03-03-2004 16:31									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Then you'll have no difficulty giving us a definition of race.

One could simply define a race as being a group of people who are genertically very similar. I can see no problem with that. The definition of the cut-off point would be arbitrary and the boundaries would be a little strange (ie. 2 people could be almost identical but be of different races if they are sitting right on the boundary), but it is a workable and consistant definition.

	03-03-2004 16:39									#92
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A genetic definition of race fails, because there is a greater difference between individuals within each race than between the "average" individual of each race.

	03-03-2004 16:42									#93
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

That's right Mr. Junkie.

	03-03-2004 19:00									#94
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by skywalker A genetic definition of race fails, because there is a greater difference between individuals within each race than between the "average" individual of each race.

Sorry, but that is such a dense statement. Since the definition of someone being of the same race would (according to the definition I propose) be that they are genetically similar, the genetic difference between individuals within each race could not be more than twice the difference between one of the individuals and the "average" individual. duh!

	03-03-2004 19:04									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Despite the fact your argument makes no sense there's also a scientific conclusion to what skywalker said.

	03-03-2004 19:18									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

*sigh* - try reading it again patikiss. This time switch on your brain.

	03-03-2004 19:20									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

Your starting assumption is wrong my freunde. The definition of race used in said study was the one widely accepted, not the one you proposed.

	03-03-2004 19:22									#98
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Which starting assumption? I haven't made one.

	03-03-2004 19:23									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Does race exist? Yes
Does it matter? Obviously
Should it matter? Probably not

	03-03-2004 19:24									#100
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Which starting assumption? I haven't made one.

quote: Since the definition of someone being of the same race would (according to the definition I propose) be that they are genetically similar

	03-03-2004 19:24									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Racial stereotypes certainly exist...

The belief of superiority based on racial origin exists...

Personally I wish they didn't... but they do.

	03-03-2004 19:51									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

That isn't an assumption - its a definition.

	03-03-2004 20:03									#103
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Race among humans is a social construct. It only exists because we say it exists. People on the bottom tend to be "Black," regardless of their ancestral-origin, skin color, etc. People on the top tend to be "white," not that many of these "whites" would be recognizable as white to most Westerners. The human race is a continuem. There are no clearly recognized boundries between one group and anthore. We blend into each other. Furthermore, we can all interbreed.

Not only that, but there is no difference between chihuahuas and St. Bernards. Furthermore, they can interbreed.

"People on the bottom" and "people on the top" are only social constructs.

	03-03-2004 20:09									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrFun One can advance legitimate arguments that race is a social construct based on these physical differences. To deny the physical differences among different groups of people would be ignorant, but to argue that race is a social construct based on these differences is legitimate, IMO.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

LANGUAGE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT THROUGH WHICH WE CREATE MEANING OUT OF CHAOS.

therefore

EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

therefore

ATTEMPTING TO DEVALUE RACE BY CALLING IT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT IS JUST PLAIN SILLY

	03-03-2004 20:16									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by skywalker A genetic definition of race fails, because there is a greater difference between individuals within each race than between the "average" individual of each race.

The studies Jared Diamond uses in The Third Chimpanzee refute this. What is your source?

The difference in skin colour between individual Swedes is greater than that between Swedes and Austalian Aboriginies?

	03-03-2004 22:13									#106
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. LANGUAGE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT THROUGH WHICH WE CREATE MEANING OUT OF CHAOS. therefore EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT therefore ATTEMPTING TO DEVALUE RACE BY CALLING IT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT IS JUST PLAIN SILLY

Do you HAVE to shout?

	03-03-2004 23:21									#107
	Full PM-box? Change here!

sorry

	03-03-2004 23:29									#108
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

To be fair to TMV, the thread title is also shouting....

	04-03-2004 00:22									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Sorry, but that is such a dense statement. Since the definition of someone being of the same race would (according to the definition I propose) be that they are genetically similar, the genetic difference between individuals within each race could not be more than twice the difference between one of the individuals and the "average" individual. duh!

It would become a completely meaningless definition - children would stand a significant chance of being a different race than either of their parents.

	04-03-2004 00:27									#110
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Geneticists deny the concept of race applies to humans altogether. Those scientists who posit race exists physically point to bone structure, muscle thickness, and skin color.

I asked what the biological definition of race was in class. My teacher told me that race was non-interbreeding members of the same species. Since all of the supposed races of humanity interbreed, it seems that this definition hardly fits us.

	04-03-2004 00:27									#111
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking The studies Jared Diamond uses in The Third Chimpanzee refute this. What is your source? The difference in skin colour between individual Swedes is greater than that between Swedes and Austalian Aboriginies?

You obviously don't understand what I meant. Genetics != just skin color. They test for how related two genomes are by seeing how many base pairs don't match up.

Let me put it this way: instead of a long DNA strand, lets just pretend we can turn it into a number. The number isn't JUST skin color. The AVERAGE white person would have a 3, but they could range from 0 to 6. The AVERAGE black person would have a 4, but they could range from 1 to 7. Thus, you would not be able to tell the race of anything between a 1 and a 6.

	04-03-2004 01:12									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST Yes, it seems to be logical to define Race among statistical Analysis of Difference bettween the Groups, for example via ANOVA and to define 2 Groups of Humans as being of different Races if there are statistically significant Differences (with p <= .05) between the groups (but not within each Group) You mention some Examinations made according to this Criterion, LulThyme. Are there any papers which are freely available on the Iternet?

Im not sur which examination you mean.
I know that for many example criterions (there are infinitly many possibilities to choose from), for example certain type of blood proteins, skin colour or combinitions, variances per group was usually bigger than variance between average representative of each group.

This does not say that race don't exist.
If you stick to a few criterion, it is pretty easy to define them.
For example, we could define races per blood type.
The only problem would be that the races would blur quickly (a few generations), meaning that the correlation factor between your race and your parents race wouldnt be too high, which makes it not so useful a concept.
Now the other way is too use many factors.
But this approach is very hard.
Again I can only point to Albert Jacquard, who has written many books, on approaches to determine a distance function between individuals in many-dimension space, using many criterions, and found that while it can be done, the differences between groups are so small (smaller than the differences inside a group as I said) as to be a worthless notion.

	04-03-2004 01:20									#113
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Sorry, but that is such a dense statement. Since the definition of someone being of the same race would (according to the definition I propose) be that they are genetically similar, the genetic difference between individuals within each race could not be more than twice the difference between one of the individuals and the "average" individual. duh!

The problem with use such a definition, is that a child of two people of the same race is not necererally of that race, and might actual have less chance of being of that race and this is not the idea people want to have of a race as a useful definition.
you are correct, but it is not a useful, working definition.
the thing is of course, that there are no useful working definitions that correspond to what people want race to be.

Skywalker beat me to part of the explanation.

	04-03-2004 01:20									#114
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by skywalker It would become a completely meaningless definition - children would stand a significant chance of being a different race than either of their parents.

And what is wrong with that? One black and one white parent would have a black child (by most people's standards). All the new distinction would ensure would be that we wouldn't measure that sort of thing by skin colour alone. In a mixed race marriage, the child would belong to the same race as the parent they were most like.

(I don't advocate making this distinction. I was simply replying to the challenge that there could be no self-consistant definition.)

	04-03-2004 01:25									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by LulThyme The problem with use such a definition, is that a child of two people of the same race is not necererally of that race

You would have to put a pretty weird weighting on the different genes for that to happen. Since both parents fall in the specific race 'parameter space' and the child is a genetic combination of the 2, you would expect the child to fall somewhere between the 2 parents in the parameter space. Unless your boundaries are pretty weird, that should also be in that particular race's parameter space.

	04-03-2004 01:28									#116
	Tired of ads?

you are right Rogan.
There are consistant definition, in fact any definition with a cutoff point would be self consistant in the sense that you could test for race, and a person would be closer to the average of his race than the average in between them, although the cutoff poitn would be arbitrary and in most case you could find ppl from different races as similiar to one another as you like.
this is already a slight problem.

	04-03-2004 01:34									#117
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh You would have to put a pretty weird weighting on the different genes for that to happen. Since both parents fall in the specific race 'parameter space' and the child is a genetic combination of the 2, you would expect the child to fall somewhere between the 2 parents in the parameter space. Unless your boundaries are pretty weird, that should also be in that particular race's parameter space.

You are again right, but are making a few assumptions, which in the sense you are talking are ok , but you are getting further and fruther from a working definition.
First you assume that we are studying the GENETICAL space . so that would mean 1. that this definition is onyl genetical and ahs nothing to do with the expression of those genes, which is okay for scientist in some fields I guess, but couldnt be used for anything else.

More importantly, even if we are looking at genetical space and with a very nice boundary we can get funny results.
For example, suppose we are looking at just one gene, with can be either A or B.
and lets say every combination is a different race.
So we ahve 3 races. AA, BB Ab.
now two parents of the race AB, have 50 percent chance of having a child of another race.
Again that s not such a problem as you point out if its used only in some very specific field, but i wanted to show that this phenomena happens pretty easily without having "weird" boundary for races.

	04-03-2004 01:40									#118
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You obviously don't understand what I meant. Genetics != just skin color. They test for how related two genomes are by seeing how many base pairs don't match up. Let me put it this way: instead of a long DNA strand, lets just pretend we can turn it into a number. The number isn't JUST skin color. The AVERAGE white person would have a 3, but they could range from 0 to 6. The AVERAGE black person would have a 4, but they could range from 1 to 7. Thus, you would not be able to tell the race of anything between a 1 and a 6.

As rogan pointed out, this problem disappears if you look from a genetical point of you.
now the two races become for example, "black-gene" and "white-gene" race, with cutoff at say 4.
There is no more paradox from the mathematical point of view, and this is actually what they do in some fields( seldom for skin colour though).
the only problem with this is some "black gene" people are white and vice-versa, which is what you are saying in another way, so its not very workable for a day-to-day point of view, which is what the conclusion to this thread should be.

YES THERE ARE WAYS FOR SCIENTISTS TO DEFINE RACES, AND SOME DO USE THESE DEFINITIONS FOR VERY SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU WOULD THINK A RACE IS, AND YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL A PERSON'S RACE BY LOOKING AT IT.

	04-03-2004 01:42									#119
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I dont know who Albert Jacquard is, or what a distance function between individuals in many-dimension space is, but I do know that I spend a large part of my day thinking about human and bacterial genes in disease. Given how few genes we actually know anything about, I have to wonder just how deep the bullshit is in many-dimension space!

	04-03-2004 01:47									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

DP