How many 'ethnics' here vs WEIRDs?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah I'm confuzled by this current popular notion that race is a fiction
It dunt make much sense to me

Define race then?

[Jason]

Sociologically or biologically?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sociologically or biologically?

No constructs of society, that can be mangled in any number of ways. Stick to reality, ie, give me a scientific definition of race.

And be ready, of course.

[Jason]

Ready? For some miscegenation?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ready? For some miscegenation?

See? That's it. We can breed "across racial lines" because there's not different that matters between us.

[Seabass]

My race is ambiguously yellowish-beige. If I were to stand against a wall painted in Rationalia's poo-brown theme, you would only see my eyes and teeth.

[Jason]

Sociology is a science though.

The concept of race has very different meanings in different contexts. It is used in biological classification to differentiate subgroups within a species which do not differ sufficiently to be classified as subspecies, yet differ enough so as to merit a separate classification (horizontal rather than vertical in the hierarchy). King Snakes were already mentioned as an example. Races have slight genetic differences, but not anything close to what would be required to decrease gene exchange. In other animals these subgroups are often called 'breeds' instead of 'races' - race is a term specially applied to humans because "we're not animals". Breeds exhibit differences in phenotype which are the expressions of slight variations in genotype. It's a simple biological classification below the level of subspecies. It is a simple taxonomic classification. However, when applied to humans, the word 'race' is used in place of 'breed' possibly due to the holdover of the old belief that humans are not animals, but God's special creation, and so are not subject to the field of taxonomy. There are exceptions to this, such as that darned King Snake, where 'race' is used with the same denotation of 'breed'. Modern taxonomy, that performed largely on the basis of phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences, applies to all animals, however some object to its application to the human species for various political, religious, or ideological reasons. For some people, science is nice so long as it doesn't work against our agenda. I disagree, whether their agenda is noble or not, we are animals, we are not special, and we are not exempt from classification. Perhaps what hurts some people's brains is that the human species seemingly lacks subspecies, disrupting their idea of a taxonomic hierarchy. Perhaps they cannot grasp the concept of horizontal classification. Perhaps they irrationally believe that classification into 'races' promotes racism.

Now, maybe, Zilla will provide us with the requisite evidence that will show us how humans are special and not subject to biological classifications. Or perhaps he was expecting me to rant on about classification by phenotype and will stifle?

[Jason]

Ready? For some miscegenation?

See? That's it. We can breed "across racial lines" because there's not different that matters between us.

So can subspecies and breeds. See above.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, I've had enough sociology (Minor at Purdue) to disregard it.

[tattuchu]

Sociology is a science though.

The concept of race has very different meanings in different contexts. It is used in biological classification to differentiate subgroups within a species which do differ sufficiently to be classified as subspecies, yet differ enough so as to merit a separate classification (horizontal rather than vertical in the hierarchy). King Snakes were already mentioned as an example. Races have slight genetic differences, but not anything close to what would be required to decrease gene exchange. In other animals these subgroups are often called 'breeds' instead of 'races' - race is a term specially applied to humans because "we're not animals". Breeds exhibit differences in phenotype which are the expressions of slight variations in genotype. It's a simple biological classification below the level of subspecies. It is a simple taxonomic classification. However, when applied to humans, the word 'race' is used in place of 'breed' possibly due to the holdover of the old belief that humans are not animals, but God's special creation, and so are not subject to the field of taxonomy. There are exceptions to this, such as that darned King Snake, where 'race' is used with the same denotation of 'breed'. Modern taxonomy, that performed largely on the basis of phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences, applies to all animals, however some object to its application to the human species for various political, religious, or ideological reasons. For some people, science is nice so long as it doesn't work against our agenda. I disagree, whether their agenda is noble or not, we are animals, we are not special, and we are not exempt from classification. Perhaps what hurts some people's brains is that the human species seemingly lacks subspecies, disrupting their idea of a taxonomic hierarchy. Perhaps they cannot grasp the concept of horizontal classification. Perhaps they irrationally believe that classification into 'races' promotes racism.

Now, maybe, Zilla will provide us with the requisite evidence that will show us how humans are special and not subject to biological classifications. Or perhaps he was expecting me to rant on about classification by phenotype and will stifle?

What the smart person said above. Dat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The above says there's no difference. That's what I've been saying.

[Jason]

Typed it fast.. so I made some errors.

[JimC]

OK, quick google turns up this blog that sums it up pretty well:

There is a lot of nonsense going around these days about the races of man, and how race is not a valid concept in humans. Sure it is. It can be seen as analogous to subspecies in animals and plants. A counterargument is that subspecies are limited to certain geographic areas, hence they do not interbreed. Indeed, but when their ranges do overlap, you do get hybrids.

Even full species can interbreed sometimes, and, as a fanatical birdwatcher, I have seen hybrid species of birds before. In general, nowadays, genetic distance is used as a parameter to delimit species, subspecies and even geographic segments of species. Where none of those will do, we can use the term “race”, as you see below with California kingsnakes.

The average differences between some of the major human races may even be greater than the distance between some full species – this notion is controversial though. At any rate, race is clearly a biological reality in more ways than mere skin color.

It’s clear that race in humans is a warranted concept. The fear of it is only a fear that acknowledgment of the existence of race = racism. The project is to lie and deny that race exists for the greater good of a game called, “If you deny that race exists, racism will vanish.”

That this project with noble intentions is doomed is probable. We are what we are, and that is cavemen and cavewomen with suits and matching outfits.

Anyway, strictly biologically speaking, race is a valid concept.

Let us take for example a snake. I am a snake-o-phile, or whatever they are called. I love snakes.

Here in California there is a critter called the California kingsnake.

What is interesting about the CA kingsnake is that it lacks subspecies. Now, most snakes and many mammals and birds have subspecies.

But the CA kingsnake has things called “races” that are even below the level of the subspecies. They can look dramatically different from a regular kingsnake, but there is apparently not enough genetic variation there to cut them into subspecies, so they are just called races.

The notion of whether or not human races divide sufficiently to be called subspecies is not yet sorted out, with White Nationalists coming down on the side that the races really are subspecies, and everyone else not even wanting to touch the subject.

At any rate, to call the races races, below the level of subspecies, in a California kingsnake kind of way, is hardly going to be the end of the world. It’s not even a radical concept. Biologically speaking, it’s utterly banal.

Amazing that careers are destroyed over this stuff. How dumb can you get?

The emphasis added just to tie in with what I was saying earlier.

In a purely academic sense, I agree. However, the majority of human use of the term race carries a lot more with it than neutral academic terminology. The term carries an enormous amount of baggage, most of it harmful. If humans could magically drop all that baggage, and use the term in the neutral sense of the blog, it would be harmless; until then, its use will always be fraught, and laden with toxic potential.

[Cormac]

How racially diverse is Rationalia? I'm just curious....

We have "human race" and "other."

Yeah.. but isn't that like saying we have "iced cream" and "other"? What about chocolate, vanilla, rocky road, or neapolitan?

How many races do we have? Human race = 1.

[Cormac]

Sociology is a science though.

Sociology is a science like economics is a science.