Okay, I’m sorry if I mischaracterize your point. Please define race and explain how east asian, white, and black fit the definition? Thank you.
Can you give examples?
I really wasn’t speaking to the notion of differences in races but more so differences between groups of populations that have historically resided in specific geographic areas.
No I am not saying they are the same race. My only point was that there are differences between groups of human beings. This is a fact. In my eyes it is neither good nor bad just a reality.
With technology today you can look at the genome to group people. It is infinitely more superior then the methodology of anthropologist in the past who attempted to group people based on morphology.
You can look at the skull. Limb length. Ratio of limbs to body height. Bone density I believe. There are so many. I could look it up for you if you like because I don’t know all of them off the top of my head.
But one specific instance if you gave me a skull from a northern European and an indigenous Australian. I could instantly make the distinction between the two.
We have a phrenologist in the house.
In my opinion something that one would call a “race” exists, but they’re more of an partially overlapping spectrum with national and cultural borders sometimes absurdly cutting across groups of physiologically similar humans.
1 Like
Ya, I think that would be really interesting to read. Pleaee do so.
Sort of a hypothetical here.
Let’s say we could break these categories down into 35 or even 70 different genetically distinct ethnic groups, so maybe it’s less loaded. Humans move around a lot, but let’s say that we can find isolated groups, or people who we can sort by DNA.
We could look at some objective measures like grey matter density or newly discovered factors (x,y, and z) on an fMRI that are highly indicative of intelligence. I’m making this up here, but some of these technologies are here, or are rapidly developing.
Let’s say we find that human groups do differ in intelligence, just as they differ in other traits. Maybe there’s overlap. Surely. But let’s say that groups begin to sort themselves into statistically significant groupings.
And then let’s say this happens for male and female, where we begin to see measurable neurological differences, differences in structure, function, or metabolism in the brain.
I think humans need to get over the idea that science will NEVER show us that different groups of humans may have neurological differences, have evolved with different traits related to CNS function. Otherwise, we’re going to find science deniers of a different kind.
Please don’t insult me.
Do you know what phrenology is? Did I say anything to imply that I am phrenologist.
As far as your definition of race. We are pretty much in agreement. If you put a point on a map and sequence the genome of the people there and continue to do so at specific intervals you can predict the degree of similarity/differences in the populations as you sample.
I doubt it’ll ever happen. The scale and level of testing and data you’d need for that is tremendous. And given the immediate ‘discrimination’ protests that would ensue and I can’t imagine a future where it’s cost effective to study this given the low translation to anything marketable
So you could have googled it haha I was being nice and didn’t want to just bark at you telling you to google it.
Most of my understanding on it comes from one elective course when I studied forensic anthropology. Everything I told you was in the one text we studied non of it was considered controversial and it was all well established. I can’t remember the text unfortunately.
But here is a paper discussing limb ratios.
One on bone density
Another on bone density/morphological features
and another
One talking about fracture risk aka bone density
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/87/7/3047/2846519
Here is one on skull features/dentition
I think the one on skull features/dentition is the most interesting.
So obviously there is variability in every population. So if your a forensic examiner and you are trying to categorize a skeleton you found you would not use one trait such as limb ratio. Or one aspect of skull morphology. You would use a myriad of measurements and look at them as a whole to identify the skeleton and even then that could be wrong. But as a rule these morphological differences are significant and very useful. As well as many other differences that have been noted physiologically as well. In other words there not just differences in structure but differences in how tissues and cells function.
I am no sure if you are asking a question or not.
All the hypotheticals you listed have been shown.
- Differences in intelligence
- Differences in brain structure/function in women vs men. (By this I don’t mean intelligence as I haven’ seen any data on that. But rather stimulation from the hypothalamus to anterior and posterior pituitary to secrete hormones for example there are many others I am sure)
1 Like
I hear you. I’m not sure there’s a big will to know these things, in fact there’s a pretty strong desire to not know out of fear, or for political reasons.
@ The data. Neuroscience is rolling forward at an amazing clip.
@ The science on biological differences in human DNA groups or the biological sexes is settled? I’m kidding, pfury.
@ Tell that to people like James Damore. Apparently a lot of people haven’t gotten the memo that there are meaningful differences, at least between men and women. I can refer you to a scientific analysis of his claims if that’s helpful.
If we can meaningfully group human ethnic groups by intelligence this is going to threaten a lot of people who think that being equal in terms of human rights means saying we’re all exactly the same, otherwise they seem to think we can then justify racism or sexism. History has shown that we’re perfectly capable of that, so this is dangerous knowledge, right? Better not to know? Let’s assume humans groups haven’t had time to evolve, or at least that evolution doesn’t effect the CNS.
The neurologists studying sex differences are going to have feminists, and far left profressives attacking their research. This already happens.
I think James Damore would agree with what the research I listed. Right?
But honestly the Damore issue is a cultural political one.
I didn’t read his claims but my understanding (from Joe Rogans podcast) in a nutshell was that he got fired for not agreeing with the the practices of Google.
I have a huge issue with people who would try to deny the research/data because it doesn’t conform to their world view. It is the same group of people who shut down Evergreen University and caused Bret Weinstein to resign alongside his wife. But most people are not like that but for some reason this group of people have an incredibly loud voice and the fact that people cave in to their demands emboldens them further.
1 Like
Maybe the least intelligent blacks in the inner city are having a higher number of kids to whom they pass on their lower intelligence than more intelligent blacks. There are inner city schools where close to half the kids are special ed.
I could have, but I like to see what people consider evidence/proof.
Well what do you think?
Did you get a chance to look at the one on skull morphology and dentition?
I haven’t had a chance to read through them all, but what I’ve read is interesting and not really surprising.
I have a hard time seeing how skull morphology, for example, can be used to define race (not that you are, but that was what we were talking about when this side-conversation started).
I remember reading about British troops in WW1 using a skull to play soccer. Someone asked what if the skull had belonged to a fellow British soldier and the response was that it was a German skull which they deduced from the shape of the skull.
I wonder if they’d kick my skull around?
Well we differ in that regard. I was in disbelief when I learned all of this. In hindsight my shock should come as no surprise considering one of the defining principles of the system in which I received my primary school education was that all individuals regardless of race were equal.
I couldn’t believe how pieces of random bits of bone could tell you so much. For instance if you had just the proximal portion of a femur the angle of the femoral head could give you a huge indication on if that femur belonged to a women or not.
The paper from the last link I shared in the conclusion the authors emphasize the importance of how genetic variation should be perceived as a continuum as opposed to discrete categories. But skull morphology would be just one trait of many. Within certain populations there are patterns. If there wasn’t then none of this data would have any value.
So here is a picture of the skull of an indigenous Australian compared to whats supposed to a be a European skull. I just searched this on google. So I don’t know the source for this image but it shows the same differences that were noted in the texts I have seen in the past.
