunch of smart people came together and obliterated the "preferences" crowd. Like what a few people in other threads (myself included) said about preferences: a preference is preferring something over another, without completely disqualifying other choices. You can't say you prefer Whites, Blacks, ethnic Jews, whoever if you never dated or have no intention of dating someone different. That's not preference, that's prejudice and I'm seeing this more and more with dating. Religion is different because it's understandable if you prefer to keep to your own due to cultural or spiritual beliefs. But, say a muslim, if you won't date another muslim because he or she is Black, I would think that's prejudice. The person has the same values, came from a similar background, believe the same stuff you do, but because the person's Black they're so different that they could never be compatable as suitable mates and be held on the same status as you?
 conservationist
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/23/2012 10:15:15 AM

And if you think Being European somehow gives you an inate ability to write a symphony like Beethoven then why is He a one off?


But he's not a one off...
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/23/2012 6:36:45 PM
Ballard,
If you think that colour preference is evidence of sub-species then your understanding of genetics and evolution is well below zero.
Instead of offering up irrelevant circumstantial evidence, why not follow links provided in previous posts and see what constitutes a "race" then use relevant data to support your claim?



Anyone can order a ancestral DNA test kit for about $200.00

Why bother? it might tell you a bit, take you back a few generations... but ultimately, we all evolved from the same single-celled organism.
I just saved you 200 bucks. You're Welcome
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 34
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/27/2012 9:55:32 PM
Ya know, I've had dates white guys and I've had dates with black guys.

There are a few things that I have noticed:

1. They all had two legs (except for the guy who lost one in a motorcycle accident; he held his spoon wrong and spit on me when he talked), two arms, ten fingers, etc.

2. They all ate the same foods and drank the same drinks.

3. They were of varying intelligences, but the white guys were not smarter than the black guys or vice-versa: it was totally an individual issue. Same for education.

4. Some of the black guys were butt-heads and some of the white guys were butt-heads.

5. The ones with whom I was intimate all had penises of varying size and size was not based on skin color.

If one had put bags over their heads and covered their hands with gloves, they would have been indistinguishable based on color.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/28/2012 6:56:01 PM


Again, we witness lower class Whites bleating out their joy at being multicultural goodies. Sad, they think that by adopting positions touted by the likes of Oprah, Kathy C, Geraldo, their social status will be improved. Black familes
of class don't want a "White" convenience store executive brought home.

I fukn hate Oprah and iunno who the other 2 are, but you make me sick when you speak
 Acehonestlady
Joined: 4/16/2012
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/29/2012 1:28:00 AM
It's a little like water sloshing back and forth in a big tub, in a way. If the tub is rocking back and forth, the water sloshes from end to end. If the tub stops rocking (a new understanding!), the water keeps sloshing for a log time after, as it adjusts itself to the new reality of a still tub.


I agree with what you say and think the example you use with the tank to explain is a good one to explain topics like this.

What I want to do though is thank you for giving me a way to explain to people that cannot undertand why I don't suddenly stop being aggrivated by disturbances that overload me once the disturbance has stopped. I have sensory intergration disorder, especially being bothered by sudden, loud or repative sounds. I have people say things (usually agressively/accusingly) like 'the noise has stopped now, why are you still jittery' . Simply telling them in words without making it visual is not enough for their pea brains to understand - maybe this will help. Thank you.
 DarkmoonsLightning
Joined: 5/17/2012
Msg: 37
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/29/2012 2:22:58 AM

but you make me sick when you speak
Roflmao... to one poster another poster externally ascribed the quality of creating nausea. However her internal ascription for herself was the feeling of nausea. I am sure the speaker didn't perceive the state of being a Nausea Causer.
So this poster socially constructed your state of being by what you externally presented. you are a "nausea causer" enjoy...that is your new race. Anyone who makes me sick Will be called a NC rather than PC, who don't make me sick. lol. So we will have the races of NC and PC denoted by what we perceive in speech and actions. Won't that be a fun way to create races.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/29/2012 3:33:50 AM


Roflmao... to one poster another poster externally ascribed the quality of creating nausea. However her internal ascription for herself was the feeling of nausea. I am sure the speaker didn't perceive the state of being a Nausea Causer.
So this poster socially constructed your state of being by what you externally presented. you are a "nausea causer" enjoy...that is your new race. Anyone who makes me sick Will be called a NC rather than PC, who don't make me sick. lol. So we will have the races of NC and PC denoted by what we perceive in speech and actions. Won't that be a fun way to create races.

Oh good. Oprah and Ballard are now the same race
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 39
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/30/2012 9:08:26 PM

^^^^ This is a great example of Political correctness in action.


So, you want me to lie?



The Aryans were not an ethnic group but a collection of nomadic peoples..who spent there time avoiding the Romans and ending up in Carthage..their ancestors now reside in middle east in countries such as Iran,Iraq and Syria..,what remains of them tend to Zoeastrian by Relligion.


The most commonly accepted theory about the Aryans is that they were patriarchal nomads from the steppes of Russia, but they might have originally come from Armenia. However, recent evidence indicates that they also built settlements in Russia. They came down through Persia into India, and it has long been thought that they helped build Indian civilization and even brought the Vedas (in an oral tradition) into the area. The Mittani Empire was Aryan. They also went into what is now Greece and subdued the Pelasgians, intermarrying their patriarchal deities with the Titans. The Ionians were Aryan, so were the Dorians and the Achaeans might have been.

Their culture existed long before there was a Rome.

Just sayin'.


Take Eygpt for example..ancient Eygpt was called Kush the indigenous people came from what is now Sudan ,Ethyopia ,there are more pyramids in Sudan then Eygypt .


Actually, ancient Egypt was called "Kemet" by the indigenous people. Kush was south of Egypt and is now called "Nubia." Egyptian pyramids predate Nubian pyramids.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 40
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/31/2012 6:25:23 PM
^^^And you write your own history--so do the white supremacists and the Nazis.

I can debate and discuss issues with someone who knows history, but not with someone who twists issues to fit his own agenda. There is no need talking to a brick wall.
 chubwubb
Joined: 4/17/2012
Msg: 41
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/31/2012 8:26:57 PM
This is just my 2 cents. I think comparing races to bears is a little off, as black, brown and polar are distinct species. It would be more appropriate to compare human races to breeds of animals such as horses. Each group of horses has specific characteristics that classify them as a particular breed, but not enough genetic variability to define them as a completely different species like a zebra. Even though each breed has a particular standard, that does not mean you won't encounter some horses that don't fit in with the breed type. The difference between our livestock and us however, is that we are not subjected to rigorous selective breeding to enhance desirable traits. Any volunteers for being castrated because they don't fit the breed standards? ;-)
 Ashtadbinsaiyef
Joined: 5/28/2012
Msg: 42
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 5/31/2012 10:05:54 PM
Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct? (www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf) summarizes the evidence for the answer, “yes.” Trans–adoption studies show that even when biological children of low–income households from one ethnic group are adopted by a high–income household from another, or vice versa, the children retain many of the characteristics of their biological parents, such as cranial size, with little input from environmental factors. Of course, this isn’t to deny that there are also certain other traits which might be more or less environmentally determined.

But now, to make the point that “supremacism” at no point follows from any of this, let’s take an extreme case and suppose that there is a very wide group disparity in intelligence between ... Israeli Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Suppose these Jews have an average IQ of 110, and these Arabs have an average IQ of 90. Does it follow that Jews ‘as a group’ are “superior” to Arabs? No. That is, not unless intelligence is what determines one’s superiority or inferiority to other people to begin with. But if it does, then it’s obviously true that not every Jew and not every Arab falls right in the middle of the average—these are overlapping curves. So if a given Jew thinks IQ is what determines a person’s superiority or inferiority to another person, and his IQ is 110, then what follows is not that he ‘as a Jew’ is superior to all those Arabs ‘as Arabs,’ but rather that there are a lot of Jews and many Arabs who are superior to him, and many Jews and Arabs both to whom he is likewise inferior as well.

In short, race differences are nothing to be afraid of, because supremacist ideology
is a logical fallacy no matter how real or significant those differences might ever be.

Now, one reason people tend to care about race differences in practice (and particularly on a dating site) is because it is an established tendency of human nature that we care more about people who are more genetically like ourselves—like it or not. This encompasses everything from the fact that parents tend to prefer as well as grieve more for children who inherited more of their genes as opposed to their partner’s, to the fact that even long–term male friendships are made between individuals with similar blood antigens at a much higher frequency than would be expected by accident or chance. So, since “race” populations represent clusters of genes, by definition, a member of any given race is going to find more members of his own race with close genetic similarity to himself than he will among members of a different race. This is not to say that there aren’t outliers, and therefore cases where individuals from different races actually are genetically quite similar. So this science wouldn’ t predict that interracial relationships would never happen; rather, it would predict that they would sometimes happen while continuing to be generally rare—which is exactly what we see.
 Walley7
Joined: 4/6/2012
Msg: 43
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 1:44:57 AM
The races are different in aptitude. Everyone is different in aptitude.

One of the foolishnesses of modern people is to place their self-worth in quantifying themselves. How intelligent you are, or successful, or how good at X, i.e. how 'capable'. As a result, in an attempt for everyone to be equal, the attempt has become to pretend that everyone is equal in aptitude because of our having turned it into aptitude = worth. And so the common denial about difference, and the mantra of 'that's racist!', and blah blah blah. It's somewhat akin to pretending all breeds of dog are the same.

The trouble is that human worth lies beneath the surface, and not many people see that. When you let go of all the surface crap you can acknowledge the differences and yet still have your equality. You can admit and recognise that the races are NOT totally the same, though all human, and yet understand that the deeper core of a person is universal.

In short, the mainstream idea of race is a foolish denial, and for anyone truly honest and real is pretty annoying to have to put up with. But then most people have a lot of garbage concepts in their heads :\. But of course that ain't where their real worth lies either ;).
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 6:55:16 AM

Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct? (www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf) summarizes the evidence for the answer, “yes.” Trans–adoption studies show that even when biological children of low–income households from one ethnic group are adopted by a high–income household from another, or vice versa, the children retain many of the characteristics of their biological parents, such as cranial size, with little input from environmental factors.

pfft. Adopted childrens eyes probably don't change colour either to match their non-biologically related parents. What a surprise.
The source you refer to isn't a scholarly study, a peer reviewed article, or a ground-breaking revelation - it's a book written by a racist.

Here's a quote, just to give an idea of the 'scientific rigour' be brings to the topic, from another of his books. There were no references attached to this (his) statement -

The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.
Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime.
http://www.euvolution.com/library/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

'Hormones'? Fast-running, restless-at-school, prone-to-crime hormones? What 'hormones' would they be I wonder?

All he, and you, are doing is providing proof that 'race' has no biological basis, because if it did the evidence would be presented. Instead of half-baked justifications that reek of prejudice.

For those genuinely interested in challenging their own prejudices, here's a few links to criticism of Rushtons 'theories'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Academic_opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Unfavorable
http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/


The races are different in aptitude.

Non sequitur.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 45
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 10:02:34 AM
I think one of the issues with humans "intelligence" is our perceptions allow us to take words that are a base for many ideological constructs and apply our social construct to them.
For instance- The Torah the Jewish religious book and the Bible both foundations for the development of society (and There are many others of different religions that supersede these two however these are the two I choose to utilize for ease of explanation)
In Genesis: the first book of both the bible and the torah, states that "humans are to have dominion over the earth".

We, with our beliefs and faith in power and or control, feel promotion of society is through strong survivors,and advancement comes through exploitation(Societal aspects of understanding and functioning in society developed from years of Science, Politics, and Economics).
We perceive dominion to mean dominating and exploiting the earth and its inhabitants. However the translation of the base word for dominion is to be a good steward. Now if we understand these words correctly "good" is subjective and can mean many things. Rarely does it mean destroy that with which you are provided.
However, a steward is a guide that encourages cooperation or it means someone learning a skill or trade. So a basic tenet of the advancement and evolution of civilization (while many people who see no validity in these religious books; their doctrine and understanding was integral to the Abrahamic Patriarchy that has evolved and permeates all aspects of society) is in my opinion misunderstood-

And as we advanced and evolved more and more Abrahamic Patriarchy entered our understanding. Domination over the earth and its inhabitants was not the correct directive for development of society. An abrahamic interpretation of evolution came to mean only things that promote survival and strength are natural and good. That any other approach, including utilizing a concept of egalitarian symbiosis, to interpret scientific findings or understand our progression is "Bad" (which is also subjective). So in advancement of society, because we use language which is subject to interpretation and place our societal climate on those interpretations, we have chosen to dominate, and exploit rather than share fairly and equally with respect to that and those which we have dominion over. A little less talk and a lot more communication and cooperation
 Ashtadbinsaiyef
Joined: 5/28/2012
Msg: 46
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 10:25:38 AM
(Quote)pfft. Adopted childrens eyes probably don't change colour either to match their non-biologically related parents. What a surprise.(End Quote)

You apparently overlooked that I gave one very specific example, one that has quite practical implications.

(Quote)it's a book written by a racist.(End Quote)

This simply begs the question, given that those who dismiss him in this way do so precisely
because they dislike these very conclusions he makes about race and for no other reason.
He isn’t a member of the KKK. He’s never physically attacked any black person.
He doesn’t use ‘white pride’ slogans. I haven’t even seen him propose limiting immigration.

He isn’t a ‘racist’ in any other sense than that he has reached these very same conclusions.
So you may as well have said (and you effectively did), “what a surprise—this book claiming that
race exists isn’t some groundbreaking revelation! Why, it’ s just written by someone who thinks race exists!

(Quote)
All he, and you, are doing is providing proof that 'race' has no biological basis,
because if it did the evidence would be presented. (End Quote)

Those are in the actual books referred to, which you’ve neither looked at or read.

Surely you’re familiar with the idea that an author trying to promote the books he has written would
do so by throwing out ‘teasers’ instead of laying every bit of evidence contained in the book out up front.

Still, Rushton is hardly my primary source on this issue, so I have no special interest in defending him in particular.

Try Razib Khan of Gene Expression (http://gnxp.com), for starters. Specifically this (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html) critique of claims made by both Tim Wise and Jared Taylor after a radio debate held between the two—it’s a quite insightful breakdown of both why Wise’s claims are fallacious, and why Taylor has to twist the real facts in order to use them to support his particular brand of supremacism.

(Quote) What 'hormones' would they be I wonder? (End Quote)

For starters, testosterone (note, the kind of evidence you claim doesn’t exist follows):
http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00439/contents/01/00576/

This study found that race accounts for 20% of the differentials in the gene that controls the strength of the body’s androgen receptors. As a simple stereotype, black men are typically rated as more commonly having more masculine features. Asian men are typically rated as more commonly having the least masculine features of all populations. Which populations have the most and least of the gene in question? Black men have the most and Asian men have the least. Now, I want to point this out: men are more prone to violence and hyperactivity than women. Why? At least one of the many reasons is testosterone. Is that sexist? To say that men’s higher proclivity to violence than women is determined largely or partly by biology? I say obviously not. So by extension, if it isn’t sexist to say that male violence is driven in part by men having higher testosterone levels, then it clearly can’t be racist to say that some male populations are more aggressive than others because they have more or less sensitivity to the very same hormone that helps drive higher male violence to begin with!




(Quote)For those genuinely interested in challenging their own prejudices, here's a few links to criticism of Rushtons 'theories'.(End Quote)



Gone are the days when someone who disagrees with you about a complex issue simply got the answer to a complex question wrong. No, anyone who disagrees with you is immediately prejudiced and ingenuine. This mentality is precisely why we have so little coherent public discussion about any issues that matter. Nonetheless, the criticisms leveled are all towards Rushton’s specific theory of human population origins, which is quite a separate matter than what I referenced him for: the claim that race is a valid taxonomic category at all. Whether it is a valid category or not, and how it might have became one are clearly separate subjects. I have no special attachment to that theory of Rushton’s, nor do I think I’m up to the task of evaluating its merits objectively, but I do find it interesting and believe the critics are just as motivated by ulterior political considerations as anyone else.

All that said, I didn’t come here to waste my time in Internet fights, so do with this as you will.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 47
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 11:03:43 AM
To say that men’s higher proclivity to violence than women is determined largely or partly by biology? I say obviously not. So by extension, if it isn’t sexist to say that male violence is driven in part by men having higher testosterone levels, then it clearly can’t be racist to say that some male populations are more aggressive than others because they have more or less sensitivity to the very same hormone that helps drive higher male violence to begin with!

These really have no relation to sexism or racism. I assume Aggression can be displayed in many ways it does not necessarily have to be displayed through actual physical violence. Our social constructs teach us how to utilize the natural chemical in our bodies. People of any race with any chemicals constructing their biological make up male or female can be taught to express aggression in either productive or unproductive fashions.

Women have more progesterone and estrogen. So does this mean women have a higher proclivity to run around entertaining the action that produces birth to assuage their biological chemicals and are so lustful and passionate that they cannot control who they screw?

We are taught how to utilize our biological chemicals. Socially deviant or unacceptable behavior supported by our chemicals is punished and socially acceptable behavior supported by our chemicals is rewarded. Culturally men and women are rewarded for different behaviors additionally different ethnic cultures reward different behaviors because they function in our concept of societal hierarchy and the role of those ethnic or gender cultures in said society. In addition, we have individual familial learning experiences that acerbate or reduce our behavioral expression of said chemicals.
 chubwubb
Joined: 4/17/2012
Msg: 48
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 12:15:10 PM
Horses:

Morphology..Breeding horses to enhance certain traits..Sorry but again,its "machine theory".

Take a Race horse ..hundreds of years of breeding and how many "Atitude adjusters" ,"Red Rum" despite breeding traits,it still occurs only once in while that a great horse comes about,which is the purpose of breeding.

You can breed for Bio mechanic traits,for sure anything ,there are far to many unknowns and environmental variables which defer to luck.


I disagree very much. Many stellar race horses are produced as a direct result of excellent breeding. Man, O War, Secretariat, Affirmed, Eclipse, War Admiral and even the ever so humble Seabiscuit (His grandsire was the mighty Man O War, only one generation apart, and you want to call it a miracle that he was an incredible race horse!) all had sires that were winners. It's pretty simple, in the horse world, losers don't get bred. Some did not have as lengthy racing careers because they were cut short due to injuries, or in other cases, because they were so sucessful as sires at producing winners. Honestly, a lot of the so called "dark horses" are only dark because someone didn't take a closer look at their pedigrees. That is why there is an entire breed of horses called Thoroughbred. They are proven AS A BREED to be the fastest horse for 1 mile. Take any other breed of horse, put it against an equally matched Thorughbred, the Throughbred is going to win every single time. Equally match a Thorughbred against a Quarter Horse for 1/4 a mile, and the Quarter Horse is going to smoke the competion..every...single...time.

To say that breeding for speed is pure luck is complete nonsense. You don't just breed for speed. Actual "speed" only contributes to %6 of the equation for making a sucessful racehorse. You breed for lung power, stamina, health, endurance, intelligence and even the desire to run. It's not "luck." The autopsy on the great racehorse Secretariat showed that he had a heart that was estimated to weigh 22 lbs, over 2 and 3/4 th larger than a normal race horse.

From Wikipedia " A necropsy revealed his heart was significantly larger than that of an ordinary horse.[20] An extremely large heart is a trait that occasionally occurs in Thoroughbreds, linked to a genetic condition passed down via the dam line, known as the "x-factor".[17][21][22][23] The x-factor can be traced to the historic racehorse Eclipse, which was necropsied after his death in 1789. Because Eclipse's heart appeared to be much larger than other horses, it was weighed, and found to be 14 pounds (6.4 kg), almost twice the normal weight. Eclipse is believed to have passed the trait on via his daughters, and pedigree research verified that Secretariat traces in his dam line to a daughter of Eclipse.[20] In the 20th century, the heart of Phar Lap was weighed and also documented to be 6.35 kilograms (14.0 lb),[24] or essentially the same size as that of Eclipse."

The hardest part is getting them all lined up to produce a truly fantastic race horse, and that is where you "get lucky." However, with today's technology, that "luck" factor is slowly dwindling. Does poor terrain, poor handling and husbandry play into effect on how fast your horse runs? Absoulutely, but it's not all of the equation.

Like or not, genetics is important, and effects human beings lot more than we would like to think.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/1/2012 9:48:23 PM

The source you refer to isn't a scholarly study, a peer reviewed article, or a ground-breaking revelation - it's a book written by a racist.


This simply begs the question, given that those who dismiss him in this way do so precisely
because they dislike these very conclusions he makes about race and for no other reason.

Exactly right. He's a psychologist. Not a biologist, or geneticist, or anthropologist. He has no recognised expertise in any relevant field. He doesn't submit to peer reviewed journals.
He writes books, published by fringe publishers, that promote his personal racist opinions.

Note that he reverses the usual scientific method of drawing conclusions from the evidence, instead he starts out with the conclusion that the undefined things called 'blacks' (and 'asians') represent a sub-species of the species homo sapiens and then he produces 'evidence' that supports his spurious conclusion.

There's no consideration of exceptions, no definitions, no elimination of other causes that might produce the effects he witlessly uses to support his prejudiced conclusions.


All he, and you, are doing is providing proof that 'race' has no biological basis,
because if it did the evidence would be presented.

Those are in the actual books referred to, which you’ve neither looked at or read.

On the contrary, I looked at the pdf you referenced and even quoted from another of his books to demonstrate the unscientific nature of his output.
Besides, one doesn't need to read, for instance, the entire stormfront website to understand its nature and nor does one need to read Alice in Wonderland right to the end to grasp that it's a fairytale.


Still, Rushton is hardly my primary source on this issue, so I have no special interest in defending him in particular.
Try Razib Khan of Gene Expression (http://gnxp.com), for starters.

Once again, though Khan has written extensively on genetics he is not a geneticist, or an anthropologist. He claims vaguely that his background is in 'the biological sciences' which may or may not be relevant, but his chief claim to fame seems to be his incredibly prolific blogging capabilities - which have made him a star on websites such as 'majorityrights' and 'stormfront', but not so much on any genuinely rigourous science sites.


The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.
Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime.
http://www.euvolution.com/library/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf


'Hormones'? Fast-running, restless-at-school, prone-to-crime hormones? What 'hormones' would they be I wonder?


For starters, testosterone (note, the kind of evidence you claim doesn’t exist follows):
http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00439/contents/01/00576/

This study found that race accounts for 20% of the differentials in the gene that controls the strength of the body’s androgen receptors. As a simple stereotype, black men are typically rated as more commonly having more masculine features. Asian men are typically rated as more commonly having the least masculine features of all populations. Which populations have the most and least of the gene in question? Black men have the most and Asian men have the least. Now, I want to point this out: men are more prone to violence and hyperactivity than women. Why? At least one of the many reasons is testosterone. Is that sexist? To say that men’s higher proclivity to violence than women is determined largely or partly by biology? I say obviously not. So by extension, if it isn’t sexist to say that male violence is driven in part by men having higher testosterone levels, then it clearly can’t be racist to say that some male populations are more aggressive than others because they have more or less sensitivity to the very same hormone that helps drive higher male violence to begin with!

Your link doesn't seem to work so I couldn't get 'the study' you claim shows 'racial' differentials. Which is a pity because I'm sure it would be amusing to read a study based on a non-sequitur.

But anyway, following your summary of the alleged findings to the inevitable conclusion means we must conclude that 'men' and 'women' are different 'races' since they too have massive gene expressed differentials that control the way different hormones are expressed.
Note that 'boys/men' tend to have an edge on 'girls/women' at sport, are more restless in school. and are over represented in crime figures.
Therefore 'female' and 'male' are alternate labels for different 'races'? pfft.


All that said, I didn’t come here to waste my time in Internet fights, so do with this as you will.

OK, I'll file it where it belongs - in the cylindrical filing cabinet under the desk.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Socially Constructed Idea of Race
Posted: 6/2/2012 11:25:01 PM

Speaking of aptitudes...

Speaking of the topic... none of your post has anything to do with it.

What is a 'black' in terms of biologically valid homo sapien taxonomy?
What is a 'white' in terms of biologically valid homo sapien taxonomy?

Your posts demonstrate that concepts of 'race' are indeed a social construct that has meaning only to those unfamiliar with concepts of scientific validity.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Socially Constructed Idea of Race