Or not. :lol:
http://mixedandhappy.com/2011/03/05/looking-for-mixed-race-donors-because-her-life-depends-on-it/
What are you talking about? Grumbler told me that there's no genetic component to race. Who do you trust to know what they're talking about? The doctors, or grumbler?
Yeah wtf.
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2011, 08:34:57 AM
What are you talking about? Grumbler told me that there's no genetic component to race. Who do you trust to know what they're talking about? The doctors, or grumbler?
...
grumbler.. :cry:
Maybe there is a social construct component to being a donor? :unsure:
Donor kebab?
Quote from: DGuller on April 25, 2011, 10:26:13 AM
Maybe there is a social construct component to being a donor? :unsure:
Or maybe a website called mixedandhappy.com is not the medical authority it's cracked up to be? :lol:
Quote from: Maximus on April 25, 2011, 01:40:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 25, 2011, 10:26:13 AM
Maybe there is a social construct component to being a donor? :unsure:
Or maybe a website called mixedandhappy.com is not the medical authority it's cracked up to be? :lol:
I know that I trust some random website more than I trust grumbler's musings on genetics. Unless that website is 4chan.
Quote from: Maximus on April 25, 2011, 01:40:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 25, 2011, 10:26:13 AM
Maybe there is a social construct component to being a donor? :unsure:
Or maybe a website called mixedandhappy.com is not the medical authority it's cracked up to be? :lol:
So you're arguing a website dedicated to race treason would overplay the negative side effects of producing mongrels? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on April 25, 2011, 02:17:29 PM
So you're arguing a website dedicated to race treason would overplay the negative side effects of producing mongrels? :hmm:
A website dedicated to race treason clearly buys into the concept of races.
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
I know that I trust some random website more than I trust grumbler's musings on genetics. Unless that website is 4chan.
To be fair, there were no races when grumbler was growing up. Everyone was still living in Africa.
Quote from: The Brain on April 25, 2011, 10:27:27 AM
Donor kebab?
:lmfao:
it was so weak, it cracked me up
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2011, 08:34:57 AM
What are you talking about? Grumbler told me that there's no genetic component to race. Who do you trust to know what they're talking about? The doctors, or grumbler?
Here is the byline of the "doctor':
QuoteKaren DeGroot Carter, a native of Syracuse NY and a graduate of Syracuse University, lives with her mixed-race family in Denver. Her novel, ONE SISTER'S SONG, explores challenges faced by people of mixed-race heritage and her blog, BEYOND Understanding, highlights resources that promote tolerance and celebrate diversity.
I choose: grumbler.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2011, 08:22:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
I know that I trust some random website more than I trust grumbler's musings on genetics. Unless that website is 4chan.
To be fair, there were no races when grumbler was growing up. Everyone was still living in Africa.
I always thought he first appeared in Pangaea myself. :hmm:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2011, 09:03:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2011, 08:34:57 AM
What are you talking about? Grumbler told me that there's no genetic component to race. Who do you trust to know what they're talking about? The doctors, or grumbler?
Here is the byline of the "doctor':
QuoteKaren DeGroot Carter, a native of Syracuse NY and a graduate of Syracuse University, lives with her mixed-race family in Denver. Her novel, ONE SISTER'S SONG, explores challenges faced by people of mixed-race heritage and her blog, BEYOND Understanding, highlights resources that promote tolerance and celebrate diversity.
I choose: grumbler.
Those credentials are pretty damning, especially the insipid name of the blog. That said, grumbler is still wrong.
:lol: 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.
nigerians have the same allele as cdm's dazzling urbanites?
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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."
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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."
Logically, knowing that there are at the very least two (Humans, grumblers) it follows that it's likely there are more. We just need to define them. I'm curious about the recent research into skull size and shape, which I think might be the break through we're looking for.
Once you've stated something ridiculous on Languish you are supposed to defend it forever, no matter how retarded it makes you look.
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:11:03 AM
Once you've stated something ridiculous on Languish you are supposed to defend it forever, no matter how retarded it makes you look.
The motivation for your irrational defense of the evils of the atom is made apparent. :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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.
Do spoons exist? What about grains of sand? Stars?
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 09:13:10 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:11:03 AM
Once you've stated something ridiculous on Languish you are supposed to defend it forever, no matter how retarded it makes you look.
The motivation for your irrational defense of the evils of the atom is made apparent. :hmm:
Fusion bombs don't kill people.
Quote from: Slargos on April 25, 2011, 03:32:31 AM
Or not. :lol:
http://mixedandhappy.com/2011/03/05/looking-for-mixed-race-donors-because-her-life-depends-on-it/
So what? If you can show me that acute lukemia is more common in Asian-Europeans, then you might have a point. Even taking the
blog entry on its face doesn't prove what you want to prove.
It's like saying Superman is limited in his options for organ donors. It's true, but it doesn't signify anything beyond the fact that he'd better hope Kara Zor-El is willing to give up a Kryptonian kidney.
But if you really want to take completely artificial problems and misunderstand them so thoroughly that you believe they represent genetic fitness, then you should maybe look into how white people tend to get really fucking fat.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 27, 2011, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 25, 2011, 03:32:31 AM
Or not. :lol:
http://mixedandhappy.com/2011/03/05/looking-for-mixed-race-donors-because-her-life-depends-on-it/ (http://mixedandhappy.com/2011/03/05/looking-for-mixed-race-donors-because-her-life-depends-on-it/)
So what? If you can show me that acute lukemia is more common in Asian-Europeans, then you might have a point. Even taking the blog entry on its face doesn't prove what you want to prove.
It's like saying Superman is limited in his options for organ donors. It's true, but it doesn't signify anything beyond the fact that he'd better hope Kara Zor-El is willing to give up a Kryptonian kidney.
But if you really want to take completely artificial problems and misunderstand them so thoroughly that you believe they represent genetic fitness, then you should maybe look into how white people tend to get really fucking fat.
:lol:
Right.
Not to brag or anything... ;)
Quote from: Pat on May 19, 2009, 06:56:43 AM
There were most likely quite some cross-breeding between neanderthals and humans. People are known to fuck anything with a hole, including many of our four-legged friends, so why not something with two legs that is actually quite similar to us, narcissism of the small differences aside?
As for whether they would produce fertile offspring, I don't see any reason why not. Anyway as soon as we have mapped the neanderthal genome, which is in the making, we will simply compare their genome to ours and we will know if there are neanderthal genes among the humans who spread out of Africa. [...]
It has since been proven by the eminent Svante Pääbo that the humans who spread out of Africa do indeed have lots of neanderthal DNA and are quite different from those who did not spread out of Africa (and interbred with neanderthals).
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm
"Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals."
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 ;)
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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."
The argument is solid but the response suffers from a fatal defect: failure to consider the name on the post responded to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2011, 11:10:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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."
The argument is solid but the response suffers from a fatal defect: failure to consider the name on the post responded to.
Grumbler is a rebel and doesn't need to follow the rules he created himself. :P
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:14:16 AM
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2011, 11:10:28 AM
The argument is solid but the response suffers from a fatal defect: failure to consider the name on the post responded to.
:blush:
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 11:15:01 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:14:16 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 09:05:43 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 26, 2011, 04:36:11 PM
:lol: 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.
chihuahua is to german shephard as black man is to whitey? is that racist :hmm:
I probably should've picked different breeds as an example. Using a black breed and an Aryan breed was probably not the wisest choice. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2011, 07:18:35 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 07:29:18 PM
It is when they start classifying others and assigning distinctions that I object.
Object all you want. It is the Order of Things.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 07:29:18 PM
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 27, 2011, 11:05:11 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2011, 07:45:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 07:29:18 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2011, 07:45:28 PM
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?
QuoteRace 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.
QuoteI'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 (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.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 28, 2011, 03:50:12 AM
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?
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?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:18:25 AM
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?
That would seem to be the major divide, yes. But of course everything comes down to how you define race.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:18:25 AM
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?
I say 'that's interesting" but don't see its relevance for the discussion of "race."
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:22:03 AM
That would seem to be the major divide, yes. But of course everything comes down to how you define race.
Or whether you define it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2011, 07:08:48 AM
The misuse of "race" in medical diagnosis is a known problem (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-y.htm (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.
Yeah actually the OP of this thread seems to admit that. After all, if "race" was a useful proxy, just find "one person with one Korean parent and one white parent" and she'd be good to go.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 09:46:00 AM
Yeah actually the OP of this thread seems to admit that. After all, if "race" was a useful proxy, just find "one person with one Korean parent and one white parent" and she'd be good to go.
:huh: That's not the necessary implication at all, that's a gross misunderstanding of proxy variables.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you need a new kidney. For whatever strange reason, a kidney from a blond guy has a 1% chance of being a good match for you. A kidney from a non-blond guy has a 0.01% chance of being a good match for you. We don't know why hair color makes such a difference, there seems to be no causative reason for that, but no matter what other reasonably observable variables we use, we can't find a set that would explain the same piece of variance in results that hair color does.
Therefore, hair color is a good proxy variable for screening potential match donors. If you were looking to search for strangers that could be a good match for you, obviously it would be a good idea to concentrate your limited resources on just blond strangers, since a blond stranger is 100 times more likely to be a match. That's an astonishing predictive power, and that makes hair color an extremely good and useful proxy variable. However, it doesn't mean that the first blond guy you come across would be a good match for you.
"Caucasian" is definitely my favorite racial categorization. Nothing like using the name of a Central Asian mountain range to categorize a bunch of otherwise totally unrelated human beings.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:18:25 AM
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?
now what sort of race would that be, of schizophrenia? :D
but no, you're playing with science and using it to try and fit in this notion of race you seem obsessed with :)
Quote from: PatUsed to be a controversial minority view though. Everything is evident in hindsight, but yeah, it did make sense all along, I guess.
i know. a friend who dabbles in genetics tried telling me otherwise years ago, and then deflected my question on gingerism. i had the last laugh there
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 10:22:50 AM
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you need a new kidney. For whatever strange reason, a kidney from a blond guy has a 1% chance of being a good match for you. A kidney from a non-blond guy has a 0.01% chance of being a good match for you. We don't know why hair color makes such a difference, there seems to be no causative reason for that, but no matter what other reasonably observable variables we use, we can't find a set that would explain the same piece of variance in results that hair color does.
Therefore, hair color is a good proxy variable for screening potential match donors. If you were looking to search for strangers that could be a good match for you, obviously it would be a good idea to concentrate your limited resources on just blond strangers, since a blond stranger is 100 times more likely to be a match. That's an astonishing predictive power, and that makes hair color an extremely good and useful proxy variable. However, it doesn't mean that the first blond guy you come across would be a good match for you.
You haven't made any argument (nor has anyone else) that any of this has to do with "race," BTW. Blonde hair has nothing to do with "race," insofar as I know. That genetics has to do with suitability as a donor is rather tautological, I would think.
I would also argue that, since hair color can be changed, it isn't a particularly good proxy variable for screening potential match donors. Having "blonde" genes might be a good proxy except that if one is checking genes one might as well just check for the genes that are directly applicable.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2011, 10:32:46 AM
You haven't made any argument (nor has anyone else) that any of this has to do with "race," BTW. Blonde hair has nothing to do with "race," insofar as I know. That genetics has to do with suitability as a donor is rather tautological, I would think.
I was making a point about proxy variables in general, and deliberately used a hypothetical example that had nothing to do with race.
Quote
I would also argue that, since hair color can be changed, it isn't a particularly good proxy variable for screening potential match donors.
You seem to be unduly fixated on the need for proxy variables to be very precisely defined, and not being controllable. That's preferable, but far from necessary. In my line of work, plenty of variables are proxy variables that are controllable by the insured, or not defined in an ironclad way. They're still very useful, and ignoring them would lose you big money when you try to write insurance.
Here is a very basic concept: if a variable is not a good proxy variable, then you would not observe correlations involving that proxy variable. If you observe a correlation with some variable, however loosely or unreliably defined, then by definition you have a useful proxy variable. If the proxy variable was useless, you wouldn't find a correlation in the first place. It doesn't mean that you can't find an even better correlation if you sit down, and try to come up with a better definition, but what you have now is already useful.
The problem DG is that traditional racial categories usually don't serve a very good proxies for the kind of genetic matching you are referring to. That is because the construction of racial categories preceded the science of genetics and was done for very different purposes.
DG, it's no use. It's been 8 years since I discussed race with grumbler and realized that he is a member of the Moron race. He won't understand, he is too stupid.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 10:46:33 AM
I was making a point about proxy variables in general, and deliberately used a hypothetical example that had nothing to do with race.
Okay. I would argue that your statements about proxy variables are so vague as to be trite, then.
QuoteYou seem to be unduly fixated on the need for proxy variables to be very precisely defined, and not being controllable.
You seem to be unduly fixated on avoiding any definition of "race" whatever. I am not concerned with, let alone fixed on, a need for "race" to be "precisely defined;" just that it be defined at all. So far, you arguers in favor of the concept of "races" have signally avoided any effort to define your terms.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 11:32:23 AM
DG, it's no use. It's been 8 years since I discussed race with grumbler and realized that he is a member of the Moron race. He won't understand, he is too stupid.
Thanks for another juvenile attempt to derail an intellectual discussion with an
ad hom. DG and I are too adult, alas for you, to fall for such a feeble troll. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2011, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 11:32:23 AM
DG, it's no use. It's been 8 years since I discussed race with grumbler and realized that he is a member of the Moron race. He won't understand, he is too stupid.
Thanks for another juvenile attempt to derail an intellectual discussion with an ad hom. DG and I are too adult, alas for you, to fall for such a feeble troll. :hug:
:console:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 11:27:41 AM
The problem DG is that traditional racial categories usually don't serve a very good proxies for the kind of genetic matching you are referring to. That is because the construction of racial categories preceded the science of genetics and was done for very different purposes.
That's a question that can be answered by statistics. I do know that some statistics (namely life tables) produce a shockingly different results for whites and blacks. However race was defined when life tables were produced, it was defined well enough that you're getting some really enormous differences.
For example, at age 5, life expectancy for a white person was 73.4 in 2005. For a black person, it was 69.0. (I'm using life expectancy at age 5 to take out the effect of higher child mortality rate for blacks, though that by no means is an issue that should be ignored either). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/lewk3_2005.pdf
Now, you may ask what in this case race is a proxy for, and that would be a very good question. It could be a proxy for socioeconomic class, it could be a proxy for biological differences, something else entirely, or a combination of the above. However, you cannot say that race is not a good proxy variable in this case, 4.4 years in life expectancy is a big difference that is explained by this allegedly poor proxy.
DG- now you are talking about something very different.
There is no question that racial categories have meaning - but their meaning is one that is generated as an artifact of human associative interaction, not a reflection of some underlying scientific reality. Becuase racial categories are socially constructed, it is trivial to say that such categories may be related is some way to other social constructions like "socioeconomic class". Nor is it particularly suprising that such categorization can therefore be correlated to certain social outcomes like income, health and life prospects.
That is wholly separate from the earlier question you posed, which is the relation of such categories to matters of objective scientific interest, such as genetic matching.
It's apparently Ohio state law that all newborns be blood-tested for sickle cell. They had to draw some blood from my baby girl's foot a couple weeks ago & I asked if we could just skip it. The nurse rolled her eyes & said she wished they could since the hospital had never had a test come back positive at this hospital (it's located in my township which is like 98% white). She did say they did have several that did come back positive when she worked at University hospital downtown.
So my poor little girl had to have her foot poked for no reason :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 11:27:41 AM
The problem DG is that traditional racial categories usually don't serve a very good proxies for the kind of genetic matching you are referring to. That is because the construction of racial categories preceded the science of genetics and was done for very different purposes.
My favorite is Hispanic, because you can be white and brown at the same time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 11:46:04 AM
DG- now you are talking about something very different.
There is no question that racial categories have meaning - but their meaning is one that is generated as an artifact of human associative interaction, not a reflection of some underlying scientific reality. Becuase racial categories are socially constructed, it is trivial to say that such categories may be related is some way to other social constructions like "socioeconomic class". Nor is it particularly suprising that such categorization can therefore be correlated to certain social outcomes like income, health and life prospects.
That is wholly separate from the earlier question you posed, which is the relation of such categories to matters of objective scientific interest, such as genetic matching.
Anyway, I did not mean my hypothetical example to be about kidney transplants. I meant it to be an example about proxy variables and their utility, and I deliberately tried to remove any other distraction from the example.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 12:51:17 PM
Anyway, I did not mean my hypothetical example to be about kidney transplants. I meant it to be an example about proxy variables and their utility, and I deliberately tried to remove any other distraction from the example.
I don't think anyone is doubting the value of proxy variables. I don't think anyone did before you provided an example, but I think if anyone did doubt the value of proxy variables they have been convinced.
Yeah, I think we only start having problems when people take useful proxy variables and use them to prop up "racial truths" a la Slargos and Martinus.
I doubt the value of proxy variables.
Also, I don't know what a proxy variable is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 10:23:50 AM
"Caucasian" is definitely my favorite racial categorization. Nothing like using the name of a Central Asian mountain range to categorize a bunch of otherwise totally unrelated human beings.
It could be worse. Like Carpathian. Or Alpine. Oh. Wait. Someone tried those.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
Yeah, I think we only start having problems when people take useful proxy variables and use them to prop up "racial truths" a la Slargos and Martinus.
All Swedes and Poles think like that. It's genetic.
;)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 01:17:16 PM
Also, I don't know what a proxy variable is.
One of the various factors that can be considered when deciding which corporate directors to vote for.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 12:51:17 PM
Anyway, I did not mean my hypothetical example to be about kidney transplants. I meant it to be an example about proxy variables and their utility, and I deliberately tried to remove any other distraction from the example.
the utility of proxy variables is in direct proportion to the degree of their relation or connection to that which they are proxying for, but you already knew that.
If the thing one is attempting to proxy for is some sort of genetic characteristic, then traditional racial categories can be problematic because their connection to genetic characteristics is typically very loose at best and accidental. (not surprising given that, as stated before, these categorizations preceded any clear understanding of genetics). To take derspeiss' example, if one wants to proxy for risk of sickle cell anemia, then what one might want to look for is the extent to which one descends from persons who lived in tropical areas at high risk of malaria. Traditional racial categories like "Black" are rather suboptimal for that purpose, as they are simultaneously overinclusive (many "Blacks" do not trace descent to such locations and at are low risk) and underinclusive (e.g. failure to include certain persons tracing descent from persons living in certain South Asian locales who are at high risk).
If the thing one is attempting to proxy for is some sort of social phenonomenon, then traditional racial categories may appear to be more useful at proxies, but probably only because some kind of circular relationship is at work.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 10:23:50 AM
"Caucasian" is definitely my favorite racial categorization. Nothing like using the name of a Central Asian mountain range to categorize a bunch of otherwise totally unrelated human beings.
Sometimes, it's even used in French :yuk:
Btw, since when The Caucasus is a Central Asian mountain range ? :contract:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 28, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
Btw, since when The Caucasus is a Central Asian mountain range ? :contract:
Ever since it's been east of Asia Minor and the Levant and west of China.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 28, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
Btw, since when The Caucasus is a Central Asian mountain range ? :contract:
Ever since it's been east of Asia Minor and the Levant and west of China.
Then why is it considered one of the borders of Europe ?
Actually, more like to the North East of Asia Minor and the Levant i.e the Near East
Does the status of Turkey vs Europe change as well?
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
Yeah. Better to have a land war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 02:35:18 PM
the utility of proxy variables is in direct proportion to the degree of their relation or connection to that which they are proxying for, but you already knew that.
Of course. However, I'm not picky, I'll take any incremental improvement in predictive power.
Quote
If the thing one is attempting to proxy for is some sort of genetic characteristic, then traditional racial categories can be problematic because their connection to genetic characteristics is typically very loose at best and accidental. (not surprising given that, as stated before, these categorizations preceded any clear understanding of genetics). To take derspeiss' example, if one wants to proxy for risk of sickle cell anemia, then what one might want to look for is the extent to which one descends from persons who lived in tropical areas at high risk of malaria. Traditional racial categories like "Black" are rather suboptimal for that purpose, as they are simultaneously overinclusive (many "Blacks" do not trace descent to such locations and at are low risk) and underinclusive (e.g. failure to include certain persons tracing descent from persons living in certain South Asian locales who are at high risk).
This is a good example of how proxy variables, and true underlying causative variables, compare. Of course it is more useful to know where someone is descended from for the purpose of screening for sickle cell anemia. If you know that, knowing race is probably useless, because someone's descent would explain all the variation in outcomes that race would, and then some.
However, so what? That's the nature of any proxy variable. They're by definition a rather "dirty" variable that you'd rather not be using. You'd rather be using the underlying causative variables. You'll get more predictive power that way, and you'll get a better understanding of dynamics at play. You can also effect outcome changes by controlling the causative variables, in situations where it's applicable, while controlling the proxy variable is just shooting the messenger.
So why use proxy variables at all then? You use them because you either don't know the causative variables, or it's impractically hard to observe the causative variables. If you know someone's descent for screening for sickle cell anemia, use that. But that seems like a more difficult variable to observe and ascertain than just eyeballing someone's race. Depending on the application, greater predictive power may not be worth the cost.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
I find geographical arguments like this entertaining, since there seems to be a lot of variation as to how world geography is taught in different parts of the world (e.g., the debate I started here a while back as to how many continents there are).
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
But that seems like a more difficult variable to observe and ascertain than just eyeballing someone's race.
Except you don't eyeball race. You eyeball physical appearance and that is the true proxy that is being used here. "Race" in this example is just a rather sloppy way of categorizing physical appearances.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
But that seems like a more difficult variable to observe and ascertain than just eyeballing someone's race.
Except you don't eyeball race. You eyeball physical appearance and that is the true proxy that is being used here. "Race" in this example is just a rather sloppy way of categorizing physical appearances.
Yes, you are correct. The true proxy variable is the perception of what race someone belongs to. That's a shorthand that I've used for pretty much the whole thread.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
I find geographical arguments like this entertaining, since there seems to be a lot of variation as to how world geography is taught in different parts of the world (e.g., the debate I started here a while back as to how many continents there are).
I've seen the Caucuasus referred to both ways (ie part of central asia and not). It's an arbitrary characterization; couldn't care less either way. If one wants to be literal, geographically speaking the center of Asia would be around Irkutsk; on a population weighting probably somewhere around Lhasa.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
I find geographical arguments like this entertaining, since there seems to be a lot of variation as to how world geography is taught in different parts of the world (e.g., the debate I started here a while back as to how many continents there are).
When Languish was down, there was this huge argument on EUOT whether or not Poland is in eastern Europe or not. I didn't know that Poles were so sensitive about such things. I said that if they didn't like being Eastern Europeans they could be West Asians if they like.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 05:50:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:48:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
But that seems like a more difficult variable to observe and ascertain than just eyeballing someone's race.
Except you don't eyeball race. You eyeball physical appearance and that is the true proxy that is being used here. "Race" in this example is just a rather sloppy way of categorizing physical appearances.
Yes, you are correct. The true proxy variable is the perception of what race someone belongs to. That's a shorthand that I've used for pretty much the whole thread.
That's terrible. It likely wouldn't do me much good if my physician thought my background was the Middle East.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 06:04:33 PM
That's terrible. It likely wouldn't do me much good if my physician thought my background was the Middle East.
The cases where race is most difficult to classify are also the cases where race would be at its most useless as a predictive proxy variable. Think about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:48:09 PM"Race" in this example is just a rather sloppy way of categorizing physical appearances.
It's not very sloppy at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 05:54:45 PMWhen Languish was down, there was this huge argument on EUOT whether or not Poland is in eastern Europe or not. I didn't know that Poles were so sensitive about such things. I said that if they didn't like being Eastern Europeans they could be West Asians if they like.
Of course they're East Europeans:
1. They speak a Slavic language.
2. They're a former Soviet vassal.
That makes them East Europeans. Once upon a time, they may have been part of "Central Europe" or some such place, but there's no "Central Europe" after WWII.
Now, given time the categories may shift again but right now, Poland = Eastern Europe.
Or, as it is also known, "Bad Europe."
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 06:12:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 06:04:33 PM
That's terrible. It likely wouldn't do me much good if my physician thought my background was the Middle East.
The cases where race is most difficult to classify are also the cases where race would be at its most useless as a predictive proxy variable. Think about it.
Of course, my example easily works the opposite way.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 12:33:11 PM
It's apparently Ohio state law that all newborns be blood-tested for sickle cell. They had to draw some blood from my baby girl's foot a couple weeks ago & I asked if we could just skip it. The nurse rolled her eyes & said she wished they could since the hospital had never had a test come back positive at this hospital (it's located in my township which is like 98% white). She did say they did have several that did come back positive when she worked at University hospital downtown.
So my poor little girl had to have her foot poked for no reason :(
odd that it would only be for that. Imho, it's more likely that it's the Guthrietest that happened
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_test
Killing fascists test? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2011, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 05:30:02 PM
Seems pointless to argue about the borders of Europe and Asia.
I find geographical arguments like this entertaining, since there seems to be a lot of variation as to how world geography is taught in different parts of the world (e.g., the debate I started here a while back as to how many continents there are).
I've seen the Caucuasus referred to both ways (ie part of central asia and not). It's an arbitrary characterization; couldn't care less either way. If one wants to be literal, geographically speaking the center of Asia would be around Irkutsk; on a population weighting probably somewhere around Lhasa.
First time I saw it referenced as in Central Asia. Central Asia generally means the 'Stans
An Anglo and/or Yank thing?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 29, 2011, 02:55:10 AM
First time I saw it referenced as in Central Asia. Central Asia generally means the 'Stans
An Anglo and/or Yank thing?
:unsure:
First hit I get when I google "central asia" and hit images:
http://centralasiaconnect.web.unc.edu/welcome/central_asia_map-2/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 29, 2011, 02:55:10 AM
First time I saw it referenced as in Central Asia. Central Asia generally means the 'Stans
An Anglo and/or Yank thing?
:unsure:
First hit I get when I google "central asia" and hit images:
http://centralasiaconnect.web.unc.edu/welcome/central_asia_map-2/
:lol: UNC? That's a new low in sources.
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 08:53:27 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 29, 2011, 02:55:10 AM
First time I saw it referenced as in Central Asia. Central Asia generally means the 'Stans
An Anglo and/or Yank thing?
:unsure:
First hit I get when I google "central asia" and hit images:
http://centralasiaconnect.web.unc.edu/welcome/central_asia_map-2/
:lol: UNC? That's a new low in sources.
Dunno-- they defied expectations & made it to the Final Four this year.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 08:51:55 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 29, 2011, 02:55:10 AM
First time I saw it referenced as in Central Asia. Central Asia generally means the 'Stans
An Anglo and/or Yank thing?
:unsure:
First hit I get when I google "central asia" and hit images:
http://centralasiaconnect.web.unc.edu/welcome/central_asia_map-2/
There's Belarus in your Central Asian map :secret: though it is centered on the 'Stans.
Only the South/Lesser Caucasus states listed along with the 'Stans. Makes somewhat sense for Azerbaidjan (culturally) but not that much for Armenia and Georgia. :hmm:
PS: The tabs above the map only refer to the 'Stans anyways.
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
OK - I'm prepared to concede the point on this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 09:19:46 AM
OK - I'm prepared to concede the point on this.
I think the point is worth at least another dozen posts. After all, the more irrelevant the issue, the more posts we see about it on languish.
Quote from: The Brain on April 29, 2011, 09:33:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 09:19:46 AM
OK - I'm prepared to concede the point on this.
:(
Well, I agreed before with Minsky about the main point that Caucasian as a synonym for white was ridiculous so you shouldn't be sad for such a trivial detail ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
If one wants to be literal, geographically speaking the center of Asia would be around Irkutsk; on a population weighting probably somewhere around Lhasa.
My guess is further south. IINM Bangladesh has a larger population than Russia.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
If one wants to be literal, geographically speaking the center of Asia would be around Irkutsk; on a population weighting probably somewhere around Lhasa.
My guess is further south. IINM Bangladesh has a larger population than Russia.
Especially if, as some believe, ABCD India has a larger population than China, and remember that EFGH Indonesia's population is greater than that of Russia or Pakistan.
:lol: