Find a single one of those "lot of people", and link here. Because we here are unaware of that having been done, and it would be interesting. They could, of course. But they haven't. There's no point - the classification would be useless. Humans are too closely related, as a species.
Self identified race lines up very well with genetic clusters. Everything you say is just factually wrong. You can never "correct" for all possible influences. What are you even talking about? You have to take the parsimonious hypothesis. Finding a totally consistent pattern strongly suggests genetics, not a variety of combinations of mysterious "environmental factors" all producing the same pattern in all times and places.
You just make things up. You have no grounds to judge how related humans are relative to anything else. You're simply a liar.
Just an FYI - you are coming across as an abusive, arrogant know-it-all who doesn't actually know much about the topic. Perhaps fewer angry attacks and more citing of relevant research?
Ironic. It's my opponents that are responding with groundless assertions and refusing to back them up, in a tag team manner no less.
They don't. For example: In the US race system the Kenyan, Congo, Bushman, Australasian, and Andaman Island genetic clusters are all "black"; The Japanese and Han Chinese clusters are both "yellow"; and the Malaysian members of the Japanese cluster are separated out as "brown" or "black" depending. You can't draw racial inferences when you haven't corrected for any of them.
Source? Australian aborigines self identify as black in the United States? You're just making stuff up again aren't you? Sure you can. It's called parsimony, Occam's razor. You don't "correct" for a litany of imaginary causes when the obvious one will do.
Ah. So you see yourself as the hero here; the reasonable, rational person who is providing peer-reviewed facts while others just attack you with groundless slurs and innuendo. I suggest you re-read the thread and see where the attacks are coming from.
Do you disagree that those with either Kenyan or Congo ancestry dominant in their physical appearance identify as "black" in the US? Meanwhile, we still haven't seen your link to a "genomic" identification of a human race. That would be kind of interesting - I would like to see, for example, how many "genomic" races the sociological "US black" race would contain. If you don't correct for the obvious, known, proven, demonstrated, and race-correlated circumstantial influences on IQ test scores, you can't draw any valid conclusions regarding race and IQ. And since nobody has done that, there are no such valid conclusions drawn. Why is it these guys never know what an "ad hominem argument" is?
It is interesting that you say "race is defined by genomic similarity". This is exactly what I would question. For example, in the Wiki article on the subject, which is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics it seems to state fairly clearly that genomic similarity does NOT line up with "race". QUOTE "According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection".[3][4][5][6][7][8] A relative handful of genes accounts for the inherited factors shaping a person's appearance.[9][10] Humans have an estimated 19,000-20,000 human protein-coding genes.[11] UNQUOTE I assure you am not trying to be "sneaky" is talking of race as commonly understood. All I mean by that is the usual racial classifications, by skin colour, hair type, eye colour and shape etc, which result in the labels such as black, white, Asian etc. that we all use in everyday language. Thanks for the link. However I don't think that paper support the idea of race at all. All it says is that it is possible to group the human race into populations according to genetic similarity (obviously) and (equally obviously, when you think about it) this shows some correlation with geographical origin. (This would be due to the greater probability of genes mixing between populations in physical proximity.) But they also say the correlation is weak and have this to say at the end of the abstract: "The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race." (ω in this context means the chance of a pair of individuals from the 2 groups being more similar genetically than a random pair within a group.) Incidentally I find rather objectionable your insinuation that I have a "precarious position" and that I may be trying to argue dishonestly by introducing a "straw man". I have no dog in this fight politically, I assure you. I am well aware that race politics, especially in the USA - or Russia, or wherever you come from - is a pit of vipers and that there may be an element of self-censorship by genetic scientists wanting a quiet life. In fact that is why I am (mildly) interested in getting to the bottom of what the science has to say.
how do you define equality in a capitalist morality ? that's the real issue just because a child is born poor or black, does that mean they should be denied equal top quality education, health care and food ? yes ! it does !(according to USA law and society and culture) capitalist morality declares a poor child is worth less than a rich child. so you need to shelve the race debate until you can show there is no discrimination from the base level as a causative model of culture. good luck soo in the game of survival of the fittest... what is an acceptable edge to have over another person ?? is colour of their skin ok ? is their gender ok ? is their sexual orientation ok ? is their political affiliations of their parents ok ? is their genealogy ok ? what is a fair thing to use to hold over them to give yourself an advantage in a capitalist society ? i watched some of the video [it saddens me to see such a bright critical mind that has been bent on to something false like this false debate about race vs equality vs entitlement vs quota systems.] in a few years she may well shed that baggage and become a real mover and shaker. then again maybe not.
So we should assume the mysterious force of "white racism" (the only known force to increase with distance) is to blame for the consistent global achievement pattern and blame white people for everything, until we can mathematically prove otherwise, somehow, even though genetics is a far more parsimonious explanation? No, that isn't science. Explain how your "discrimination" theory is falsifiable. How does this "discrimination" work to produce the same pattern everywhere? In China, in Canada, in Haiti. It sounds like some imaginary Marxist nonsense with the sole function of attacking white people.
There is little mystery about white racism - few human attributes of that kind have been as thoroughly documented and described. How did it work, you mean, to produce the patterns you see (they are not the same everywhere, and especially not through history) - that's an interesting question, which you can find out about by acquainting yourself with the history involved, and some theory. I recommend one book in particular: "Guns, Germs, and Steel" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel Nobody has yet been able to explain any of this stuff by genetics - that would be a difficult and very complicated approach, hardly begun as yet. Although some - like Jared Diamond, in that book - have made a little progress: immunity to certain diseases is a rigorously described genetic feature of some populations, and has proven itself a great advantage at times.
Oh "this book agrees with me". Really showing off that knowledge there. I've read it and it it doesn't explain the ongoing consistent pattern. Assuming that cultural catch-up is the explanation, why do races continue in the same pattern today? Both as immigrants and as the masters of their own countries? Why does all of this correlate with intelligence which remains stable after transracial adoption? Diamond has produced a just-so story which doesn't fit the totality of the evidence. And which is it, discrimination or cultural catch-up? Get your story straight. This is embarassing handwaving.
You haven't read it, if you really believe that. You mean IQ? See above. The obvious explanation would be the most visible, most easily verified one: economic and political subjugation at the hands of white racists. That's what we see, after all - what's wrong with going by what anyone can see right in front of them? What are you talking about? Not Diamond's book, obviously. Let's try this one: In point of fact, the fastest and in many ways most technologically advanced ocean going craft on the planet were, at one time, the kayaks and umiaks and related vessels of the Arctic peoples. They could run rings around the clumsy scows of the European people who encountered them. Using that superior technology one or two capable men could routinely hunt, kill, and bring to port, full sized whales from the open ocean. Routinely. Explain that.
So, for example, Blacks in China can be expected to end up running physics departments just like their Chinese hosts so far away from the evils of "White racism" which you posit explains all world problems? Or do the hate filled maniacal White people somehow manage to use some kind of demoralisation beam on Blacks there? Do you ever think that maybe you people just hate Whites to promote this kind of disgusting smear which is so laughably and obviously made up?
Something like that, sure - Except for the "hate" and "maniac" language, which is odd - where did you get that kind of strawman lingo? You can read up about the European colonial influence on China, its history and effects, and the Chinese themselves often classify by race - their races are different from the US system, of course, with the Japanese and Koreans and so forth not in the same race as the Chinese, while if my informal sources are correct many Chinese put "US brown" and "US white" in the same race. Racism is not restricted to US people who think they are "white". It's just prevalent and influential among them, and in consequence a basic structural influence on US society. And hatred has little to do with it, as far as I can tell - it's more of a culturally inculcated mental disorder, like greed, that does major harm. All the "hatred" language reads as a symptom. But I'm glad you find racism disgusting. How's it coming with the "genomic" racial classification - found one yet? Notice that the Chinese system, which separates the Han and Japanese "US yellow" and lumps some of the "US brown" in with the "US white", is in some respects closer to most of genetic clustering maps than the US system. They do lump the Kenyan and Congolese and Khoisan, though, like the US, so you have little hope of finding a genomic definition of race in China either.
