"Races do not exist" ...

or "are social constructs"

What the fuck does that even mean? It is pretty obvious that they do. I seriously do not get it. Does anyone here have the knowledge to defend these seemingly ridiculous statements from a scientific perspective?

If the concept of race was banished then so would be the concept of racism, which I think is what scientists are getting at...

>>2
Racism is, if it even exists and whatever it is*, a social issue and not a taxonomic or scientific issue in relation to race. If the concept of race was banished or never existed, it would need to be reinstated or created immediately because it is part of the reality that surrounds us.

Are you stating, as I suspect, that science has been replaced with political agitation in academia, when it comes to human ecology?

Again, I do not see a -> scientific <- problem with race, being blatantly obvious to be real. Is there or is there not any?

* I prefer prejudice, which I think of as natural and normal, which I can define as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability

Op is idiot. First off, he is saying something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
Epic failyour.

>>4
Op is idiot.
Quite possibly. Does not follow from this thread, though.
First off, he is saying something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.
I agree, social construction theory sounds like Marxist bullshit to me every time someone talks about it.
(On a serious note, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. I said that races obviously do exist, and enquired if the people who say they do not actually have a problem with the scientific taxonomy -- in which case I have further questions -- or if it is just political agitation.)
Epic failyour.
No.

I'm just saying this to piss you off and force a response. Thank you very much, this experiment proved useful.

>>6
Professional scientist at work.

>>1
Races do exist along genetic lines exactly as some people claim they are 'socially constructed' and there has never been any proof against this nor there ever will be. Even closely related ethnicities such as Norwegians and Swedes can now be accurately distinguished with just a fragment of the genome. Every possible straw man arguments nation-wrecking Jews and their Gentile extended phenotypes can think of are quite easily demolished too, and likely already answered 80 years ago or more.

P.S. I like the idea of prejudice as Bayesian prior probability distribution. But does it account for socialization or not?
>>6
I am sure he was not talking to you, he was talking to your potential extended phenotypes.

haha, most of you are living in denial.....perhaps you think it this way:

it is also a social construct to put everthing related to the hot topic "races " to such a negative spotlight to even deny its existence?
society is pretty hypocritical, it always has been and will be!

btw: i have also read about experiments with babys that were put into one group,white and darkskinned....and guess what, the white babys interacted more with their own colortone and vice-versa.
no social influence.

and also there was this (anonymous) internetexperiment with reactions related to certain pictures etc.
you can guess the results...

fact, society restrains us from showing our true face.

i say, that "racism" is to a certain extent fucking normal.
but nowadays, every slight off-line action will be interpreted as being racist etc.

if race or not does not exist is not even the major problem here. It is just a term.
Just it is like nigger, chink, white pale devil man or whatever.

there are differences at least in the outer appearence, this is something nobody can denies if they have some working eyes.

well considering intelligence (the arguing-theme...), i am not sure myself.

obviously people outside the civilisation (most of them live in Africa are not educated at all, poor intelligence and so on)

but do they have inferior genes (that is what people argue about ..)?
i would say yes, they do in terms of intelligence, but! this is not a fixed thing since genes are not something static!

i guess, giving them a chance, after 5-6 generations the gap would be closed (but vice-versa they would lose their physicall advantages looking at the average).


but in the end , i don't care much for this unproductive shit at all, because i only care about myself.

so i am a ultimate racist.
i am my own race...and you are the rest......

>>9
There always has to be a moronic troll masquerading as one side of the 'debate' coming in and ruining any type of discourse, willingly or unwillingly. Geez.

this is not a fixed thing since genes are not something static!
Yeah, they bounce around erratically when you're not watching.
but in the end , i don't care much for this unproductive shit at all, because i only care about myself.
so i am a ultimate racist.
i am my own race...and you are the rest......
Understanding inclusive fitness might change your opinion on that.  Your perceived interests are not always your 'best' interests.

First year human geography class, in one of the lectures we were taught all about the racist myth of the existence of races.
According to my lecturers, there really is no such thing as race; there are not genetic differences that make one population different from another.
Of course, university lecturers know what they're talking about, so I've come to the conclusion that the japanese, the indians, and the english, etc, all look different to one another due to magical forces caused by some kind of god.

The correct statement is that there is no scientifically rigorous definition of "race".
For instance, there is greater genetic variability among groups indigenous to Africa than there are between some "white" people and one of those groups.
Distinctions along phenotypical lines are generally going to be pretty arbitrary.

Prejudice as prior probability isn't too useful as there aren't enough statistically sound correlations between (already established as poorly defined) "race" and behavior. (Though a lot of credulous people with poor critical thinking skills have been lead to believe there is.)

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_social_construct/

The Social construct

By a Finn

I wrote this text originally as a short comment on Social construction, and its structure reflects that. I was asked that this text would be lifted to main-log form. My acceptance and the text’s present position does not in itself refer to agreement or disagreement with any of the opinions or texts on this site.

This text is about a specific part of Social construction theory, that which is most relevant to pro-Europeans. I develop the theme from part to part. My intention in this post is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries”.

>>11
Heh.
>>12
The correct statement is that there is no scientifically rigorous definition of "race".
Yes, there is.
See: Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology. Volume 7. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990:45-67.
For instance, there is greater genetic variability among groups indigenous to Africa than there are between some "white" people and one of those groups.
No, there is not, unless you misappropriate human genetic variation in a quite ridiculous manner, like, for instance, based on single locus F_st to get those results. If you look at the whole genome when comparing different --> populations <--, the statistical significance within-population differences drop to ~0% (or even 0%) and the between-population differences rise to ~100% (or even 100%). It's simply because the within is non-structured, thus NOT something we exactly *share* (and thus not even something that is especially important to pass on in terms of genetic interests), whereas the between is structured across the racial patterns that leftists love to hate and that we can quite trivially statistically infer by comparing the genome of different races.

Long (but rather pointless and overfeeding the trolls) story: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/351  

Might you explain the repetition of the 1972 arguments of a nation-wrecking Jew that have been refuted since at least 1925?
Did he actually fool you with his 'What do you believe, your lying eyes or us scientists?' act?
Distinctions along phenotypical lines are generally going to be pretty arbitrary.
Nonsense. The divisions, especially the major ones, are along the same lines as the genetic ones.
>>13
Normal people know that social construction theory is bullshit. Refuting insane people serves no purpose. If anyone believes in that shit, they're already intellectually comatose.

Oh, and
>>13
Prejudice as prior probability isn't too useful as there aren't enough statistically sound correlations between (already established as poorly defined) "race" and behavior. (Though a lot of credulous people with poor critical thinking skills have been lead to believe there is.)
(already established as poorly defined) "race"
Ha ha.

You did not address it being prior probability or not. Prejudice  could be against anything, even cookies. Which leads me to believe that you do not understand his argument. You just propagate more, as OP calls it, political agitation against science.

>>14
you had me until you said "leftists" and then you lost me.  are you scientist, or are you politician.

>>10

wow, now you beat me, go on troll :)

>>16
you had me until you said "leftists" and then you lost me.
Most people would flip out on the nation-wrecking Jews part.
are you scientist, or are you politician.
My training is in a different field, physics. Just a Masters for the moment. However, I do like to keep an eye on biology-related journals, have studied and understand the issue.

It is, to me, clear as the light of day that race-denial is mostly caused by Jewish ethnic activists acting for perceived Jewish ethnic interests and leftist activists acting in perceived leftist interests (the Jews and leftists involved may or may not overlap) at the direct expense of science and the host populations of European-derived nations. Not to mention the pivotally-Jewish-influenced media that went along with it, ignoring the few intellectually honest scientists out there like Harpending and Cochran. There is now a huuuuuuuuuge rift between the public understanding of what scientists say about human genetic variation and what said human genetic variation is due to race-denial. Infinitely more than there would be WITH race the way most people know it is, even if the contrived and refuted objections/imperfections about it were TRUE.

races do no exist ? and what about the 24h of Le Mans, the Tour de france, nascar, F1... you are ignorant, mah boi

>>18
What subfield are you specializing in, or do MS programs generally not have specializations?

>>20
Astrophysics. (Huge fucking mistake.) As for the latter, that is actually a pretty tough question to answer. MS programs DO have specializations, and the format of the courses is usually halved around general courses and specialized ones. Once the thesis is done, the title itself is just 'M.A., Physics.' From what I have heard and read, however, there are really no standards at all attesting to the correct terminology. Each uni does it according to its whims. And all that might have changed since 1999, so take all that I say about this with a military-issue teaspoon of salt.

Anyway, I just wanted to say my training (which is irrelevant to my current status anyway) is in an irrelevant field so I will not even dream to make or to have others make an appeal to authority on my behalf. Still, the race-deniers' arguments are so terrible that a schoolkid could figure out their sophistry.

(rest of the reply not especially for you)

Even though it's extremely more complicated, tedious and obvious, they are saying that

Example 1) These letter sequences cannot be classified:

AAAhhprgwqnrotehjqju
AAAcfrokuqlgsjpjifly
AAAhnfhrflrdicwlsziv
AAArtesvhqjicmvgnxdk
BBBwrnlddxpwswgoznen
BBBwkkjetmjvgkmntnmw
BBBxprdwyqusiprnfwhq
BBBiqmextqzlxgxjrcmw

Because there is more variation within (non-patterned) than within (patterned) them. Right. This is the nation-wrecking Jews' great argument against racial classification that every one of their extended phenotypes is repeating.

Example 2)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254&ct=1
We have generated an independently assembled diploid human genomic DNA sequence from both chromosomes of a single individual (J. Craig Venter). Our approach, based on whole-genome shotgun sequencing and using enhanced genome assembly strategies and software, generated an assembled genome over half of which is represented in large diploid segments (>200 kilobases), enabling study of the diploid genome. Comparison with previous reference human genome sequences, which were composites comprising multiple humans, revealed that the majority of genomic alterations are the well-studied class of variants based on single nucleotides (SNPs). However, the results also reveal that lesser-studied genomic variants, insertions and deletions, while comprising a minority (22%) of genomic variation events, actually account for almost 74% of variant nucleotides. Inclusion of insertion and deletion genetic variation into our estimates of interchromosomal difference reveals that only 99.5% similarity exists between the two chromosomal copies of an individual and that genetic variation between two individuals is as much as five times higher than previously estimated. The existence of a well-characterized diploid human genome sequence provides a starting point for future individual genome comparisons and enables the emerging era of individualized genomic information.
This one is especially funny because Craig Venter is probably the most stupid race-denier alive. He's the idiot who proclaimed a few years back that, BASED SOLELY ON HIS OWN GENOME (hint for the retarded - no genetic variation), race does not exist. Every 'scientist' complied, except for Harpending which called him on his bullshit, even if quite limitedly. The media was in full RDNE cry.

So, let's continue:
[...] reveals that only 99.5% similarity exists between the two chromosomal copies of an individual [...]
If the genocidal extended phenotypes of nation-wrecking Jews otherwise referred to as race-deniers would be consistent, one would have to conclude that the individual known as Venter is a social construct, has no biological or genetic validity, and is thus more similar to other people than himself.

>>21
Errr, when I said:
Because there is more variation within (non-patterned) than within (patterned) them.
except for Harpending which called him on his bullshit
I meant:
Because there is more variation within (non-patterned) than between (patterned) them.
except for Harpending who called him on his bullshit
And by:
The media was in full RDNE cry.
RDNE
I meant:
Race Does Not Exist
To the OP or anyone else: If anyone has any specific question on the topic, ask away.

Aside from a single Berkeley bio class (which I didn't attend), I've never heard of any claims of denying race.  Why would the Jews want to deny race?  Isn't it in their interest to say "oh look at me, I'm a persecuted minority"?

Well to answer the question if races do exist I'd say we would first have to distinguish between the genetic aspect and the social aspect. For the genetic part one would have to agree that yes there exists a concept which divides humanity into groups (which we call race) unless we mean that africans only have great tans. The sensitive question boils down to social diffrences between the groupes aka. if white skin gives superior abilities over black skin, vice versa. This is where socialconstruction really comes into play since history, current socialfactors and human psychology come into play. I would argue that the color of one skin does not set a given course but may cause predisposition. So the question "does race exist?" is a matter of viewpoint and how we wish to define "race".

>>23
Aside from a single Berkeley bio class (which I didn't attend), I've never heard of any claims of denying race.
I have. It usually takes the place as the foaming lunatic spewing of the mentally ill.
Example: http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-240Spring2004/A7832CD9-5661-4692-BCF0-1DAA70E2D1DD/0/lecnotes_02_19.pdf
Why would the Jews want to deny race?
Ethnocentric Jews would want to deny race because they feel that they will further their ethnic interests by denying race, and they will do so despite of the cost to others. Of course, this is augmented by reducing the White percentage through their support of non-White immigration and increasing the heterogeneity of White host countries regardless of the huge loss in fitness that will occur for the majority.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-immigration.html
Of course, then there are other ethnocentric Jews who do not deny race precisely because they think promoting the concept will serve their ethnic interests. They pretty much cluster together with the neocons, keep flaunting Jewish IQ test scores, and promote 'cognitive elitism' and, still, non-White immigration.
Then there are Jews who are not (so) ethnocentric. There is no conspiracy involved, there is compulsion. Jews have a higher tendency towards extreme ethnocentrism and their interests will often clash with the majority's. Moreover, while Jews usually organize themselves extremely well, there is no mindhive. If an individual Jew thinks supporting creationism will further his ethnic interests, they will support creationism, as Ben Stein does.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-BenStein.html
So the question most ethnocentric Jews ask themselves before supporting or rejecting something is: "Is it good for the Jews?"
Long story version, read this book for the evolutionary psychology explanation: http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf (ignore the website)
Isn't it in their interest to say "oh look at me, I'm a persecuted minority"?
They are doing that, constantly. It serves as a barrier to gene flow and assimilation.

>>24
There is no such thing as socially constructed races. You cannot socially construct a race. Social construction theory is fucking retarded quixotic nonsense. If you want to find another word to describe an imaginary concept, then be my guest. Race is taken.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=+%22race%7Craces+of%22&btnG=Search&as_subj=bio

Why are you so emotionally keen on serving the interests of nation-wrecking Jews?

>>25
So the Jews are divided on denying/not denying race.  You still haven't answered my question as to how Jews (any of them) will "further their ethnic interests by denying race"

>>26
I said people are divided by anything. I also said that there is no conspiracy to deny race, as some will undoubtedly try to paint what I said.

Anyway, academic race-denial is seen by these nation-wrecking Jews as a good tool to promote non-White immigration while making those who oppose the demographic dispossession of Whites look like intellectual Neanderthals. If race doesn't exist, who cares if Whites get race-replaced? Race-denial is also used as population-denial in the public understanding of science, whereby traits cannot possibly differ between populations. Both of these are considered by some nation-wrecking Jews who would like their behavior to go undetected and unopposed.
I quote from the earlier link on immigration, which you should read in full http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-immigration.html
A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political activist Earl Raab1 who remarks very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965. Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that '(a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop' (1995, p. 91). Or more colorfully:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, p. 23).2

So they are doing this purely out of perceived self-interest for the tribe.