How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
79 comments
David is arguably the the most influential geneticist alive today. In my opinion he is plenty well qualified to discuss this topic. And, absolutely nowhere in the piece does he say anything to the effect of "achievement and behavior is strongly genetic". I really don't get your second paragraph at all.
The entire second half of the piece rebuts the implicit notion that there is little science to support a genetic relationship between races and intelligence. But: there is little science to support a genetic relationship between races and intelligence.
Has Reich published significantly on neurogenetics?
Has Reich published significantly on neurogenetics?
The negation of “there is little science to support a genetic relationship between races and intelligence” is not “achievement and behavior is strongly genetic”. I suggest you learn about heritability. And yes, he has published extensively on the genetic risk factors of MS.
This concept of a "race", in terms of genetics, makes sense for classification purposes, just like all taxonomical classifications of living things.
The difference here, is that people are taking this genetic concept of "race" and trying to prove their racist points, which always misses the point entirely. It would be a non-issue if the word "race" wasn't so politically charged.
Quick edit for 2 easy examples: People with African descent are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, due to the resistance the gene provides against malaria.
People with European descent are more likely to have cystic fibrosis, due to resistance it provided from cholera and typhoid.
The difference here, is that people are taking this genetic concept of "race" and trying to prove their racist points, which always misses the point entirely. It would be a non-issue if the word "race" wasn't so politically charged.
Quick edit for 2 easy examples: People with African descent are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, due to the resistance the gene provides against malaria.
People with European descent are more likely to have cystic fibrosis, due to resistance it provided from cholera and typhoid.
You hint at this, but I think it’s worth explicitly mentioning that “race” as most people understand it, and “race” as an objective, genetic categorization, are two extremely different things.
Examples: there is more genetic diversity among Africans (and thus ought to be more races among them) than in the rest of the world combined. A large number of “African Americans” have more European ancestry than African. The previous President was almost always referred to as “black” even though his mother was white, echoing the old “one drop” rules.
Examples: there is more genetic diversity among Africans (and thus ought to be more races among them) than in the rest of the world combined. A large number of “African Americans” have more European ancestry than African. The previous President was almost always referred to as “black” even though his mother was white, echoing the old “one drop” rules.
Is that true? My understanding is that objective categorizations end up matching traditional categories pretty closely, e.g., http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/08/connect-dots.html
Do you have something that explains that? The paper is paywalled and I don’t know what to make of the graphic.
The examples I gave should be sufficient to demonstrate that there are at least major discrepancies between the two.
The examples I gave should be sufficient to demonstrate that there are at least major discrepancies between the two.
It's a popular topic on Hsu's blog. Here's a few earlier posts that dig in more:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-geno...
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-all-in-clusters.htm...
(I'm not an expert, and my opinion is formed from following that blog.)
In terms of your example, I'm not sure what "there is more genetic diversity among Africans" means. What is the measure of diversity here? Why would we necessarily expect that measure to mean "more races"?
(I didn't downvote you, by the way. Not sure why so many people on HN seem to enjoy downvoting any discussion on certain topic. :/.)
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-geno...
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-all-in-clusters.htm...
(I'm not an expert, and my opinion is formed from following that blog.)
In terms of your example, I'm not sure what "there is more genetic diversity among Africans" means. What is the measure of diversity here? Why would we necessarily expect that measure to mean "more races"?
(I didn't downvote you, by the way. Not sure why so many people on HN seem to enjoy downvoting any discussion on certain topic. :/.)
Thank you, I think I get it now that I've read through those.
I think that graphic illustrates what I'm saying fairly well. The non-African populations in the graphic are all grouped at the lower left corner. There are distinctions between them, but less than there are among the African groups.
The current (a key word, as which people go into what race has changed a lot in the recent past) social grouping of races would have us believe that the small purple group hanging off the end is one race, the pinkish group next to it is another race, the red group next to that is another one, the small green group next to those is maybe separate or maybe a subset of one of the others depending on who you ask, and then all the other groups are classified as "black." This pretty clearly makes no sense if you're trying to classify groups genetically. Why should that yellow group sticking way up from the rest in the top right corner be lumped in with so many other groups?
I think that graphic illustrates what I'm saying fairly well. The non-African populations in the graphic are all grouped at the lower left corner. There are distinctions between them, but less than there are among the African groups.
The current (a key word, as which people go into what race has changed a lot in the recent past) social grouping of races would have us believe that the small purple group hanging off the end is one race, the pinkish group next to it is another race, the red group next to that is another one, the small green group next to those is maybe separate or maybe a subset of one of the others depending on who you ask, and then all the other groups are classified as "black." This pretty clearly makes no sense if you're trying to classify groups genetically. Why should that yellow group sticking way up from the rest in the top right corner be lumped in with so many other groups?
Yeah, that totally makes sense to me.
And getting back to your original point, some of the modern sense of race is pretty unsophisticated, like "people with dark skin". That encompasses many distinct populations.
But I think older racial thinking was actually more nuanced, and would consider many different attributes when categorizing "races", which maps pretty well to distinct populations, which maps pretty well to stuff like PCA.
E.g., I suspect the thinking that went into something like like this
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/arts/design/races-of-mank...
did not consider the entierty of Africa as one race.
And getting back to your original point, some of the modern sense of race is pretty unsophisticated, like "people with dark skin". That encompasses many distinct populations.
But I think older racial thinking was actually more nuanced, and would consider many different attributes when categorizing "races", which maps pretty well to distinct populations, which maps pretty well to stuff like PCA.
E.g., I suspect the thinking that went into something like like this
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/arts/design/races-of-mank...
did not consider the entierty of Africa as one race.
And with other social norms you see the opposite. People in Brazil as black as Obama, identifying as white if they come from money.
[deleted]
> “race” as most people understand it, and “race” as an objective, genetic categorization, are two extremely different things.
Yet they seem to match in 99.86% of cases:
"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Yet they seem to match in 99.86% of cases:
"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
The problem is that they are using the existing boundaries. We'd construct different labels if we started with genetics.
The fact that they’re analyzing African Americans and not anybody currently living in Africa makes me quite suspicious of the general applicability of these results. The former group has mixed a lot more than the latter as a consequence of their tragic history.
You can't go around relying on studies with only n = 3636.
>This concept of a "race", in terms of genetics, makes sense for classification purposes, just like all taxonomical classifications of living things.
I could classify computers based on the case they are in, and I would see some interesting trends given the extent that computer casing is decided by the people the build the computer and there is a very few entities who are responsible for the majority of computers. But does it really make sense to use it when you can compare it based on other factors and combinations of factors, like the internal hardware, manufacturer, and year made?
Race is extremely oversimplified and groups too many people together, and comes with a lot of historical baggage in not just its usage, but the ways we considered certain groups members of certain races.
I think humans can be grouped based on common genetics, but race focuses too much on certain phenotypes instead of being based on overall genotypes. Instead of looking at European or African descent, what about descent of historical population groups? Are groups from northern Africa closer to those from southern Europe or Southern Africa?
Groups that share phenotypes are likely to have similar genotypes on average than those who don't, but why depend on this when we now have access to the genotypes?
I could classify computers based on the case they are in, and I would see some interesting trends given the extent that computer casing is decided by the people the build the computer and there is a very few entities who are responsible for the majority of computers. But does it really make sense to use it when you can compare it based on other factors and combinations of factors, like the internal hardware, manufacturer, and year made?
Race is extremely oversimplified and groups too many people together, and comes with a lot of historical baggage in not just its usage, but the ways we considered certain groups members of certain races.
I think humans can be grouped based on common genetics, but race focuses too much on certain phenotypes instead of being based on overall genotypes. Instead of looking at European or African descent, what about descent of historical population groups? Are groups from northern Africa closer to those from southern Europe or Southern Africa?
Groups that share phenotypes are likely to have similar genotypes on average than those who don't, but why depend on this when we now have access to the genotypes?
I have no idea whether the overall pendulum is swinging back from "race is a purely social construct". I hope so, because it has always seemed absurd to me, for the very reasons the author cites, just as absurd as the idea that race is a hard determinant of anything.
But what I can say is that in molecular biology, working scientists have completely ignored this politically charged debate and continued to use the concept this whole time. In one example I am directly familiar with, researchers have continued to use and stratify genome-wide association studies by self-reported race/ethnicity in the search for variants causal for lupus. This is important not only because as with many diseases, there is a difference in likelihood of getting the disease between "races" not attributable to lifestyle, but also because it is entirely possible, even probable, that the mechanisms causing the disease are somewhat different between ethnicities.
Actually, therefore, the understanding that there are real differences between "races" in the context of disease is actually helpful for the smaller groups because it means that special attention is paid to the etiology of their disease apart from the general etiology. In the same way that, for many years, most biology research was done on males and it was just assumed that the findings would always apply to females. That was incorrect, and now studies are done to determine gender differences in treatment and disease etiology.
IMO this whole debate has dragged on as long as it has because too many in the public are seemingly incapable -- or unwilling -- to understand basic concepts about population means and variances, and in particular that in a situation like this where population means are very real but usually small, and the variance is high, knowing what "race" you are usually conveys little information about some other attribute of interest. Usually, but not always, as is particularly the case with many diseases.
I have grown particularly tired of the argument that, because a taxonomy, like any clustering, is fuzzy and the number of clusters is somewhat arbitrary, the whole thing conveys no useful information. It is patently false.
But what I can say is that in molecular biology, working scientists have completely ignored this politically charged debate and continued to use the concept this whole time. In one example I am directly familiar with, researchers have continued to use and stratify genome-wide association studies by self-reported race/ethnicity in the search for variants causal for lupus. This is important not only because as with many diseases, there is a difference in likelihood of getting the disease between "races" not attributable to lifestyle, but also because it is entirely possible, even probable, that the mechanisms causing the disease are somewhat different between ethnicities.
Actually, therefore, the understanding that there are real differences between "races" in the context of disease is actually helpful for the smaller groups because it means that special attention is paid to the etiology of their disease apart from the general etiology. In the same way that, for many years, most biology research was done on males and it was just assumed that the findings would always apply to females. That was incorrect, and now studies are done to determine gender differences in treatment and disease etiology.
IMO this whole debate has dragged on as long as it has because too many in the public are seemingly incapable -- or unwilling -- to understand basic concepts about population means and variances, and in particular that in a situation like this where population means are very real but usually small, and the variance is high, knowing what "race" you are usually conveys little information about some other attribute of interest. Usually, but not always, as is particularly the case with many diseases.
I have grown particularly tired of the argument that, because a taxonomy, like any clustering, is fuzzy and the number of clusters is somewhat arbitrary, the whole thing conveys no useful information. It is patently false.
Is it not the case that biologists are simply on firmer ground working on the premise of causal genetic relationships with populations and genes, and far shakier ground when they try to correlate genes to behavior?
The typical path to determining causality for a variant is: Variant -> (Gene expression or some other molecular-level phenomenon) -> Phenotype. Actually, associating a variant with a phenotype is the easy part, determining what happens in between is much harder. Another hard part is determining which variant does something since variants are highly correlated with each other.
I am not sure I understand your question exactly so I'll give a few different answers. One is that I see no difference whether the phenotype is behavioral or some disease occurring below your neck. It all depends on the statistics and effect sizes of the phenotype and how good a predictor "race" is.
Another is that actually it is much more difficult, obviously, to determine causality than a correlation, regardless of what you are correlating with what.
And a final answer is that we generally consider a causal relationship between genetics and a phenotype proved with acceptable levels of error if the two are correlated, and we control for all the environmental variables we can, and the correlation remains. You can also look at heritability with twins separated at birth and raised in different environments and other such experiments to control for environment.
I am not sure I understand your question exactly so I'll give a few different answers. One is that I see no difference whether the phenotype is behavioral or some disease occurring below your neck. It all depends on the statistics and effect sizes of the phenotype and how good a predictor "race" is.
Another is that actually it is much more difficult, obviously, to determine causality than a correlation, regardless of what you are correlating with what.
And a final answer is that we generally consider a causal relationship between genetics and a phenotype proved with acceptable levels of error if the two are correlated, and we control for all the environmental variables we can, and the correlation remains. You can also look at heritability with twins separated at birth and raised in different environments and other such experiments to control for environment.
I'd probably start with the question of: isn't it easier to understand the causal relationships in a lot of diseases than it is to understand behavior, the biology of which we barely understand without bringing genetics into it?
Except for Mendelian diseases, not really. The sad fact is that for the so-called "complex diseases", we have very little idea what is going on inside the black box. I won't presume to guess whether we know less about them or about behavior, but the ignorance level is very high in both cases. They are called "complex" because we don't understand them, and because they seem to have many causes, both individual genetic loci and environmental variables, each contributing a little bit rather than something like sickle-cell anemia which has one big cause.
However, I think our techniques are quite sufficient right now to say X% of the variance in phenotype P is attributable to genetics (i.e., genetics partially cause P). That is a totally different thing from explaining how the genotype causes the phenotype.
However, I think our techniques are quite sufficient right now to say X% of the variance in phenotype P is attributable to genetics (i.e., genetics partially cause P). That is a totally different thing from explaining how the genotype causes the phenotype.
[deleted]
Reading between the lines; using genetics to justify racism against group X is dreadfully wrong, but let's not close the door on our ability to use genetics to justify racism against group Y.
fredch(1)
There is no race, it's all just brains doing overactive classification. I wish that we got over this as a species already.
from the article:
> It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.
> But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage
> The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.
> I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
> It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.
> But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage
> The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.
> I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
Everything is relative and nothing is unique at a large enough spectrum
Arguments made by people claiming that there's no such thing as race, such as this one, seem to have this underlying premise that while certain thing are relative, other things are objective. Yet they have no possible way of backing this up because their own experience of the world is relative. Ironically, ideas are as close as we can get to real objectivism. When it comes to the mechanics of the universe, everything is fundamentally relative. So claiming that humans making consistent classifications of each other isn't legitimate doesn't make sense.
Prove your statement, please.
I'm afraid this view is completely incompatible with the findings in population genetics. Two papers to get you started:
* Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
* Genetic Structure of Human Populations https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf
* Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
* Genetic Structure of Human Populations https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf
Glancing at your first citation, nothing in the summary seems to challenge the idea that people of all races see much bigger differences among races (for example, when someone like James Damore start dogwhistling IQ tests in their footnotes) than actually exist genetically.
Sure, there are genetic distinctions among groups of people. But as soon as someone mentions black or white people, the discussion isn't about these kind of fine genetic distinctions. They're about stereotypes that are much more social than they are genetic.
Now in the political realm, the significance of these terms and the groups is completely different because of the way groups have been treated historically on the basis not of these fine genetic distinctions but rather these crude social racial/ethnic identifications.
I'd prefer we avoided using footnotes pointing to scientific publications to oversimplify more complex political discussions or to justify the economic and social marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading.
Sure, there are genetic distinctions among groups of people. But as soon as someone mentions black or white people, the discussion isn't about these kind of fine genetic distinctions. They're about stereotypes that are much more social than they are genetic.
Now in the political realm, the significance of these terms and the groups is completely different because of the way groups have been treated historically on the basis not of these fine genetic distinctions but rather these crude social racial/ethnic identifications.
I'd prefer we avoided using footnotes pointing to scientific publications to oversimplify more complex political discussions or to justify the economic and social marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading.
I agree with you, but I would also note that the original person being replied to seems to be committing a common colloquial misunderstanding in regards to social constructions; just because something is socially constructed does not mean it's not real. Race is absolutely real, regardless of the degree to which genetics does or doesn't correlate with it, because we make it real in our day to day interactions.
But your point is succinct: just because you can group people using genetic markers into clusters that align well with our society's typical social categorization of race does by no means validate a genetic basis for all the other sociocultural baggage that we associate with those categories. The most it seems to do particularly in regards to the social category of race is show that genetic markers useful for identifying kinship (I'd file that under "duh"). It's interesting to note, for me, that the analysis of the first paper works just fine for 2 clusters as well (basically East Asian and everyone else), but those super-racial groupings don't exist in the US to my knowledge.
But your point is succinct: just because you can group people using genetic markers into clusters that align well with our society's typical social categorization of race does by no means validate a genetic basis for all the other sociocultural baggage that we associate with those categories. The most it seems to do particularly in regards to the social category of race is show that genetic markers useful for identifying kinship (I'd file that under "duh"). It's interesting to note, for me, that the analysis of the first paper works just fine for 2 clusters as well (basically East Asian and everyone else), but those super-racial groupings don't exist in the US to my knowledge.
Right, but this opens the door to there existing, in theory, racial genetic differences causing variation at the human scale; whether or not these map to racist stereotypes, it becomes harder to argue against them because people can no longer discard them by just denying the concept of racial variation altogether. So they actually have to put the work in to demonstrate that they're untrue, invalid or inapplicable.
Anything that makes it harder for people to attack the enemy is interpreted as aiding the enemy.
Anything that makes it harder for people to attack the enemy is interpreted as aiding the enemy.
>justify the economic and social marginalization of historical disadvantaged groups based on purposeful misreading.
This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't measuring economic and social marginalization by outcome, particularly when it comes to systemic bias. If we can't have a sober look at the inputs, I'm afraid we can't say anything meaningful about the outputs.
This wouldn't be a problem if we weren't measuring economic and social marginalization by outcome, particularly when it comes to systemic bias. If we can't have a sober look at the inputs, I'm afraid we can't say anything meaningful about the outputs.
The Rosenberg et al paper just says that at a particular K partition (5 in this case) you get genetic structures that closely map onto what Americans view as race. It also says that at K=1 there are only Africans,and at k=3 there are only Africans, Europeans and Asians. If you’re gonna say these are races, why stop at k=5? Why not look at what STRUCTURE pops out for k= 25?
It's absolutely true that there are genetic clusters on multiple levels, and the choice of K is to a certain extent arbitrary. But the fact that there are multiple ways of slicing things up does not affect the reality of the underlying structure. The use of "race" to denote 25 different groups would probably be a bit confusing though, unfortunately we don't have any better terms ("genetic cluster" is a bit awkward?)
Here's a really cool chart from an ancient DNA paper with stacked charts from K=2 to K=20: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
(The paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552)
Zoom in far enough and the clusters basically replicate national borders: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/09/01/european... so you might use the term "ethnicity" for them.
Here's a really cool chart from an ancient DNA paper with stacked charts from K=2 to K=20: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...
(The paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552)
Zoom in far enough and the clusters basically replicate national borders: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/09/01/european... so you might use the term "ethnicity" for them.
My Masters thesis covered a lot of what is in these papers. Here are a few possibly surprising things people who think genetic clusters point to races may not realize: 1) People from Papua New Guinea and Chinese people would be considered the same race according to genetic clusters at K=4. 2) At k=2 there are only Africans and Asian races. 3) And Europeans and dravidians are part of the same race, at k=5.
The fact that there are observable aggregate genetic differences between groups of humans does not endanger the proposition that all human groups have equal moral worth. But denying that race is a real thing sure does give a lot of oxygen to people with bad ideas.
The issue is semantic, the word "race" when applied to the human species doesn't have the same meaning when applied to other species.
[deleted]
moral worth and capacities
Do all races have equal capacity to play professional basketball?
If not, what rational basis could one have in claiming all races must have equal capacity in other areas?
If not, what rational basis could one have in claiming all races must have equal capacity in other areas?
Fundamentally, creating policy based on racial capacity cannot end in a moral place. Every single time governments/societies start down that path, it ends poorly.
Frankly, who gives a shit. It seems better to me to live in a world that's .000005% less efficiently allocated than it is to live in the caste system that always emerges from that path.
Frankly, who gives a shit. It seems better to me to live in a world that's .000005% less efficiently allocated than it is to live in the caste system that always emerges from that path.
Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though.
There absolutely are people advocating creating policy to the specific benefit of some race(s) over others based on the underlying premise that racism/oppression must be the only significant cause of inequal statistical outcomes. This inherently rejects the possibility of different (generalized) capacities between races, among other potential contributors (culture, individuals' decisions).
Do you feel like that, too, cannot end in a moral place?
There absolutely are people advocating creating policy to the specific benefit of some race(s) over others based on the underlying premise that racism/oppression must be the only significant cause of inequal statistical outcomes. This inherently rejects the possibility of different (generalized) capacities between races, among other potential contributors (culture, individuals' decisions).
Do you feel like that, too, cannot end in a moral place?
> Nobody advocates creating policy based on racial capacity, though.
To be fair, I think a more precise statement would be that nobody within the mainstream advocates for this at this point in time. But they have in the past and people outside of the mainstream advocate for this even now. And it's conceivable that this could enter mainstream discourse again, even if we are pretty far from that point now.
To be fair, I think a more precise statement would be that nobody within the mainstream advocates for this at this point in time. But they have in the past and people outside of the mainstream advocate for this even now. And it's conceivable that this could enter mainstream discourse again, even if we are pretty far from that point now.
Yeah but you've broken a sanctity to take that 0.00005% away. You've opened the door to instrumentalizing science, formerly the pursuit of truth, for political gain. And I know everybody's doing that already, but there's a difference between everybody doing it and everybody being okay with it. One of those is salvageable, the other isn't.
I think the person you were responding to was pointing out that it is almost certainly not the case that the various traits which we would describe as capacities are distributed evenly across races. As far as I can tell, they were not advocating for racially based policy.
[deleted]
If we were not analyzing ourself the different races would be called different species, never mind races.
Butterflies are called different species based on much smaller differences. Or for example the two moths in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Calling different races different species obviously would upset people, so we don't. But let's not pretend the differences don't exist.
Butterflies are called different species based on much smaller differences. Or for example the two moths in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Calling different races different species obviously would upset people, so we don't. But let's not pretend the differences don't exist.
“These forms are often accidentally elevated to subspecies status when they appear in literature. Not adding the ‘f.’ (form) or morpha implies that the taxon is a subspecies instead of a form, as in Biston betularia carbonaria instead of Biston betularia f. carbonaria. Rarely forms have been elevated to species status as in Biston carbonaria. Either of these two circumstances might lead to the erroneous belief that speciation was involved in the observed evolution of the peppered moth. This is not the case; individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species.” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth
> individuals of each morph interbreed and produce fertile offspring with individuals of all other morphs; hence there is only one peppered moth species
If this criterion were universally applied, there would be very few plant species, and zero microbial species.
If this criterion were universally applied, there would be very few plant species, and zero microbial species.
Precisely how to classify “species” seems to be a major debate. Regardless, it does not appear that these two kinds of moths are actually considered to be different species.
Indeed; however, a convenient line of differentiation presents itself: animals, let alone humans, are not plants.
While we can't even define what a species is[0], this is quite an overstatement. I think you'd be on stronger, albeit equally politically charged, ground if you used "breed" or "variety".
[0] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-a...
[0] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-a...
The idea that race is a social construct is simply dumb.
Race: Genetic characteristics common to humans with a shared geographic origin, and that differ from humans from other geographic origins, sometimes distinguishable by appearance.
If our collective memory was wiped today, tomorrow we would distinguish humans by what we call 'races'. But it would require science to clarify what distinguishes a race at the genetic level (physical differences being a decent proxy but often wrong and clearly primitive) and to map the distinct differences between each race.
Why is this controversial?
Race: Genetic characteristics common to humans with a shared geographic origin, and that differ from humans from other geographic origins, sometimes distinguishable by appearance.
If our collective memory was wiped today, tomorrow we would distinguish humans by what we call 'races'. But it would require science to clarify what distinguishes a race at the genetic level (physical differences being a decent proxy but often wrong and clearly primitive) and to map the distinct differences between each race.
Why is this controversial?
> The idea that race is a social construct is simply dumb
The idea that it is not a social construct is both dumb and ahistorical. (OTOH, readily apparent phenotype obviously has some correlation to genotype, so there is going to be a degree of correlation between he social construct and genetics, especially when the social construct includes socially-enforced rules discouraging reproduction outside of the socially-ascribed category.)
> If our collective memory was wiped today, tomorrow we would distinguish humans by what we call 'races'.
We'd probably adopt a somewhat similar concept with different dividing lines based on loose association of readily apparent phenotypic traits with the social affinities, power dynamics, and other conflicts and commonalities that formed after the mass forgetting event. This is easily predictable because studies of concepts of race across time and space in history without such mass forgetting events show differences driven by such affinities, shifting (mostly slowly) as those affinities change over time.
> Why is this controversial?
Because it aligns with what some people want very much to believe (hence support for it) but is inconsistent with historical evidence (hence, opposition to it), producing controversy.
The idea that it is not a social construct is both dumb and ahistorical. (OTOH, readily apparent phenotype obviously has some correlation to genotype, so there is going to be a degree of correlation between he social construct and genetics, especially when the social construct includes socially-enforced rules discouraging reproduction outside of the socially-ascribed category.)
> If our collective memory was wiped today, tomorrow we would distinguish humans by what we call 'races'.
We'd probably adopt a somewhat similar concept with different dividing lines based on loose association of readily apparent phenotypic traits with the social affinities, power dynamics, and other conflicts and commonalities that formed after the mass forgetting event. This is easily predictable because studies of concepts of race across time and space in history without such mass forgetting events show differences driven by such affinities, shifting (mostly slowly) as those affinities change over time.
> Why is this controversial?
Because it aligns with what some people want very much to believe (hence support for it) but is inconsistent with historical evidence (hence, opposition to it), producing controversy.
> concepts of race
How is 'genetic characteristics common to humans with a shared geographic origin' a concept? Did you read the article?
> Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology...enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
Allow me to emphasise: "differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real".
Wow, what a coincidence given the fact that "differences in genetic ancestry" is exactly what race is.
Maybe you have another definition of race that might be a social construct but "differences in genetic ancestry" is what most people mean when they say 'race'.
How is 'genetic characteristics common to humans with a shared geographic origin' a concept? Did you read the article?
> Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology...enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
Allow me to emphasise: "differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real".
Wow, what a coincidence given the fact that "differences in genetic ancestry" is exactly what race is.
Maybe you have another definition of race that might be a social construct but "differences in genetic ancestry" is what most people mean when they say 'race'.
> How is 'genetic characteristics common to humans with a shared geographic origin' a concept
It is a concept (pretty much anything that you can refer to in language is a concept), but more to the point it's not the basis of actual racial categories in the real world.
> Maybe you have another definition of race that might be a social construct
Yes, the categories socially ascribed (including legally assigned) and self-identified (which are usually similar, but not always aligned), largely based on trivially observable lphenotype, into which people are sorted as “races”. Which, demonstrably, have a drifting relationship over time and space, driven by social factors, to any genetic-based assignment system you might care to establish, though they obviously have a correlation to genetics (both because geneticd play a role in determining phenotype and because those social categories are often socially enforced, or at least incentivized, boundaries on acceptable mate selection, making them semi-isolated breeding pools.)
It is a concept (pretty much anything that you can refer to in language is a concept), but more to the point it's not the basis of actual racial categories in the real world.
> Maybe you have another definition of race that might be a social construct
Yes, the categories socially ascribed (including legally assigned) and self-identified (which are usually similar, but not always aligned), largely based on trivially observable lphenotype, into which people are sorted as “races”. Which, demonstrably, have a drifting relationship over time and space, driven by social factors, to any genetic-based assignment system you might care to establish, though they obviously have a correlation to genetics (both because geneticd play a role in determining phenotype and because those social categories are often socially enforced, or at least incentivized, boundaries on acceptable mate selection, making them semi-isolated breeding pools.)
> The idea that race is a social construct is simply dumb.
All of the interaction surface with 'race' in our society is absolutely a social construct which varies dramatically over time and from location to location. Moreover, even if the genetic variations by population do lead to statistically significant differences, that doesn't matter one iota: the qualities of the individual matter far more than whatever statistical distribution they may be drawn from, and to give those poor proxies any kind of social significance is morally wrong and extremely dangerous, as centuries of bloody history have demonstrated.
All of the interaction surface with 'race' in our society is absolutely a social construct which varies dramatically over time and from location to location. Moreover, even if the genetic variations by population do lead to statistically significant differences, that doesn't matter one iota: the qualities of the individual matter far more than whatever statistical distribution they may be drawn from, and to give those poor proxies any kind of social significance is morally wrong and extremely dangerous, as centuries of bloody history have demonstrated.
> the qualities of the individual matter far more than whatever statistical distribution...
I'm making zero judgement on any individuals. Can we separate the science from the possible implications, please? Otherwise it's hard to have reasoned debate.
> All of the interaction surface with 'race' in our society is absolutely a social construct
That may well be, but it doesn't lessen the fact that 'race' - i.e "differences in genetic ancestry" - is real.
I'm making zero judgement on any individuals. Can we separate the science from the possible implications, please? Otherwise it's hard to have reasoned debate.
> All of the interaction surface with 'race' in our society is absolutely a social construct
That may well be, but it doesn't lessen the fact that 'race' - i.e "differences in genetic ancestry" - is real.
[deleted]
Irish and Italian people were previously considered separate races but have merged into the "white" race. Have the genetics of Ireland changed drastically in the past 100 years? Or was it the social construct of "race" that changed? Why do some countries consider certain groups a different race and other countries view them as a socioeconomic class e.g. gypsies? Humans migrate and interbreed with different genetic groups and have been doing so for a long, long time. We are really a spectrum of genetic differences and not really a bunch of grouped individuals.
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white13.htm
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white13.htm
> Irish and Italian people were previously considered separate races
To whom? Outside of America this is ridiculous. Maybe that's it - The US has so many hangups about race they changed the definition.
Race: "differences in genetic ancestry based on different geographic origin". Just because people exploited the term and used it incorrectly does not mean it does not have an exact definition.
In the middle ages people who carried out trepanning claimed to know about medicine. People who called the Irish non-caucasian claimed to know about race. They didn't (or in the latter case, they did but were prejudice).
Neither medicine nor race need be discredited by past ignorance.
To whom? Outside of America this is ridiculous. Maybe that's it - The US has so many hangups about race they changed the definition.
Race: "differences in genetic ancestry based on different geographic origin". Just because people exploited the term and used it incorrectly does not mean it does not have an exact definition.
In the middle ages people who carried out trepanning claimed to know about medicine. People who called the Irish non-caucasian claimed to know about race. They didn't (or in the latter case, they did but were prejudice).
Neither medicine nor race need be discredited by past ignorance.
This is one of the weak points of the author's presentation. He's meaning "race" as ancestral origins grouped at the level at which there was relatively little external gene flow during premodern times, e.g groups separated by large geographic barriers like the Sahara or Pacific. Apparently, and this was the point of the article, there are significant AVERAGE genetic differences based on these groupings.
If you travel south from Scandinavia to sub-saharan Africa, you will encounter every shade of skin colour from really really white to extremely dark brown. It's a continuous spectrum, and drawing some arbitrary lines delineating different "races" makes about as much sense as all the other borders the colonial powers loved to think up.
But the real problem is obviously how rather useless it is to sort humans into some set of boxes. Any individual should be treated as such, and judged by their behaviour. Differences in behaviour between "races" are either non-existent or so small it takes extremely high-powered empirical studies to find extremely small effects.
To use an example: say some statistics showed that race A is 2% more intelligent than race B, on average. Using such a data point for decision-making is statistical malpractice. Because the variability of intelligence within each group will mean that any single individual from A only has an advantage of maybe 0.5 percentage points of being smarter than an individual from B.
Now that's not strictly a problem with the science, and more about its misuse. But there really aren't any compelling uses for such research. And even if your work is done with the best intentions, you can't just ignore its possible misuse.
With the world's history of racial animus, the least one should do is not to use the term. The science will actually be better for it, because for any genetic phenomenon you might want to study, the likelihood of it neatly following the "race" borders of the 19th century is no different than random chance–unless you're studying skin colour.
Look at the distribution of the "sickle-cell trait", a mutation that protects against malaria at the cost of increased risk of sickle-cell anaemia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#/media/Fil...
You'll find that its prevalence neatly corresponds to historical regions with malaria. It does not, however, follow any racial borders. I assure it's the same for anything but skin colour, which follows an almost exact gradient of solar intensity.
But the real problem is obviously how rather useless it is to sort humans into some set of boxes. Any individual should be treated as such, and judged by their behaviour. Differences in behaviour between "races" are either non-existent or so small it takes extremely high-powered empirical studies to find extremely small effects.
To use an example: say some statistics showed that race A is 2% more intelligent than race B, on average. Using such a data point for decision-making is statistical malpractice. Because the variability of intelligence within each group will mean that any single individual from A only has an advantage of maybe 0.5 percentage points of being smarter than an individual from B.
Now that's not strictly a problem with the science, and more about its misuse. But there really aren't any compelling uses for such research. And even if your work is done with the best intentions, you can't just ignore its possible misuse.
With the world's history of racial animus, the least one should do is not to use the term. The science will actually be better for it, because for any genetic phenomenon you might want to study, the likelihood of it neatly following the "race" borders of the 19th century is no different than random chance–unless you're studying skin colour.
Look at the distribution of the "sickle-cell trait", a mutation that protects against malaria at the cost of increased risk of sickle-cell anaemia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#/media/Fil...
You'll find that its prevalence neatly corresponds to historical regions with malaria. It does not, however, follow any racial borders. I assure it's the same for anything but skin colour, which follows an almost exact gradient of solar intensity.
But it is also a problem with the science right now, because it is not at all clear that correlations that have been observed have a causal relationship with intelligence. If you take two populations and any behavioral trait, you are likely to find genetic markers correlated with that trait.
Indeed! I was trying to make an even-if argument.
your second assumption is false because the idea of race is a relatively recent phenomenon.
If you read any of the old Roman texts, you would not find reference to race rather you would find references to a person's ethnicity. Ethnicity is tied to culture and language.
It is only controversial when you have what is the far right using Mott and Bailey arguments to justify racism.
If you read any of the old Roman texts, you would not find reference to race rather you would find references to a person's ethnicity. Ethnicity is tied to culture and language.
It is only controversial when you have what is the far right using Mott and Bailey arguments to justify racism.
Wrong. Both In Greece and Rome black people were referred to as “Aethiopian,” regardless of their actual ancestry in Africa.
Black people were not excluded from any profession, and there was no stigma or bias against mixed race relationships in Antiquity.
Black people were not excluded from any profession, and there was no stigma or bias against mixed race relationships in Antiquity.
Why is Obama considered black? The very fact that some races bind harder than others should indicate that our racial labels are not tied strongly to genetics.
> Why is Obama considered black?
It's obvious that's he's black and Caucasian. Why he's called black in America while in other places he'd be mixed-race is a product of American culture and his own preference I imagine (many mixed-race people decide to 'identify as black', meaning culturally).
But the label he's given does not change his underlying race.
It's obvious that's he's black and Caucasian. Why he's called black in America while in other places he'd be mixed-race is a product of American culture and his own preference I imagine (many mixed-race people decide to 'identify as black', meaning culturally).
But the label he's given does not change his underlying race.
So while it may be the case that "race is purely a social construct" is an untenable and unproductive position, it does not necessarily follow that a solid case for "achievement and behavior is strongly genetic" has been made.
Since intelligence and genetics is the third rail of population genetic studies, isn't the author's specialty, and isn't at all clear, it's a little confusing as to why he went out on this limb. Pinker sure is happy about it though.
A good next read:
https://gcbias.org/2018/03/14/polygenic-scores-and-tea-drink...