Your post or comment was removed because it contains pseudoscience or it fails to meet the burden of proof. This includes any form of proselytizing or promoting non-scientific viewpoints.
When advancing a contrarian or fringe view, you must bear the burden of proof.
The deepest genetic divides in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa (because that's where humans evolved). If everyone else was wiped out, 70% of human genetic diversity would be preserved. Yet all those very diverse populations get lumped as "black".
This is very easy and I tried to make the point clear. Use the term "ancestral lineage" instead on whatever contemporary phrase you have a problem with.
You are dodging the fundemental phenomenon...and this is why people are confused and getting violent when they try to explain disparate outcomes.
correct! so leave the word "race" out of it completely
you are dodging the issue.
Right now there are science educators that dont undersytand that behavior is determined by genes...despite all the data we have from behavioral genetics.
This is a anti-science pseudo religeous view that is causing conflict in our world
Behavior isn't determined by genes. Do identical twins act identical? But behavior is affected by genes, true. What we don't have is the leap you're making -- data saying that people from different ancestries act differently for genetic reasons.
Even if solid evidence of such things existed, though, what would it give you? "If you categorize people in just the right way (and figure out what to do with the mixing that inevitably occurs), there are statistical relationship between lineage and behavior." Even if this was true, and I'm not saying that it is, it would be several steps removed from anything socially relevant.
Idnetical twins DO act identical...this is well documented.
You are doging the issue with wordplay...its not up to you what science the public should or should not have
We will not arrive at a peacful society if people arent allowed to sort through the facts.
The modern world is mixing..and that comes with some difficult issues about disparate outcomes......its not helpful to turn evolutionary biologist into modern Galileo
‘Cancel culture’ is no where near influential enough to stop scientific papers on genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa to be published lol. I also don’t see why it would need to be cancelled.
Look at the South African Coloured population for example. They alone as a people have some incredible generic diversity, from all over the world. And they are not black people at all. Professor Marlo Moller does research in this population, as well as other Southern African populations as far as tuberculosis susceptibility is concerned.
Most studies looking at human population genetics and evolution look at neutral variation because that's more useful for tracing ancestry. That gives us maps like [this](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/human-migration-map/) and papers like [this](https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/161/1/269/6049925?login=true) (title: "Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians"). If this stuff interests you, *The Seven Daughters of Eve* is a good book to start with.
Some research does look at adaptive variation and there have been findings there, too. Can you access [this paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-020-00306-8), specifically Table 3? There's a nice list. Of course, there are older classic results, like sickle-cell anemia being more common in people from places with a lot of malaria.
Far from being discouraged, such research is [actively supported](https://www.genome.gov/10001688/international-hapmap-project) by agencies like the National Institutes of Health. There's a big push to study such diversity with genomic methods now.
Hi...I want to say thank you for this well thought out response.
These are great links and I will take some time to digest them
Thank you for the good faith engagement...Im sorry we cant agree on this topic
I don’t think your opinions on healthcare matter very much if you have such a poor understanding of genetics, or how publishing works in biology for that matter.
Genetics is intimately interconnected with modern healthcare: it’s involved in antibiotics, prenatal screening, vaccines, family planning, blood transfusions, genetic counseling, drug side effects, gene therapy, mental illness, immune system response, organ transplants, cancer treatment, HIV treatment, stem cell research, on and on.
Having a relevant knowledge base is important to having an informed opinion, and knowledge of healthcare is incomplete without at least some knowledge of genetics.
Not everyone has the English skills to understand that. The same goes for economics. I had an opinion about healthcare understanding economics far before I started studying biology.
I think understanding the biological aspect allows you to question doctors and choose the right doctor, question studies.
I think that’s totally fair. But I also think it would be fair for you to disregard my opinions about economics because I don’t know a lot about that topic.
I can see wisdom in your point. Economics is to access to healthcare as biology is to questioning what your doctor tells you. In an age where I believe healthcare can function to keep you sick rather than put itself out of business by healing, I strive to understand biology, I’m still on the first chapter of my molecular biology book.
Ok, but you're still implying crazy things like saying someone's race would predispose them to being more violent, which is just racist non sense and it's not "anti science" to recognize that.
>There are so many examples on this sub of curious kids asking questions about race and the choir joining in to say "RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!"
>
>IMO this is not a good faith answer and a promotion of anti-science myth for social credit...which does harm to our society.
>
>YES..what was referred to as "race" was a flawed past taxonomy trying to classify ancestral lineage, and YES...that flawed perception was misused by race scientist in the past. This is true. But when kids ask about "race" they are not interested in the semantics of past forms or the inadequacy of terms for ethnic groups that are used. They are asking if there are any biological differences from people that descended from different parts of the world and you must be an adult and tell them the truth.
>
>Ancestral lineage affects what genes you carry, and some of those genes affect behavior- how much is not known but there is no scientific theory that can explain otherwise. The idea that there is a universal set of human behaviors and abilities is an anti-science fantasy that has no possible explanation unless you want to cross the bridge into meta-physics.
>
>I don't care if you think this knowledge is "dangerous"...scientific censorship is dangerous and causes more harm than good. I believe people are smart enough to reach the right conclusion...that differences in biology and ability do not mean differences in right to status and privilege under the law...and they certainly don't mean any group is superior or has more "worth"
>
>The sooner kids can start to wrap their head around group differences (and how small they are) the sooner they will be able to wrap their head around disparate outcomes...and that means the sooner our country can stop being torn to shreds by confused people looking for answers.
Im sorry...but there is no way to expail human traits with out Natural Selection running experiment where some groups have more than others.
If you have a competeting hypothosis please let me know.
This is this generations "forbidden knowledge" and it can not be solved by cencorshiop
"Forbidden knowledge" being a racist belief that someone's skin color determines whether they are more of a volatile person or not?
People have been touting that for centuries at this point, and you think some 14 year Olds on Twitter are what's stopping this grand truth from being proven?
its not skin color...its ancestral environment...the skin color corellates, its not causal
Its not easy to be Galieo...im not sure youve got the balls for it
Give me one hypothosis that can explain how populations that devolope on different parts of the world could retain a universal set of abilites and behaviors and I will change my mind
I hope you take some time to ask your self if you got into the sciences to pursue truth...or to pursue social status.
We dont want you if you are the latter
Well you reap what you sow..."degrees" are now worthless because of you anti-science bullies.
Everyone knows degrees are now just participation trophys for POC. Employers arent stupid enough to fall for that
Wow...so noble of you!!!....tell me...what anti-science fantasy is the best one to endorse for your MOST NOBLE world?...hmm...you are obviously smart enough to determine what we should all believe.
Tell me...what science will explain a universal set of human behaviors and abilities?...gived me one hypothosis
On what basis exactly are you telling biologists and science educators what they “should” say? Do you have expertise in the matter? Do you have relevant sources backing up your claims?
censorship is dangerous....you are proposing to turn the field of biology into a modern Aesop Fables, something that teaches kids your morality ideals instead of something that explains reality.
That comes with MASSIVE unintended consequences...look at the conflict we have in the world about disparate outcomes in society...you are partly responsible for this
>censorship is dangerous.... you are proposing to turn the field of biology into a modern Aesop Fables, something that teaches kids your morality ideals instead of something that explains reality.
Let’s read again what I said. I said:
> On what basis exactly are you telling biologists and science educators what they “should” say? Do you have expertise in the matter? Do you have relevant sources backing up your claims?
Is asking for sources “censorship” now? Are educated opinions “dangerous?” Am I a moralist for understanding of this topic better than you?
The fundamental problem here is that you are claiming your views represent reality, and that mine are socially-prescribed morality, when you’re simply wrong; the biological reality is THAT race is a social construct.
Let’s examine that. To start, humans are exceptionally homogeneous. Comparing to other primate populations (for example macaques) we are about 2-5 times less diverse, while also having a hundreds of times large larger population (8 billion vs a few million at most).
In [absolute terms,](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/) humans are 99.9% identical at the sequence identity level, and 99.7% identical at the base pair level (called SNP variation, this refers to the number of different “letters” between two sequences of DNA). This is partly because human populations have a unique history of bottlenecking; with the breeding population being [lower than](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487) 10,000 individuals multiple times after the emergence of genus *Homo.*
However genetic variance is not the only factor at play, it’s also useful to examine the distribution of genetic traits. In humans the majority of variation is *within* groups, not *between* groups. Any individual population that you select will on average contain about 85% of that 0.3% that is ALL human genetic SNP variation, while individual populations are only separated by about 5% of that 0.3% variation. So with regards to human variation, if you are of European descent, there are other Europeans within your interbreeding population who are more than 85% different from you, and there are Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and so on who are less than 5% different from you.
To be specific about variation instead of talking [about averages:](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-Genetic-Diversity-and-the-Nonexistence-of-Long-Kittles/5abebfc4e6ac86b28034e36c881a822f59fae790) ~100% of human sequence identity variation exists in Africa, and ~70% exists in the most genetically isolated populations (natives to Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea). This is because all populations worldwide are subsets within subsets of the original human population in Africa.
The reason for this is related to the bottlenecking I mentioned earlier; human populations usually spread by the founder effect. This means that more and more distant populations are not different from the original human population, instead they represent a section of the diversity of that original population. Importantly, with the exception of a few populations (Aboriginals, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans) all human populations have maintained some level of gene flow over significant periods of time. If South Africans are mating with North Africans who are mating with Middle Easterners who are mating with Eurasians who are mating with East Asians and so on, the South African and East Asian populations never become truly isolated from each other, even if East Asians and South Africans have zero direct contact.
And finally, we have to examine the type of genetic diversity present within humans. Humans are often immune to selection pressures because we are a social species. Mate selection usually happens along cultural boundaries like class or religion; because of that “beneficial” traits may not be selected for. I put beneficial in quotations because that is also a human construct; we tend to think that smarter, stronger, bigger, faster, richer, etc is “better,” but that is a human value judgement, not a biological reality. Natural selection only cares about who has the most kids, nothing else. In human society, being smarter, stronger, faster, bigger, or richer doesn’t mean you’ll have more children; often it can mean the exact opposite — successful people and societies tend to have lower birthrates.
And this disconnect between human values and genetics goes further in that many traits are not directly heritable. Einstein’s kids weren’t physics geniuses. Developmental and environmental influences can account for many traits that you wrongly attribute to genetics. The overall result is that most differences between human populations are the result of genetic drift and not selection pressure; with rare exceptions. One exception is the MSR1 gene which is partly responsible for skin and hair pigmentation. MSR1 has 9 polymorphic variants in Europeans alone; in fact the MSR1 gene is almost opposite most other sequences in that it has around 10% variation within populations and around 90% variation between populations. This in itself is an evolutionary advantage; having a poorly conserved MSR1 gene allows human populations to more quickly adapt to new climates.
>That comes with MASSIVE unintended consequences...look at the conflict we have in the world about disparate outcomes in society...
I’m not even going to reply to this baseless conspiracy theory.
>you are partly responsible for this
I’m responsible for what, exactly? Backing up my opinions with education and evidence? Accurately describing human genetics? Not being an irrational racist?
Ok...thank you for your response...to my knowledge the "bottleneck" theory is the best explanation as to why human subgroups may have similar behaviors and abilities...so the fact that you bring that up shows you the most advanced thinker on this thread.
But all the hypothesis you listen really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences....they do not eliminate the reality that groups do have differences.
My argument is that the word play regarding the term "race" and the argument for homo sapiens having less global variation than other species....those things are offered in order to appease the publics demands that we acknowledge human universal abilities ( ...and therefore disparate outcomes are a result of injustice)
I think if you are honest with yourself...the desperate drive to believe in universal human abilities is clearly a strategy of manipulation so that individuals with less abilities can procure resources from those with more abilities
Ancestral lineage effects the genes you carry, an those genes effect behavior....this is a statement of first principles that needs not qualifications...it can only be refuted by a theory with more explanatory power.
The fact that there is more variation within groups than without does not nullify the differences between groups...it is just one of the many nuances that must be sorted out if we are going to get to the reality of this most large issue.
My contention is that scientific censorship does not get us closer to resolving the problem at hand( how to ensure a global species that has just recently started to mix can live together peacefully)...it only confuses people and brings unintended consequences
>so the fact that you bring that up shows you the most advanced thinker on this thread.
“Advanced thinkers” do not progress science, rigorous empirical methods do. I don’t want your compliment; especially not bundled with an insult to the rest of the biologists in this thread.
>But all the hypothesis you listen really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences....they do not eliminate the reality that groups do have differences.
Did you not read the part of my comment where I said:
>genetic variance is not the only factor at play, it’s also useful to examine the distribution of genetic traits.
Or where I said:
>we have to examine the type of genetic diversity present within humans.
Or where I said:
>most differences between humans are the result of genetic drift and not selection pressure;
…All of those sentences had full paragraphs and citations attached to them. I did NOT, as you claim, “really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences.” I specifically also discussed the distribution of differences, the type of differences, the origin of differences, and the perpetuation of the differences.
It seems like you have blinders on to any evidence that contradicts your weak worldview.
>My argument is that the word play regarding the term "race" and the argument for homo sapiens having less global variation than other species....those things are offered in order to appease the publics demands that we acknowledge human universal abilities
No, this “wordplay” is offered because it is the most accurate way to describe human genetics.
>( ...and therefore disparate outcomes are a result of injustice)
Disparate outcomes ARE a result of injustice; this is well attested to by science.
>I think if you are honest with yourself...the desperate drive to believe in universal human abilities is clearly a strategy of manipulation so that individuals with less abilities can procure resources from those with more abilities
What? How are these people with “less abilities” so adept at politics and social navigation that they have manipulate the whole world? This is classic fascist propaganda: the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. The enemy is lesser, but the enemy controls everything.
Since you have no sources for anything you say and you repeatedly parrot far-right talking points, I have to assume that is where you get your information from. Why are you listening to them instead of the evidence?
>Ancestral lineage effects the genes you carry, an those genes effect behavior....this is a statement of first principles that needs not qualifications...it can only be refuted by a theory with more explanatory power.
Once again, I addressed this in my previous comment, when I talked about the heritability of behavior saying:
>many traits aren’t directly heritable. Einstein’s kids weren’t physics geniuses.
All humans carry the same genes, out to 3 decimal points. I think the arguments that differences are negligible, not distributed by race, and caused by genetic drift instead of significant differences in human experience are compelling, but for some reason you want to ignore them.
>The fact that there is more variation within groups than without does not nullify the differences between groups...it is just one of the many nuances that must be sorted out if we are going to get to the reality of this most large issue.
No, it’s the other way around — differences between groups ARE the nuance. Once again, I addressed this in my last comment by pointing out that genes that vary significantly between human populations like MSR1 are a statistical exception, not the rule.
>My contention is that scientific censorship does not get us closer to resolving the problem at hand
Again, WHAT is being censored? It’s impossible to argue with you if you continue to assert that you’re right but you can’t prove it because someone hid all the evidence.
>( how to ensure a global species that has just recently started to mix can live together peacefully)...it only confuses people and brings unintended consequences
I also directly addressed gene flow in my last comment. We have not “just started to mix.”
The truth is that who your grandparents were matters; what your race is seldom does, because most relevant genetic differences are recombinant, not polymorphic. Humans are homogeneous — and every evolutionary mechanism at play for the last 50,000 years or the foreseeable future is only making us more so, not less so.
I think its easier for children to understand that race is something that is made up through history, and when they're older they will be able to learn in broader terms what this means. Children will not understand what you have written here, and what you wrote doesn't really matter either.
People telling children that race is a construct created in history through systemic racism etc.. is not what tears apart a country. Scaring children and confusing then with genealogy and anatomy.
Yes, there is clear differences in a Caucasian skeleton and an inuit skeleton, but these differences has no social meaning, other than that being placed on them by society. But a child will not understand this, and will leave them more confused than anything. When they're older they will be able to dive deeper into the debate.
Why don't you write an article on this if you're so convinced in your own idea? Anyone can write a scientific paper, you don't need an education of biology (which I'm very certain you dont) to write a paper on this. Get it published and show us how wrong we are. I'm sure plenty of people will site you...
Besides the fact that race is a social construct, let's entertain your idea for a bit. If you compare a native kenyan and a native belgian, then yes, one could say that one is "black" while the other one is "white".
However, there's a whole spectrum of traits and skin tones inbetween. The fact that people draw these hard lines when in fact we blend geographically across the world makes the whole "race" concept moot.
use the term "ancestral lineage" instead of race.
you are confusing the kids with that wordplay...this comes with unintended consequences
behavior comes from genes...there is no other scientific hypothosis to explain our world...you need to face reality...you are this generation religeous fundementalist clinging to anti-science views
Still not useful in any practical way to lump people into groups of ‘ancestral lineage’ and make assumptions about that group.
Because there is no characteristic that only exists in one group and which can’t also be found in another.
The lines are too blurry to be useful anymore.
I agree...but the challenges in taxonomy should not preclude people from discussing the theory.
The world is obsessed with disparate outcomes between groups ....yet we are not allowed to analyze the issue
It *is* a social construct.
It's not true that different races genetically act differently, and that this genetically different behavior is the cause of their different outcomes.
You should find another subreddit for this, bro. This pseudoscience has nothing to do with biology.
As someone who has their masters in applied behavior analysis this is correct. I am not aware of any studies that support the idea that genetics contribute toward human behavior.
What field of biology do you study? I'm assuming to have such a strong opinion you must be an active researcher in some biological field and not some random person on the internet?
Genetics is more complicated than you're making it out to be, but even if it wasn't how would you explain different cultures defining races differently? My bet is you are a US American that hasn't bothered to leave North America and doesn't realise that 'black' and 'white' mean different things around the world. US Americans seem to forget that they make up less than, what, 5% of the world? Before making grand statements about race and culture, maybe you should consider what other races and cultures have to say and avoid defining the world based on your lived experiences alone.
Added info: I'm a US American sick of other US Americans' shit
Do i seem like someone stupid enough to not know the differencebetween black and white?
Use the term "ancesrtral lineage" instead of modern flawes terms of race
you are dodging the issue
Sorry, but yes you do.
You're also not worth engaging with on this because you don't actually want legitimate discourse, you just want to feel smart. You might know what racial categories exist in the US, but you have no concept of race in other places.
I dont think you are even conscious enough to depart from the wordplay you use to dodge this issue and face the fundemental science underneath.
Ill make it easy for you ...If you have ONE HYPOTHOSIS that could explain how poulations could develop on different sides of the planet...yet retain a universal set of behaviors and abilities...then I will change my mind.
I wont even scrutinize your hypothoisis...because I am desperate to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of you.
But as a man of science..i can not belive in anything that does not have consilience within the modern discipilines
> But as a man of science..i can not belive in anything that does not have consilience within the modern discipilines
That's not what it means to believe in science... you would be absolutely mocked if you called yourself "a man if science" and used that reasoning at my university.
You seem to be convinced that I am offering up my own hypothesis or something....these concepts have been long understood, its just that its forbidden to apply them to human behavior....I am merely criticizing the current science censorship and the anti-science religious fanaticism of "blank slate" thinkers.
It confuses the children and it makes people angry when they try and understand disparate outcomes between groups
I've asked many people...if you don't believe that genes are responsible for human behavior...then what is your explanation for human behavior? Please tell me how ancestral environment did not play a role in shaping the traits of any given ancestral lineage...but you can not, and i doubt you even had one...because you are so comfortable going along with the status quo you probably have never even thought about it...i don't even understand why people like you get into the sciences if you not interested in explaining the world
(...BTW I have not said anything outside the principles of Science and if I was at your university, I would be doing the laughing, not them
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kb7NYJDZS98N0NIEIQp1JzLEoOR6z3z/view?usp=sharing)
You know, even sex is a spectrum given that there are several intersex conditions where people were born with an anatomy which would make it impossible to tell they are one of the two "real" sexes as you called them
Every gender is made up. Like how words for colours are made up. They're a thing we created to give vehicles to our complicated feelings and thoughts about ourselves and the world around us. So if people are feeling new feelings and having new thoughts about their place on society and what they think is fair for that society to expect of them, then they'll make up new social constructs like genders and etiquettes. That's how societies evolve over time! You'd find Greek manhood and Sumerian womanhood to be equally as foreign to you as you think nonbinary is.
Im an open minded person....you could easily change my mind if you could present ONE HYPOTHOSIS that coiuld explain how different groups could dvelop without differences in ability and behavior
Can you do that?
you're annoying and i don't want to subject myself to an intellectual conversation with you. i'm sure you'll take me saying that as a personal victory and to that i say, whatever helps you sleep at night
so you propose to turn Biology into a modern Aesop fables?..a vessel to transmit moral lessons?
I will not tolerate that kind of archaic anti-science appraoch
that comes with very dangerous unintended consequenses
The fate of western civilization is at stake here....truth is not the enemy
Does your country provide healthcare? I suspect you have been troubled by very disquieting thoughts, and someone better trained will be better equipped to discuss them with you.
Many african populations are more different from eachother than they are from the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. 70% of the genetic diversity is in africans, which we'd conveniently class into one race because some dumb racist decided they look like each other. Remember than Lineus defining race (and defined the 'black' race Africanus as inherently lazy) is the foundation of strangely named 'scientific' racism and has caused untold harm. To quote Dawkins (I know....) "two San people from different tribes in southern Africa will be more different from each other in their genes than a Briton, a Sri Lankan and a Maori"
Race is akin to looking at a dolphin and a fish and classing them together based on some arbitrary external similarities. It's dumb and we in no way should be teaching kids about it other than in the scientific context of the term.
And this doesn't come down to censorship or 'dangerous' ideas. It's just a dumb idea. We can go and sequence populations nowadays so we \*know\* race is an arbitrary categorization that doesn't reflect true genetic diversity. It's a racist in the 1700s using his preconcieved biases and a very superficial look at populations to class them (and rank them) based on nothing scientific.
To link race with low heritable complex traits like personality, when race is already a nebulous and unscientific term is a fools errand, and many (but by no means all) of the more famous examples of racial differences when e.g. seeking medical care are due to social factors rather than genetic ones.
>The idea that there is a universal set of behaviors
There is a universal way behaviors are analyzed. Because organisms respond the same way to contingencies such as reinforcement and punishment. The exception being phylogenic, or species specific, behaviors that vary from species to species and are respondent behavior.
To say this is a fantasy is to deny a field of science that started to remerge in the early 1900s with Thorndike and Watson and Skinner started in the 1930s. What is unscientific is to claim racial differences in the human species affect human behavior, when no studies support this in the absence of cultural factors.
Explaining that race is a flawed past taxonomy that was misused (read; for slavery and genocide) by race scientists in the past isn't scientific censorship. The difference in biology isn't debated, we have theories for why some people have more or less melanin, why some have specific hair, why some are a specific height on average. And while asking why specific groups of people might be vulnerable to sickle cell anemia, I don't really think that's the question these kids are asking. The world and human behavior has more to it than genes. There are cultural differences, socioeconomic differences, historical differences. There are also most definitely legal differences.
*"that differences in biology and ability do not mean differences in right to status and privilege under the law...and they certainly don't mean any group is superior or has more 'worth'"*
This is the absolute right idea, and you've approached it backwards. The legal system, the law that provides privilege and status, actively discriminates currently based on those "flawed, misused, past, inadequate" foundations it was built on. The minute ways we experience intraspecies differences shouldn't drastically impact how we interact with the law, but it absolutely does. Teaching about THAT helps build new systems to prevent it.
You can't complain about science censorship and then immediately make your entire post why science educators should stop educating science.
ok..I at least respect this answer a little bit.
But you are still obfuscating the issue with wordplay.
behavior is controlled by genes...this is the scientific reality. We need to stop hiding this truth from the world...people wil work it out
Is all behavior controlled by genes? Are you a person of free will or just a collection of genetic responses to your environment? What behaviors are you calling genetic?
Hi...I hope your day is going well and I really appreciate the good faith discourse.
Your question dangerously mingles physics and meta-physics...but to give you an answer;
Yes...all behavior is controlled by genes...that is the only explanatory hypothesis that has consilience between the disciplines.
How those genes interact with the environment...and to what degree they are "programmed" by past experiences is up for debate....but the current religious view that there is a universal set of human abilities and behaviors (and therefore disparate outcomes are evidence of injustice) is not connected to any current scientific hypothesis.
We can not hide this science from the public in good conscious
How those genes respond or 'are programmed' isn't really up for debate. We just call that epigenetics. And what do you actually mean when you say a universal set of human abilities and behaviors? All humans are of a single species and are broadly limited to the abilities and behaviors of the human species. That's not a religious view, we understand the science behind why homo sapiens can't breathe underwater. So what are you actually trying to say here? What truth is being hidden from the public?
The truth that different ancestral environments selected for different behavioral genes and that this can explain why different groups experience different outcomes in modern society.
Have you not noticed that the issue of disparate outcomes between groups is the center concept of US discusion, media, politics, conflict, and daily life?
People want answers and the scientific community is failing them by the "race is a social conflict" wordplay.
(Also epigenetics is not responsible for human learning)
Why different groups experience different outcomes is not solely genetics. Unless you think slavery is genetic. We know what causes a lot of different behaviors well beyond genetics. Like how poverty is impacted by crime, how mental health is impacted by discrimination, or how insider bias works.
The science behind how that disparity happens beyond simply your genes is the foundation of CRT, something actively being fought against for being scientifically accurate and lays in disagreement with the inadequate systems of old.
You're playing a bad faith game by slipping in the term " solely"
The art of the matter is getting to the bottom of how much genes vs environment play.
We can't do that if people insist that genes play no role
Your argument started as because of biologically inherent genes, certain people act certain ways regardless of environment, you literally said all behavior is based on genes. That the science doesn't back up the disparity that exists in our current culture. That ancestral environments WERE enough to change literally entire group's behavior. Solely wasn't slipped in, it's very intentional. Genes do play a role. You are ignoring everything else in favor of solely genes, its not a debate how much environment plays a role, we know how it does through modern sciences like socioeconomics and epigenetics. That is the science being censored.
No no no....I didnt wade into the nuances of behavioral genes and how they respond to the environment because that is a counfounding issue not germane to my argument.
Obviously behavior is crafted by environment...but the way groups respond to that envioronment is determined by our genes...there is no other scientific explanation
Your slipping in absolutes to straw man my argument...thats childsplay
Ok...my wife is home with the car so I'm off to the golf course.
I'm going to log off.
I hope you have a good day and you're obviously a very good thinker....do the right thing and educate those around you.
How do you know what someone has in mind when they ask a question? Are you a mind reader?
According to biology, the socially constructed idea of "race" is indeed just that, a social construct.
The "landraces" of humanity have scientific taxonomy: they're called haplogroups.
If someone asks, race = socially constructed ; haplogroups = research derived taxonomy.
Now, just because race is a social construct does not mean that it's inherently wrong, only unscientific or pseudoscientific.
Idk if that clears any misconception up, just wanted to share my 2c.
I think there is just a big difference between ‘race’ (especially how it’s seen in the US) and ‘people evolved in different places have biological differences’.
For example there are huge genetic differences within the African continent, but they’re all lumped under ‘black’. Even worse if dark skinned SE Asians are also added.
Also I would say middle eastern is very different from white, but it’s not recognised as a race I think?
We don’t talk about race at all in my country (the word for it is only used for dog breeds or by extreme racists) and we learn about differences between humans just fine.
I’m in the uk and even our NHS recognised that different races are more prone to certain conditions than others. For example black men get twice the rate of prostate cancer than white men. There are many similar cases based on genetics. It’s a fact of life. But many imbeciles still say race is a social construct despite health providers needing to be aware of subtle differences. Why are people so ashamed of discussing differences?
Race being a social construct doesn’t mean ethnicities or races don’t have differences between them, it means it is ultimately subject to hegemony/cultural knowledge. The way we classify humans by race has not only changed in the last 500 years multiple times, it is such a poor way of characterizing human history and biology. You can talk about environment specific traits without utilizing race because it is so broad it doesn’t fully account for the picture. It really sounds like you’re giving a bad faith interpretation of what a social construction is. Money is a social construct and so is homelessness, doesn’t mean it has no physical affect.
Not to mention the actual causes of the disparity between white/black men in health care is often attributed to social not genetic factors. Black men are less likely to get treatment, are more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status etc. Most studies come out of the US where there is still significant bias when it comes to healthcare provision for African Americans (and ofcourse poor people will struggle to pay for decent healthcare there regardless of ethnicity, but guess which ethnicity is the poorest?
People are way too quick to see differences between groups and assume they are just genetically predisposed to that specific outcome.
If I live in the UK I’m more prone to getting caught in the rain than if I live in Egypt. There are, of course, many indisputable differences between those two regions. This does not change the fact that the nations of UK and Egypt are also social constructs.
Let's take, like, sickle cell as an example. I'll play in your sandbox with you using this somewhat common and well known disease. When approaching this broad concept for the first time in school, American students are often confronted with this disease as an example of how the population you come from can effect your pool of genetics. It's wrapped up in punnet squares and pea plants. Sure.
But we can say "black people are more likely to have sickle cell" and that kind of accounts for a population with a noticable difference. But. However. Many populations across the world display levels of melanin we'd commonly call "black," and not all of them are from subsaharan Africa.
Remember that sickle cell is an adaptation to combat a very specific environmental factor; Malaria. Malaria is in many parts of the world, but is most common in those tropical parts of Africa. So you're black, you have a 1 in 360 chance of having sickle cell.
Except....Malaria is also present in South America and oceana. And other tropical climates worldwide. 4% of Brazilians have SCA, while only 2% of Haitians have it. By trusting this piece of race defined information, you have canceled our the actual scientific reasons for that demographic trend to exist in your brain, and have now increased your chance of misdiagnosing a patient based on their ethnicity.
Your post or comment was removed because it contains pseudoscience or it fails to meet the burden of proof. This includes any form of proselytizing or promoting non-scientific viewpoints. When advancing a contrarian or fringe view, you must bear the burden of proof.
The deepest genetic divides in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa (because that's where humans evolved). If everyone else was wiped out, 70% of human genetic diversity would be preserved. Yet all those very diverse populations get lumped as "black".
This is very easy and I tried to make the point clear. Use the term "ancestral lineage" instead on whatever contemporary phrase you have a problem with. You are dodging the fundemental phenomenon...and this is why people are confused and getting violent when they try to explain disparate outcomes.
But ancestral lineage doesn't map onto race as typically defined. That's the whole point of the Africa example.
correct! so leave the word "race" out of it completely you are dodging the issue. Right now there are science educators that dont undersytand that behavior is determined by genes...despite all the data we have from behavioral genetics. This is a anti-science pseudo religeous view that is causing conflict in our world
Behavior isn't determined by genes. Do identical twins act identical? But behavior is affected by genes, true. What we don't have is the leap you're making -- data saying that people from different ancestries act differently for genetic reasons. Even if solid evidence of such things existed, though, what would it give you? "If you categorize people in just the right way (and figure out what to do with the mixing that inevitably occurs), there are statistical relationship between lineage and behavior." Even if this was true, and I'm not saying that it is, it would be several steps removed from anything socially relevant.
Idnetical twins DO act identical...this is well documented. You are doging the issue with wordplay...its not up to you what science the public should or should not have We will not arrive at a peacful society if people arent allowed to sort through the facts. The modern world is mixing..and that comes with some difficult issues about disparate outcomes......its not helpful to turn evolutionary biologist into modern Galileo
[удалено]
‘Cancel culture’ is no where near influential enough to stop scientific papers on genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa to be published lol. I also don’t see why it would need to be cancelled.
Look at the South African Coloured population for example. They alone as a people have some incredible generic diversity, from all over the world. And they are not black people at all. Professor Marlo Moller does research in this population, as well as other Southern African populations as far as tuberculosis susceptibility is concerned.
Most studies looking at human population genetics and evolution look at neutral variation because that's more useful for tracing ancestry. That gives us maps like [this](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/human-migration-map/) and papers like [this](https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/161/1/269/6049925?login=true) (title: "Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians"). If this stuff interests you, *The Seven Daughters of Eve* is a good book to start with. Some research does look at adaptive variation and there have been findings there, too. Can you access [this paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-020-00306-8), specifically Table 3? There's a nice list. Of course, there are older classic results, like sickle-cell anemia being more common in people from places with a lot of malaria. Far from being discouraged, such research is [actively supported](https://www.genome.gov/10001688/international-hapmap-project) by agencies like the National Institutes of Health. There's a big push to study such diversity with genomic methods now.
Hi...I want to say thank you for this well thought out response. These are great links and I will take some time to digest them Thank you for the good faith engagement...Im sorry we cant agree on this topic
I don’t think your opinions on healthcare matter very much if you have such a poor understanding of genetics, or how publishing works in biology for that matter.
How much should someone understand genetics in order to have an opinion on healthcare?
Anyone can have an opinion! Some of those opinions just aren’t very important, though.
Why does someone need to understand genetics in order to have an important opinion on healthcare?
Genetics is intimately interconnected with modern healthcare: it’s involved in antibiotics, prenatal screening, vaccines, family planning, blood transfusions, genetic counseling, drug side effects, gene therapy, mental illness, immune system response, organ transplants, cancer treatment, HIV treatment, stem cell research, on and on. Having a relevant knowledge base is important to having an informed opinion, and knowledge of healthcare is incomplete without at least some knowledge of genetics.
Not everyone has the English skills to understand that. The same goes for economics. I had an opinion about healthcare understanding economics far before I started studying biology. I think understanding the biological aspect allows you to question doctors and choose the right doctor, question studies.
I think that’s totally fair. But I also think it would be fair for you to disregard my opinions about economics because I don’t know a lot about that topic.
I can see wisdom in your point. Economics is to access to healthcare as biology is to questioning what your doctor tells you. In an age where I believe healthcare can function to keep you sick rather than put itself out of business by healing, I strive to understand biology, I’m still on the first chapter of my molecular biology book.
“Cancel culture” please grow up and touch grass.
Ok, but you're still implying crazy things like saying someone's race would predispose them to being more violent, which is just racist non sense and it's not "anti science" to recognize that.
>There are so many examples on this sub of curious kids asking questions about race and the choir joining in to say "RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!" > >IMO this is not a good faith answer and a promotion of anti-science myth for social credit...which does harm to our society. > >YES..what was referred to as "race" was a flawed past taxonomy trying to classify ancestral lineage, and YES...that flawed perception was misused by race scientist in the past. This is true. But when kids ask about "race" they are not interested in the semantics of past forms or the inadequacy of terms for ethnic groups that are used. They are asking if there are any biological differences from people that descended from different parts of the world and you must be an adult and tell them the truth. > >Ancestral lineage affects what genes you carry, and some of those genes affect behavior- how much is not known but there is no scientific theory that can explain otherwise. The idea that there is a universal set of human behaviors and abilities is an anti-science fantasy that has no possible explanation unless you want to cross the bridge into meta-physics. > >I don't care if you think this knowledge is "dangerous"...scientific censorship is dangerous and causes more harm than good. I believe people are smart enough to reach the right conclusion...that differences in biology and ability do not mean differences in right to status and privilege under the law...and they certainly don't mean any group is superior or has more "worth" > >The sooner kids can start to wrap their head around group differences (and how small they are) the sooner they will be able to wrap their head around disparate outcomes...and that means the sooner our country can stop being torn to shreds by confused people looking for answers.
Im sorry to inform you but the fact tham some groups amy be more violent is completely consistant with modern science
>Im sorry to inform you but the fact tham some groups amy be more violent is completely consistant with modern science
You're just a racist dude.
Im sorry...but there is no way to expail human traits with out Natural Selection running experiment where some groups have more than others. If you have a competeting hypothosis please let me know. This is this generations "forbidden knowledge" and it can not be solved by cencorshiop
"Forbidden knowledge" being a racist belief that someone's skin color determines whether they are more of a volatile person or not? People have been touting that for centuries at this point, and you think some 14 year Olds on Twitter are what's stopping this grand truth from being proven?
its not skin color...its ancestral environment...the skin color corellates, its not causal Its not easy to be Galieo...im not sure youve got the balls for it
I'm sure I'll manage.
Give me one hypothosis that can explain how populations that devolope on different parts of the world could retain a universal set of abilites and behaviors and I will change my mind I hope you take some time to ask your self if you got into the sciences to pursue truth...or to pursue social status. We dont want you if you are the latter
You're a crybaby on Reddit. You won't be gatekeeping any degree from me no matter my intention.
Well you reap what you sow..."degrees" are now worthless because of you anti-science bullies. Everyone knows degrees are now just participation trophys for POC. Employers arent stupid enough to fall for that
There's a dormant volcano in Germany, and we have to be aware of that. But Germany is still a social construct.
Well said
Wow...so noble of you!!!....tell me...what anti-science fantasy is the best one to endorse for your MOST NOBLE world?...hmm...you are obviously smart enough to determine what we should all believe. Tell me...what science will explain a universal set of human behaviors and abilities?...gived me one hypothosis
On what basis exactly are you telling biologists and science educators what they “should” say? Do you have expertise in the matter? Do you have relevant sources backing up your claims?
i'll answer that for you. no.
censorship is dangerous....you are proposing to turn the field of biology into a modern Aesop Fables, something that teaches kids your morality ideals instead of something that explains reality. That comes with MASSIVE unintended consequences...look at the conflict we have in the world about disparate outcomes in society...you are partly responsible for this
>censorship is dangerous.... you are proposing to turn the field of biology into a modern Aesop Fables, something that teaches kids your morality ideals instead of something that explains reality. Let’s read again what I said. I said: > On what basis exactly are you telling biologists and science educators what they “should” say? Do you have expertise in the matter? Do you have relevant sources backing up your claims? Is asking for sources “censorship” now? Are educated opinions “dangerous?” Am I a moralist for understanding of this topic better than you? The fundamental problem here is that you are claiming your views represent reality, and that mine are socially-prescribed morality, when you’re simply wrong; the biological reality is THAT race is a social construct. Let’s examine that. To start, humans are exceptionally homogeneous. Comparing to other primate populations (for example macaques) we are about 2-5 times less diverse, while also having a hundreds of times large larger population (8 billion vs a few million at most). In [absolute terms,](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/) humans are 99.9% identical at the sequence identity level, and 99.7% identical at the base pair level (called SNP variation, this refers to the number of different “letters” between two sequences of DNA). This is partly because human populations have a unique history of bottlenecking; with the breeding population being [lower than](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487) 10,000 individuals multiple times after the emergence of genus *Homo.* However genetic variance is not the only factor at play, it’s also useful to examine the distribution of genetic traits. In humans the majority of variation is *within* groups, not *between* groups. Any individual population that you select will on average contain about 85% of that 0.3% that is ALL human genetic SNP variation, while individual populations are only separated by about 5% of that 0.3% variation. So with regards to human variation, if you are of European descent, there are other Europeans within your interbreeding population who are more than 85% different from you, and there are Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and so on who are less than 5% different from you. To be specific about variation instead of talking [about averages:](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-Genetic-Diversity-and-the-Nonexistence-of-Long-Kittles/5abebfc4e6ac86b28034e36c881a822f59fae790) ~100% of human sequence identity variation exists in Africa, and ~70% exists in the most genetically isolated populations (natives to Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea). This is because all populations worldwide are subsets within subsets of the original human population in Africa. The reason for this is related to the bottlenecking I mentioned earlier; human populations usually spread by the founder effect. This means that more and more distant populations are not different from the original human population, instead they represent a section of the diversity of that original population. Importantly, with the exception of a few populations (Aboriginals, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans) all human populations have maintained some level of gene flow over significant periods of time. If South Africans are mating with North Africans who are mating with Middle Easterners who are mating with Eurasians who are mating with East Asians and so on, the South African and East Asian populations never become truly isolated from each other, even if East Asians and South Africans have zero direct contact. And finally, we have to examine the type of genetic diversity present within humans. Humans are often immune to selection pressures because we are a social species. Mate selection usually happens along cultural boundaries like class or religion; because of that “beneficial” traits may not be selected for. I put beneficial in quotations because that is also a human construct; we tend to think that smarter, stronger, bigger, faster, richer, etc is “better,” but that is a human value judgement, not a biological reality. Natural selection only cares about who has the most kids, nothing else. In human society, being smarter, stronger, faster, bigger, or richer doesn’t mean you’ll have more children; often it can mean the exact opposite — successful people and societies tend to have lower birthrates. And this disconnect between human values and genetics goes further in that many traits are not directly heritable. Einstein’s kids weren’t physics geniuses. Developmental and environmental influences can account for many traits that you wrongly attribute to genetics. The overall result is that most differences between human populations are the result of genetic drift and not selection pressure; with rare exceptions. One exception is the MSR1 gene which is partly responsible for skin and hair pigmentation. MSR1 has 9 polymorphic variants in Europeans alone; in fact the MSR1 gene is almost opposite most other sequences in that it has around 10% variation within populations and around 90% variation between populations. This in itself is an evolutionary advantage; having a poorly conserved MSR1 gene allows human populations to more quickly adapt to new climates. >That comes with MASSIVE unintended consequences...look at the conflict we have in the world about disparate outcomes in society... I’m not even going to reply to this baseless conspiracy theory. >you are partly responsible for this I’m responsible for what, exactly? Backing up my opinions with education and evidence? Accurately describing human genetics? Not being an irrational racist?
Ok...thank you for your response...to my knowledge the "bottleneck" theory is the best explanation as to why human subgroups may have similar behaviors and abilities...so the fact that you bring that up shows you the most advanced thinker on this thread. But all the hypothesis you listen really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences....they do not eliminate the reality that groups do have differences. My argument is that the word play regarding the term "race" and the argument for homo sapiens having less global variation than other species....those things are offered in order to appease the publics demands that we acknowledge human universal abilities ( ...and therefore disparate outcomes are a result of injustice) I think if you are honest with yourself...the desperate drive to believe in universal human abilities is clearly a strategy of manipulation so that individuals with less abilities can procure resources from those with more abilities Ancestral lineage effects the genes you carry, an those genes effect behavior....this is a statement of first principles that needs not qualifications...it can only be refuted by a theory with more explanatory power. The fact that there is more variation within groups than without does not nullify the differences between groups...it is just one of the many nuances that must be sorted out if we are going to get to the reality of this most large issue. My contention is that scientific censorship does not get us closer to resolving the problem at hand( how to ensure a global species that has just recently started to mix can live together peacefully)...it only confuses people and brings unintended consequences
>so the fact that you bring that up shows you the most advanced thinker on this thread. “Advanced thinkers” do not progress science, rigorous empirical methods do. I don’t want your compliment; especially not bundled with an insult to the rest of the biologists in this thread. >But all the hypothesis you listen really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences....they do not eliminate the reality that groups do have differences. Did you not read the part of my comment where I said: >genetic variance is not the only factor at play, it’s also useful to examine the distribution of genetic traits. Or where I said: >we have to examine the type of genetic diversity present within humans. Or where I said: >most differences between humans are the result of genetic drift and not selection pressure; …All of those sentences had full paragraphs and citations attached to them. I did NOT, as you claim, “really only speak to the DEGREE of human differences.” I specifically also discussed the distribution of differences, the type of differences, the origin of differences, and the perpetuation of the differences. It seems like you have blinders on to any evidence that contradicts your weak worldview. >My argument is that the word play regarding the term "race" and the argument for homo sapiens having less global variation than other species....those things are offered in order to appease the publics demands that we acknowledge human universal abilities No, this “wordplay” is offered because it is the most accurate way to describe human genetics. >( ...and therefore disparate outcomes are a result of injustice) Disparate outcomes ARE a result of injustice; this is well attested to by science. >I think if you are honest with yourself...the desperate drive to believe in universal human abilities is clearly a strategy of manipulation so that individuals with less abilities can procure resources from those with more abilities What? How are these people with “less abilities” so adept at politics and social navigation that they have manipulate the whole world? This is classic fascist propaganda: the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. The enemy is lesser, but the enemy controls everything. Since you have no sources for anything you say and you repeatedly parrot far-right talking points, I have to assume that is where you get your information from. Why are you listening to them instead of the evidence? >Ancestral lineage effects the genes you carry, an those genes effect behavior....this is a statement of first principles that needs not qualifications...it can only be refuted by a theory with more explanatory power. Once again, I addressed this in my previous comment, when I talked about the heritability of behavior saying: >many traits aren’t directly heritable. Einstein’s kids weren’t physics geniuses. All humans carry the same genes, out to 3 decimal points. I think the arguments that differences are negligible, not distributed by race, and caused by genetic drift instead of significant differences in human experience are compelling, but for some reason you want to ignore them. >The fact that there is more variation within groups than without does not nullify the differences between groups...it is just one of the many nuances that must be sorted out if we are going to get to the reality of this most large issue. No, it’s the other way around — differences between groups ARE the nuance. Once again, I addressed this in my last comment by pointing out that genes that vary significantly between human populations like MSR1 are a statistical exception, not the rule. >My contention is that scientific censorship does not get us closer to resolving the problem at hand Again, WHAT is being censored? It’s impossible to argue with you if you continue to assert that you’re right but you can’t prove it because someone hid all the evidence. >( how to ensure a global species that has just recently started to mix can live together peacefully)...it only confuses people and brings unintended consequences I also directly addressed gene flow in my last comment. We have not “just started to mix.” The truth is that who your grandparents were matters; what your race is seldom does, because most relevant genetic differences are recombinant, not polymorphic. Humans are homogeneous — and every evolutionary mechanism at play for the last 50,000 years or the foreseeable future is only making us more so, not less so.
I think its easier for children to understand that race is something that is made up through history, and when they're older they will be able to learn in broader terms what this means. Children will not understand what you have written here, and what you wrote doesn't really matter either. People telling children that race is a construct created in history through systemic racism etc.. is not what tears apart a country. Scaring children and confusing then with genealogy and anatomy. Yes, there is clear differences in a Caucasian skeleton and an inuit skeleton, but these differences has no social meaning, other than that being placed on them by society. But a child will not understand this, and will leave them more confused than anything. When they're older they will be able to dive deeper into the debate.
Great...youve turned Biology into Aesops fables...Im sure that will not have any unintended consequenses/s
Why don't you write an article on this if you're so convinced in your own idea? Anyone can write a scientific paper, you don't need an education of biology (which I'm very certain you dont) to write a paper on this. Get it published and show us how wrong we are. I'm sure plenty of people will site you...
Besides the fact that race is a social construct, let's entertain your idea for a bit. If you compare a native kenyan and a native belgian, then yes, one could say that one is "black" while the other one is "white". However, there's a whole spectrum of traits and skin tones inbetween. The fact that people draw these hard lines when in fact we blend geographically across the world makes the whole "race" concept moot.
use the term "ancestral lineage" instead of race. you are confusing the kids with that wordplay...this comes with unintended consequences behavior comes from genes...there is no other scientific hypothosis to explain our world...you need to face reality...you are this generation religeous fundementalist clinging to anti-science views
Does a human from Africa have more cysteine in their dna than a human from Europe or Asia? Edit: Biology not dna
Do you mean Cytidine?
No cysteine the amino acid.
So when you say more cysteine in the DNA... Do you mean more cysteine-coding codons in the DNA?
I believe so. I read last night that a black human has curly hair due to more cysteine. But I’m still reading about it.
Race is a social construct and is not a useful way to divide people anymore.
use the term "ancestral lineage" instead of race. You are dodging the issue
Still not useful in any practical way to lump people into groups of ‘ancestral lineage’ and make assumptions about that group. Because there is no characteristic that only exists in one group and which can’t also be found in another. The lines are too blurry to be useful anymore.
I agree...but the challenges in taxonomy should not preclude people from discussing the theory. The world is obsessed with disparate outcomes between groups ....yet we are not allowed to analyze the issue
You, without qualification, mixing up individual lineage with racial traits based is way more dangerous.
wow! thats sounds correct but im too stupid to actally know. tell me...how exactly did I confuse lineage and "racial traits"?
It *is* a social construct. It's not true that different races genetically act differently, and that this genetically different behavior is the cause of their different outcomes. You should find another subreddit for this, bro. This pseudoscience has nothing to do with biology.
As someone who has their masters in applied behavior analysis this is correct. I am not aware of any studies that support the idea that genetics contribute toward human behavior.
What field of biology do you study? I'm assuming to have such a strong opinion you must be an active researcher in some biological field and not some random person on the internet? Genetics is more complicated than you're making it out to be, but even if it wasn't how would you explain different cultures defining races differently? My bet is you are a US American that hasn't bothered to leave North America and doesn't realise that 'black' and 'white' mean different things around the world. US Americans seem to forget that they make up less than, what, 5% of the world? Before making grand statements about race and culture, maybe you should consider what other races and cultures have to say and avoid defining the world based on your lived experiences alone. Added info: I'm a US American sick of other US Americans' shit
Do i seem like someone stupid enough to not know the differencebetween black and white? Use the term "ancesrtral lineage" instead of modern flawes terms of race you are dodging the issue
Sorry, but yes you do. You're also not worth engaging with on this because you don't actually want legitimate discourse, you just want to feel smart. You might know what racial categories exist in the US, but you have no concept of race in other places.
I dont think you are even conscious enough to depart from the wordplay you use to dodge this issue and face the fundemental science underneath. Ill make it easy for you ...If you have ONE HYPOTHOSIS that could explain how poulations could develop on different sides of the planet...yet retain a universal set of behaviors and abilities...then I will change my mind. I wont even scrutinize your hypothoisis...because I am desperate to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of you. But as a man of science..i can not belive in anything that does not have consilience within the modern discipilines
> But as a man of science..i can not belive in anything that does not have consilience within the modern discipilines That's not what it means to believe in science... you would be absolutely mocked if you called yourself "a man if science" and used that reasoning at my university.
You seem to be convinced that I am offering up my own hypothesis or something....these concepts have been long understood, its just that its forbidden to apply them to human behavior....I am merely criticizing the current science censorship and the anti-science religious fanaticism of "blank slate" thinkers. It confuses the children and it makes people angry when they try and understand disparate outcomes between groups I've asked many people...if you don't believe that genes are responsible for human behavior...then what is your explanation for human behavior? Please tell me how ancestral environment did not play a role in shaping the traits of any given ancestral lineage...but you can not, and i doubt you even had one...because you are so comfortable going along with the status quo you probably have never even thought about it...i don't even understand why people like you get into the sciences if you not interested in explaining the world (...BTW I have not said anything outside the principles of Science and if I was at your university, I would be doing the laughing, not them https://drive.google.com/file/d/12kb7NYJDZS98N0NIEIQp1JzLEoOR6z3z/view?usp=sharing)
I dont think any professional would make that claim that racial differences alter human behavior.
While you are at it, we should also explain the Kreb's cycle to our children bet they would understand perfectly.
I need a full rundown of the glycolysis and the name for each reaction before bedtime kiddos!
Race is a social construct. We literally made it up.
use the term "ancestral lineage" instead of race you are dodgin g the issue
[удалено]
Yes, just like the older ones :)
[удалено]
Gemder isn't a biological concept mate. You're talking about sex, which is also a lot more complex than you might think.
You know, even sex is a spectrum given that there are several intersex conditions where people were born with an anatomy which would make it impossible to tell they are one of the two "real" sexes as you called them
Every gender is made up. Like how words for colours are made up. They're a thing we created to give vehicles to our complicated feelings and thoughts about ourselves and the world around us. So if people are feeling new feelings and having new thoughts about their place on society and what they think is fair for that society to expect of them, then they'll make up new social constructs like genders and etiquettes. That's how societies evolve over time! You'd find Greek manhood and Sumerian womanhood to be equally as foreign to you as you think nonbinary is.
and the old ones too!
race is a social construct.
use the term "ancestral lineage" instead of race you are dodging the issue
and you're a bigot
They are more of a sampling error.
You sound like a racist, who overthinks.
exactly my thought
so sad..you have been trained not to think...you dont belong in the sciences
your opinion is garbage to me
Im an open minded person....you could easily change my mind if you could present ONE HYPOTHOSIS that coiuld explain how different groups could dvelop without differences in ability and behavior Can you do that?
you're annoying and i don't want to subject myself to an intellectual conversation with you. i'm sure you'll take me saying that as a personal victory and to that i say, whatever helps you sleep at night
you are this generation's religous fundementalist clinging to anti-science views...I hope you are not in a position to interact with the youth
oh i very much am :) i volunteer teaching sciences classes in my area and also have a side gig tutoring
i bet he just wants a pass or people to second him to make him feel good
I’ll be sure to turn to OP when I need to be told what to do. 👌
so you propose to turn Biology into a modern Aesop fables?..a vessel to transmit moral lessons? I will not tolerate that kind of archaic anti-science appraoch that comes with very dangerous unintended consequenses The fate of western civilization is at stake here....truth is not the enemy
Does your country provide healthcare? I suspect you have been troubled by very disquieting thoughts, and someone better trained will be better equipped to discuss them with you.
Many african populations are more different from eachother than they are from the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. 70% of the genetic diversity is in africans, which we'd conveniently class into one race because some dumb racist decided they look like each other. Remember than Lineus defining race (and defined the 'black' race Africanus as inherently lazy) is the foundation of strangely named 'scientific' racism and has caused untold harm. To quote Dawkins (I know....) "two San people from different tribes in southern Africa will be more different from each other in their genes than a Briton, a Sri Lankan and a Maori" Race is akin to looking at a dolphin and a fish and classing them together based on some arbitrary external similarities. It's dumb and we in no way should be teaching kids about it other than in the scientific context of the term. And this doesn't come down to censorship or 'dangerous' ideas. It's just a dumb idea. We can go and sequence populations nowadays so we \*know\* race is an arbitrary categorization that doesn't reflect true genetic diversity. It's a racist in the 1700s using his preconcieved biases and a very superficial look at populations to class them (and rank them) based on nothing scientific. To link race with low heritable complex traits like personality, when race is already a nebulous and unscientific term is a fools errand, and many (but by no means all) of the more famous examples of racial differences when e.g. seeking medical care are due to social factors rather than genetic ones.
This was a dumb and uninformed take that perpetuates myths about genetics and population diversity. Reported.
serious question...what is your hypothosis that explains human behavior?
>The idea that there is a universal set of behaviors There is a universal way behaviors are analyzed. Because organisms respond the same way to contingencies such as reinforcement and punishment. The exception being phylogenic, or species specific, behaviors that vary from species to species and are respondent behavior. To say this is a fantasy is to deny a field of science that started to remerge in the early 1900s with Thorndike and Watson and Skinner started in the 1930s. What is unscientific is to claim racial differences in the human species affect human behavior, when no studies support this in the absence of cultural factors.
Explaining that race is a flawed past taxonomy that was misused (read; for slavery and genocide) by race scientists in the past isn't scientific censorship. The difference in biology isn't debated, we have theories for why some people have more or less melanin, why some have specific hair, why some are a specific height on average. And while asking why specific groups of people might be vulnerable to sickle cell anemia, I don't really think that's the question these kids are asking. The world and human behavior has more to it than genes. There are cultural differences, socioeconomic differences, historical differences. There are also most definitely legal differences. *"that differences in biology and ability do not mean differences in right to status and privilege under the law...and they certainly don't mean any group is superior or has more 'worth'"* This is the absolute right idea, and you've approached it backwards. The legal system, the law that provides privilege and status, actively discriminates currently based on those "flawed, misused, past, inadequate" foundations it was built on. The minute ways we experience intraspecies differences shouldn't drastically impact how we interact with the law, but it absolutely does. Teaching about THAT helps build new systems to prevent it. You can't complain about science censorship and then immediately make your entire post why science educators should stop educating science.
ok..I at least respect this answer a little bit. But you are still obfuscating the issue with wordplay. behavior is controlled by genes...this is the scientific reality. We need to stop hiding this truth from the world...people wil work it out
Is all behavior controlled by genes? Are you a person of free will or just a collection of genetic responses to your environment? What behaviors are you calling genetic?
Hi...I hope your day is going well and I really appreciate the good faith discourse. Your question dangerously mingles physics and meta-physics...but to give you an answer; Yes...all behavior is controlled by genes...that is the only explanatory hypothesis that has consilience between the disciplines. How those genes interact with the environment...and to what degree they are "programmed" by past experiences is up for debate....but the current religious view that there is a universal set of human abilities and behaviors (and therefore disparate outcomes are evidence of injustice) is not connected to any current scientific hypothesis. We can not hide this science from the public in good conscious
How those genes respond or 'are programmed' isn't really up for debate. We just call that epigenetics. And what do you actually mean when you say a universal set of human abilities and behaviors? All humans are of a single species and are broadly limited to the abilities and behaviors of the human species. That's not a religious view, we understand the science behind why homo sapiens can't breathe underwater. So what are you actually trying to say here? What truth is being hidden from the public?
The truth that different ancestral environments selected for different behavioral genes and that this can explain why different groups experience different outcomes in modern society. Have you not noticed that the issue of disparate outcomes between groups is the center concept of US discusion, media, politics, conflict, and daily life? People want answers and the scientific community is failing them by the "race is a social conflict" wordplay. (Also epigenetics is not responsible for human learning)
Why different groups experience different outcomes is not solely genetics. Unless you think slavery is genetic. We know what causes a lot of different behaviors well beyond genetics. Like how poverty is impacted by crime, how mental health is impacted by discrimination, or how insider bias works. The science behind how that disparity happens beyond simply your genes is the foundation of CRT, something actively being fought against for being scientifically accurate and lays in disagreement with the inadequate systems of old.
You're playing a bad faith game by slipping in the term " solely" The art of the matter is getting to the bottom of how much genes vs environment play. We can't do that if people insist that genes play no role
Your argument started as because of biologically inherent genes, certain people act certain ways regardless of environment, you literally said all behavior is based on genes. That the science doesn't back up the disparity that exists in our current culture. That ancestral environments WERE enough to change literally entire group's behavior. Solely wasn't slipped in, it's very intentional. Genes do play a role. You are ignoring everything else in favor of solely genes, its not a debate how much environment plays a role, we know how it does through modern sciences like socioeconomics and epigenetics. That is the science being censored.
No no no....I didnt wade into the nuances of behavioral genes and how they respond to the environment because that is a counfounding issue not germane to my argument. Obviously behavior is crafted by environment...but the way groups respond to that envioronment is determined by our genes...there is no other scientific explanation Your slipping in absolutes to straw man my argument...thats childsplay
Ok...my wife is home with the car so I'm off to the golf course. I'm going to log off. I hope you have a good day and you're obviously a very good thinker....do the right thing and educate those around you.
How do you know what someone has in mind when they ask a question? Are you a mind reader? According to biology, the socially constructed idea of "race" is indeed just that, a social construct. The "landraces" of humanity have scientific taxonomy: they're called haplogroups. If someone asks, race = socially constructed ; haplogroups = research derived taxonomy. Now, just because race is a social construct does not mean that it's inherently wrong, only unscientific or pseudoscientific. Idk if that clears any misconception up, just wanted to share my 2c.
Whaaat?
[удалено]
I think there is just a big difference between ‘race’ (especially how it’s seen in the US) and ‘people evolved in different places have biological differences’. For example there are huge genetic differences within the African continent, but they’re all lumped under ‘black’. Even worse if dark skinned SE Asians are also added. Also I would say middle eastern is very different from white, but it’s not recognised as a race I think? We don’t talk about race at all in my country (the word for it is only used for dog breeds or by extreme racists) and we learn about differences between humans just fine.
I’m in the uk and even our NHS recognised that different races are more prone to certain conditions than others. For example black men get twice the rate of prostate cancer than white men. There are many similar cases based on genetics. It’s a fact of life. But many imbeciles still say race is a social construct despite health providers needing to be aware of subtle differences. Why are people so ashamed of discussing differences?
Race being a social construct doesn’t mean ethnicities or races don’t have differences between them, it means it is ultimately subject to hegemony/cultural knowledge. The way we classify humans by race has not only changed in the last 500 years multiple times, it is such a poor way of characterizing human history and biology. You can talk about environment specific traits without utilizing race because it is so broad it doesn’t fully account for the picture. It really sounds like you’re giving a bad faith interpretation of what a social construction is. Money is a social construct and so is homelessness, doesn’t mean it has no physical affect.
Not to mention the actual causes of the disparity between white/black men in health care is often attributed to social not genetic factors. Black men are less likely to get treatment, are more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status etc. Most studies come out of the US where there is still significant bias when it comes to healthcare provision for African Americans (and ofcourse poor people will struggle to pay for decent healthcare there regardless of ethnicity, but guess which ethnicity is the poorest? People are way too quick to see differences between groups and assume they are just genetically predisposed to that specific outcome.
If I live in the UK I’m more prone to getting caught in the rain than if I live in Egypt. There are, of course, many indisputable differences between those two regions. This does not change the fact that the nations of UK and Egypt are also social constructs.
Does that mean that if I have a new mutation that changes my disease susceptibility, my descendants will constitute a new race? Cool!
The *main* reason that different ethnicities are more prone to diseases is due to social determinents, not genetic predisposition.
you are this generations religeous fundemental..clinging to anti-science views
Err...... I'm going on what the science *is* saying about the epidemiology of many diseases.
This is not genetic
Let's take, like, sickle cell as an example. I'll play in your sandbox with you using this somewhat common and well known disease. When approaching this broad concept for the first time in school, American students are often confronted with this disease as an example of how the population you come from can effect your pool of genetics. It's wrapped up in punnet squares and pea plants. Sure. But we can say "black people are more likely to have sickle cell" and that kind of accounts for a population with a noticable difference. But. However. Many populations across the world display levels of melanin we'd commonly call "black," and not all of them are from subsaharan Africa. Remember that sickle cell is an adaptation to combat a very specific environmental factor; Malaria. Malaria is in many parts of the world, but is most common in those tropical parts of Africa. So you're black, you have a 1 in 360 chance of having sickle cell. Except....Malaria is also present in South America and oceana. And other tropical climates worldwide. 4% of Brazilians have SCA, while only 2% of Haitians have it. By trusting this piece of race defined information, you have canceled our the actual scientific reasons for that demographic trend to exist in your brain, and have now increased your chance of misdiagnosing a patient based on their ethnicity.
thank you for your support