Messages

[circular]

@Ibrahim90

Sorry for the delay ... My previous participations were done "on the spot", I'll try to take more time to formulate the next one. I'll do it during the next week ... But before I can do that I have two questions, one that is important and one that might be less so.

First :
"And judging from the conversation, quite circular."
Can you expand on that ?

And :
"Oh, now you tell me! 
Actually, you're right. I would argue though that genus is also valid, since it has a definition we can test."
I don't know what that part in bold means in that context so I need an explanation...

Thanks.

Who the hell are you quoting?

He was quoting me !

@Ibrahim90

Well, there clearly is a divide about the scientific name of modern humans. It appears that french sources and english sources don't agree on that. Don't know why that is, but i'm not sure it's important either way ...

Is there also a difference in how different communities deal with groups below the species level ? What I can tell you is that I've read in the past that the definition of sub-species is "loose". Maybe the word "accepted" wasn't the right one here, I don't know. I note that a definition based on the oppurtunity of interbreeding is already quite loose so ...

Now, the exact word used by scientists in a scientific context to describe the level below the species level isn't that relevant anyway, that was not my point. I think  you are right : in my experience, the word race is not the word of choice. But knowing what word is in use in a specific context doesn't help us discuss the validity of the concept behind the word "race".

About this part:

-humans on average are 99.5% identical genetically. That's less than a troop of chimpanzees (and most of the differences don't express themselves in any way: they're often called "marker genes", which is how we can trace ancestry in our species; it's also why species can be diverse genetically in the first place, but have their members all look, act, and function near-identically).
-the human brain (and its structure) is just one example of a diagnostic trait in H.sapiens, and the basic behavioral outcomes due to the hard wiring of this organ are largely similar throughout the species (culture can play with this, but cannot alter its fundamentals): this part is important, and you should know why if you read my reply about subspecies (actually, if you took any biology class, you should have known this: the brain generally controls behavior in vertebrate animals). So relevant? yes!

Anf before, you said this :

No one is implying that by saying man is one race. Of course humans evolved and diverged to an extent. variations based on the environment are to be expected therefore (for example, skin color and immunology).

But these are minimal, tend to overlap considerably, and don't fundamentally affect the structure of the human brain (which hasn't really changed in 60,000 years--save in size, which worldwide has fallen). The reason is because what people call "races" didn't appear till the last 10-15,,000 years or so, and were in flux for millennia (which is why some human remains--like Kennewick man--have DNA similar to today's native Americans, but have faces that seem non-native: Kennewick man looked more like the Ainu in Japan.).

I don't want to stay to much on that part because I think we already derailed from the point I was making. You agree that "variations in different populations are to be expected", which is great, I, in turn, wasn't expecting anything else here. But I still don't see the remaining of the points as being relevant : Should we expect sub-groups in the humans species to present the differences in the brain you talk about ? I don't think so. Those differences could have happened ... or not. Behavioural outcomes, structures ans sizes of the brain of a given species could possibly be statisticaly close, as in virtually identical, if the pressures on the different populations of that species are not so radically different as to generates those brain differences ... If they share the same genetic makeup to start with (same species), I would think that this kind of similarities, wether in the brain or eslewhere are bound to be found. There can't be such a gold standard because as we already agree on, most differences we find between different population are statistical. In that case, the brain would be an example of a small statistical difference compared to the other differences.

The rate of genetic diversity doesn't seem so convincing either because it doesn't tell us where the differences are and how they are correlated or not. It just tells us how many they are. But the number is not important. What is important is if those differences are correlated with a given population for example. The commonalities are irrelavent because they are established by the fact that all population observed are from the same species (in our example at least). What matters are the circumstances "around" the differences (I used quotaion marks because I'm not sure how I should phrase this). if there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that different groups within a larger groups can only be discirminated by differences because logically, if they belong in the same larger group, they will necessarily share a lot in common. Therefore, what is relevant has to do with the differences only, which renders the rate of genetic diversity irrelevant to my specific point.

I'm not going to go back to the "do not share" in bold because I assumed that people would assume that I was writing with the fact that differences are statistical in nature in mind ... Even in hindsight I still think the expression was correctly used but whatever. Also, I might not be a native english speaker, or the best non native english speaker but I know what expressions like "get it now?" "oh dear ..." means and I don't know where this animosity comes from so this further encourages me to not focus too much on the things that weren't relevant to my point to being with.

So my point was that the concept of race basically describes a lineage within a bigger lineage, and we can categorize any given group that way because that is the way evolution generates new populations, by making lineage branch out into smaller lineage. So as a generality, the concept applies to humans that way. I don't think I've suggested that it should apply to scientific fields with a definition that broad. And if it was understood that way then let me state it another way : Since it is a fact that smaller lineage have appeared within the human species, regardless of the "fuzziness" of their limits in relation to each other ("fuzziness" which is itself a consequence of evolution), then it means that it is a valid line of scientific enquiry.

I think it obvious that with that definition, I don't have to draw any line. I never even suggested that we could draw a line. Even the line between species is only drawn because a huge chuck of the family tree of the living has died off today. Species are only a valid taxonomic group for practical purposes and are the result or either a "chronological bias" (we see it that way only because we see it today) or the discretization of evolutionary events that took place over a long time, and sometimes in a non linear manner.

the next rank below species is called a "subspecies". There is only one taxonomic sub-species of Homo sapiens: H. sapiens sapiens. Any others have long died out.

That's not how it is nowadays. This denomination is not used anymore and the term sub-species doesn't even have an accepted definition. It's pretty much dependant on the person doing the research as far as I know. Well, it's below the species level and ... There is some form of isolation that fixes some traits ... That's pretty much it.

But these are minimal, tend to overlap considerably, and don't fundamentally affect the structure of the human brain (which hasn't really changed in 60,000 years--save in size, which worldwide has fallen).

You'll have to explain to me why this is relevant in this discussion because I don't understand ... "Minimal" by what standards ? How often statistical differences do not overlap between sub-species ? Why would the size of the human brain be a good indicator of anything for the purpose of this discussion ?

In any classification of the living there are only two parameters that are necessary together : The individuals in this population must share characteristics that they do not share with other populations in the same group and they must transfer those caracteristics to their offsprings. And that's pretty much what the concept of race is supposed to be. Anything else is just chronology as in "which group appears before/after the other".

The reason is because what people call "races" didn't appear till the last 10-15,,000 years or so, and were in flux for millennia (which is why some human remains--like Kennewick man--have DNA similar to today's native Americans, but have faces that seem non-native: Kennewick man looked more like the Ainu in Japan.). Those cows are the same: all one breed, but differing colors, and slightly different builds.

Again, why this standard specifically ? Is there a rule in those scientific fields that says that any sub group that appeared that soon in history is not eligible to be described as a sub group ? Is there a mechanism that we know of that prevents sub groups to form that quickly ?

I would also remind you that human populations were, throughout much of the history of our species, were insanely small: it took 60,000 years to go from ~10,000 people, to ~5 million. This will further weed out human genetic diversity (so yeah, inbreeding was a serious problem--especially in out of Africa populations).

The reason why the diversity is reduced or raised really does not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

What matters is : Do sub groups, in which all individuals share characteristics that they do not share with other population in the same group and that are always transfered to the offspring, exists in the human population ?

I mean what is the definition of the word "race" for you ? Does it involve something else ? Any of the standard you proposed  ? And if yes : why ? Because the word was invented way before the study of biodiversity and it really only meant what I said. Basically, a lineage within a bigger lineage. The point about it is that even with all that new knowledge, it still have descriptive value.

Maybe it's a bit much to ask but can someone who watched the Molyneux video point to specific segments that could illustrate his point ? I have to admit that the one reason I never got around to go deep enough into what he says is that in the few video a watched, it was taking him an insane amount of time to say very simple things ... So I thought "screw it".

I'm not necessarily asking for time stamps but rather, if you remember if it was after X amount of time, or between X and Y minutes ... Just general pointers ...

If I can reduce a 90 minutes Molyneux video to half its length (or more) it would be great, but if it can't be help then too bad for me.

I would also be curious to know what the term race realism should/would/could entails exactly. By reading some of the things oyu can find by googling it, I find that i some aspects that label could perfectly apply to me, while the insistance about making it a social philosophy or associating it with people who assume a hierarchy withing subgroups of the human species doesn't necessarily follow and therefore makes it look like it's a political term rather than something created to have an optimal descriptive value.

I guess that that one discussion I had with Shane once relates to that topic, where my contention was that the term race applies well below the species level. I see only a handful of possible valid positions here
1) categorizing the living below the species level is not scientificaly relevant and therefore the concept of race is invalid, which incidentally renders the concepts of sub-species and the likes invalid too
2) The concept of race is perfectly fine in the casual use of language because  in a lot of cases, discrete categories are necessities
3) The concept of categorizing the living below the species level is scientificaly relevant and in that case it also renders 2) valid even for broader uses ( because it uses the same basic idea, sometimes as an analogy as in 'the race of champions' )

For the moment I'm in group 3. I know for a fact that scientists already categorize the living below the species level, and there are good reasons for that. Worst case scenario, the use in common language can't be accurate enough but still retains practical value.

That's the one reason I was objecting to the Bill Nye clip at the time. Saying that there are "no human races, only a human species" or "no human races but one human race" is like saying there are no dog breeds or no tiger sub-species. This stuff happens, populations diverge and get slightly or widely different, whatever. Evolution don't stop between the species level and the "next of kin" level.

The constant problem is known as gerrymandering [...]

Thanks !

I was going to do a google search about that, but screw it I'm lazy tonight. Can someone explain to me, as summarized or as extensively as you want, what is the deal with those districts, and particularely, what is the big controversy ? I remember hearing about that system in the past several times, but do not remember what the issue was ...

I really thought all three points were an issue.

I get the who and why problems because it has been brought up more than enough now, but the mere fact that anybody (because at this point it would be fundamentally equivalent to anybody) could just get in, or that it doesn't bother other people who might have the ultimate authority in a country is telling I think.

In France, presidents are members of the constitutionnal council by right.

Ah I get it, like some people in France would want to access Netflix in the US before it was available here.

It works fine for me with BoxPN's New York server.

They've basically admitted this is bupkis. They're only doing it to make the content creators happy; they know that this is doomed to failure.

What is it supposed to achieve ?

Evensgrey doesn't seem to be too surprised by their practices.
Well, I have to say, that's a first for me. I couldn't shake the idea that there need to be more to it than what meets the eye, but I can't find a good way to justify their business model. Either it's really smart and what I obviously lack is the business knowledge, or they really are doing it wrong, and either way, I find it really wierd.

Yeah, that's why it's wierd. They go to insane length to just provide a trivial product for a normal price. Makes no sense to me.
Does that mean that enough people will buy it merely because it's recommended by a youtuber ? I don't get it.
Also, they apparently don't choose youtubers because their viewer base likely have an interest in health and personnal hygiene products since Jaclyn Glenn and the two other channels I checked aren't that kind of channel.

http://smilesciences.com/

step 1) Click on the link and read about their product etc

step 2) Click on "home", scroll down, notice that you can get 90% off by using a code provided by various youtubers.
Interesting trivia : Jaclyn Glenn is one of them.

step 3) Ponder your confusion and get back to me after that.

Extra step for the smarter than me : Explain to me how this business exists ...

Thank you.


Quote of the week :"Yeah it's not sponsored, I just like the product. By the way, use my name as a code to get this shit at 90% off. I don't get any money for my advertisement service, I promise" JoshuaDTV