The power of genetic diversity

[grumbler]

The argument is solid but the response suffers from a fatal defect: failure to consider the name on the post responded to.

[Ideologue]

Do spoons exist? What about grains of sand? Stars?

Yep.  So do people.  Do magic spoons exist?  How about invisible grains of sand?  Intelligent stars?

Solaris, the Tyrant Sun.

[Neil]

Solaris, the Tyrant Sun.

Not enough Ted Kord.

[DGuller]

We just covered HLA typing in immunology. I don't know if grumbler could pass the exam if he insisted a given major histocompatibility complex allele is not associated with a particular race.

If you want to claim that races exist, then all you have to do is tell us h9w many races there are, define them, and tell us how to reliably distinguish between them. If the reliable indicator is HLA types, then why do we say "race" instead of the more accurate (and logically justifiable) "HLA type."

It could be for the same reason that we make a distinction between Black Labradors and German Shepherds by using different breed names, rather than by listing typical genetic differences between the two.  Breed names may not be more precise, but they're more accessible, and are a good proxy variable for the underlying set of genetic differences.

[LaCroix]

chihuahua is to german shephard as black man is to whitey? is that racist 

[DGuller]

I probably should've picked different breeds as an example.  Using a black breed and an Aryan breed was probably not the wisest choice. 

[grumbler]

It could be for the same reason that we make a distinction between Black Labradors and German Shepherds by using different breed names, rather than by listing typical genetic differences between the two.  Breed names may not be more precise, but they're more accessible, and are a good proxy variable for the underlying set of genetic differences.

What distinctions do we make between Black Lab/Golden Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes and Black Lab/Newfoundland Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes?  None.  They are just mutts.  The human species is just mutts, by and large, though some people have certainly tried to breed "races" within the human species.

Do we really distinguish between a person with 1/8 African ancestry and one with 3/16 African ancestry?  The "race" concept says that we should.

Now, if someone wants to call themselves "white" or "black" or "yellow" or "mahogany" and claim that this distinction means something to them, I am fine with that.  It is when they start classifying others and assigning distinctions that I object.  The concept of "race" is just too blunt a tool to mean a whole lot, and its use obscures more than it reveals, IMO.

[Neil]

It is when they start classifying others and assigning distinctions that I object.

Object all you want.  It is the Order of Things.

[DGuller]

What distinctions do we make between Black Lab/Golden Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes and Black Lab/Newfoundland Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes?  None.  They are just mutts.  The human species is just mutts, by and large, though some people have certainly tried to breed "races" within the human species.

Do we really distinguish between a person with 1/8 African ancestry and one with 3/16 African ancestry?  The "race" concept says that we should.

Now, if someone wants to call themselves "white" or "black" or "yellow" or "mahogany" and claim that this distinction means something to them, I am fine with that.  It is when they start classifying others and assigning distinctions that I object.  The concept of "race" is just too blunt a tool to mean a whole lot, and its use obscures more than it reveals, IMO.

There is no black and white in statistics (no pun intended).  Blunt tools are worse than precise tools, but useless tools are worse than blunt tools.  Yes, race probably is a blunt tool for most things, but it doesn't mean that's it can't be useful. 

Race or ethnicity are frequently sited as a risk factor for many diseases, so unless doctors are making shit up, those concepts are not too blunt to be useless.  I'm also sure that if doctors could find easily observable variables that explain the same variation that race does, they'd use those easily observable variables instead.  Proxy variables can be useful, but underlying sets of causative variables are much more so.

[Pat]

i would hope you're not bragging about looking at a migratory pattern of a group, the existence of a similar species to that group in its direct path, and making the connection that maybe something happened there 

Used to be a controversial minority view though. Everything is evident in hindsight, but yeah, it did make sense all along, I guess.

[Zoupa]

What distinctions do we make between Black Lab/Golden Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes and Black Lab/Newfoundland Lab/Collie/German Shepherd mixes?  None.  They are just mutts.  The human species is just mutts, by and large, though some people have certainly tried to breed "races" within the human species.

Do we really distinguish between a person with 1/8 African ancestry and one with 3/16 African ancestry?  The "race" concept says that we should.

Now, if someone wants to call themselves "white" or "black" or "yellow" or "mahogany" and claim that this distinction means something to them, I am fine with that.  It is when they start classifying others and assigning distinctions that I object.  The concept of "race" is just too blunt a tool to mean a whole lot, and its use obscures more than it reveals, IMO.

There is no black and white in statistics (no pun intended).  Blunt tools are worse than precise tools, but useless tools are worse than blunt tools.  Yes, race probably is a blunt tool for most things, but it doesn't mean that's it can't be useful. 

Race or ethnicity are frequently sited as a risk factor for many diseases, so unless doctors are making shit up, those concepts are not too blunt to be useless.  I'm also sure that if doctors could find easily observable variables that explain the same variation that race does, they'd use those easily observable variables instead.  Proxy variables can be useful, but underlying sets of causative variables are much more so.

I've tried that before with grumbler.

There's really no point, man.

[grumbler]

There is no black and white in statistics (no pun intended).  Blunt tools are worse than precise tools, but useless tools are worse than blunt tools.  Yes, race probably is a blunt tool for most things, but it doesn't mean that's it can't be useful.

That's what people keep saying, but they always shy off when asked to show specific uses for the tool of "race." How many races are there?   How does one tell what "race" one belongs to?  For what purpose is the tool of "race" useful? How can one tell when the "race tool" is useful? 

Race or ethnicity are frequently sited as a risk factor for many diseases, so unless doctors are making shit up, those concepts are not too blunt to be useless. 

Sex or invisibility is also frequently cited as a risk factor for many diseases, so unless doctors are making shit up, people can be invisible.

I'm also sure that if doctors could find easily observable variables that explain the same variation that race does, they'd use those easily observable variables instead.  Proxy variables can be useful, but underlying sets of causative variables are much more so.

The misuse of "race" in medical diagnosis is a known problem (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-y.htm is from a doctor talking about exactly that).  The problem with the assumption that, because some doctors sometimes do use "race" in diagnosis, "race" must have medical utility is that it does not.  It is assumed to have utility, and doctors, like posters on internet discussion boards, challenge their own assumptions all too rarely.

[grumbler]

I've tried that before with grumbler.

There's really no point, man.

Nice try at poisoning an intellectual discussion with an ad hom post, but I don't think it s going to work.  I think both DG and I are adult enough to recognize this for what it is.  How about you try to refrain from these kinds of antics?

[Pat]

Grumbler what do you have to say about 1-4% of eurasian genome coming from neanderthals? Isn't 1-4% a big enough difference for different races to exist?

[Valmy]

Grumbler what do you have to say about 1-4% of eurasian genome coming from neanderthals? Isn't 1-4% a big enough difference for different races to exist?

So there would be two races?  Africans and everybody else?