There have been a few studies on the developmental psychology of racialism (the "race" notion and why humans are so committed to it). And there have been many studies on (failed) attempts to identify geographically delimited human trait clusters (breeds, subspecies, varieties, races) in a biological sense. But there has been little communication or collaboration between these two fields (developmental cognition and evolutionary biology). Here is an interesting article that summarizes work in both fields and makes a plea for more collaboration between them. Its point is that the consequences of racialism are so serious that it behooves scientists to work together to better understand the phenomenon. Here is the paper's abstract:
Quote:
There has been little serious work to integrate the constructionist approach and the cognitive/evolutionary approach in the domain of race, although many researchers have paid lip service to this project. We believe that any satisfactory account of human beings’ racialist cognition has to integrate both approaches. In this paper, we propose to move toward this integration. We present an evolutionary hypothesis that rests on a distinction between three kinds of groups—kin-based groups, small scale coalitions, and ethnies. Following Gil-White (1999, 2001a, 2001b), we propose that ethnies have raised specific evolutionary challenges that were solved by an evolved cognitive system. We suggest that the concept of race is a byproduct of this mechanism. We argue that recent theories of cultural transmission are our best hope for integrating social constructionists’ and cognitive/evolutionary theorists’ insights.
Posted: Wed 20 Aug 2008 05:22 Post subject: Race isn't real...or is it?
Frank, I am going to make a controversial statement. I propose that race might be real according to one criterion, however I will say that as of yet this is unsubtantiated though suggested by SOME (not all) research.
This is FST value. According to quite a few genetic studies you can divide the world into groups based on genetic distance between and within groups. Clustering isn't neccessarily a statistical error produced by incorrect sampling, at least according to some researchers. This is based on some studies which have used a VERY LARGE DIVERSE sample set and found clusters AS OPPOSED TO CLINES, or IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLINES WITHIN CLUSTERS. Thus I propose that going by FST value and setting the limit in an arbitrary fashion, say at 5% proportion of variance between groups, we can define race as a set of populations < 5% between them.
HOWEVER AND HERE'S THE KICKER.
This kind of race is MEANINGLESS for several reasons.
1. Important genes may be dissociated from overall genetic diversity.
2. Physiological traits may be dissocaited from overall genetic diversity.
3. Overall genetic diversity doesn't neccessarily determine the importance
of the diversity (even within coding genes).
This means that the way humans think about race, which as far as I can understand it, means the following:
"a population of genetically similar individuals endowed with inherited mental and physiological traits which are distinct from other such populations".
MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST, BUT CANNOT BE PREDICTED BY RACE, AND CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY A QUANTITATIVE GENETIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF AN INDIVIDUAL POPULATION. In other words, the SOCIAL CONCEPT OF RACE, and the GENETIC CONCEPT OF RACE, ARE NOT NECCESSARILY COMPATIBLE, AND ONE IS NOT A PROXY FOR THE OTHER.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Wed 20 Aug 2008 09:37 Post subject:
I think the more I read about race, the more I become a racialist. Basically, I'm still unsure of what evidence there is against the notion of biological races. It seems that the only argument against it is the fact that concrete lines can't be drawn between each proposed racial groups to distinguish each race from another.
However, it seems that these human populations can be somehow distinguished via looking at DNA markers that are region specific (meaning similar results are found within populations in close proximity). How is this not seen as an indication of race, which is largely based on region of origin?
How is it that genetic distance maps can be made between populations if there is no race? Furthermore, how is the phrase "human population variation" anymore than a euphamism for "race"?
I think the more I read about race, the more I become a racialist. Basically, I'm still unsure of what evidence there is against the notion of biological races. It seems that the only argument against it is the fact that concrete lines can't be drawn between each proposed racial groups to distinguish each race from another.
You have the right to adhere to any faith-based belief that you find comforting. But if you want to argue a point in this forum you must follow The Rules.
Specifically, you claim to have heard it argued that lack of geographic phenotype discontinuity disproves "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties) in organisms. Please provide your source where this bizarre and obviously counterfactual argument was made. Geographic phenotype discontinuity does not exist even between species (hence, mules and ligers), much less between "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties). Virtually every trait (in humans as well as other organisms) varies gradually and continuously.
You have 24 hours to provide a source showing someone somewhere arguing against "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties) in any organism due to, "the fact that concrete lines can't be drawn between each proposed racial groups to distinguish each race from another." Alternatively, if you prefer, you can 'fess up and admit that you simply made up the bizarre claim to give yourself something that you could attack with impunity.
Posted: Wed 20 Aug 2008 17:11 Post subject: Re: Race isn't real...or is it?
ImBack wrote:
According to quite a few genetic studies you can divide the world into groups based on genetic distance between and within groups. Clustering isn't neccessarily a statistical error produced by incorrect sampling, at least according to some researchers. This is based on some studies which have used a VERY LARGE DIVERSE sample set and found clusters AS OPPOSED TO CLINES, or IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLINES WITHIN CLUSTERS. Thus I propose that going by FST value and setting the limit in an arbitrary fashion, say at 5% proportion of variance between groups, we can define race as a set of populations < 5% between them.
Ultimately, such determination depends upon what you mean by "races" and how many you think there are in a global (as opposed to a U.S.) sense. For example, if you see just three global "races" (as does the U.S. judiciary), then you conflate Indonesians and Manchurians, who are less similar in physical measurements than, say, Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. If you define four "races" by splitting Asians into northern (sinodont) and southern (sundadont) branches then you solve one problem, but now you conflate !Xoisan, Watutsi, and Bantus, peoples whose measurements are not even similar. If you define six global "races," then your measurements are more consistent, but still not replicable. Twelve "race" gives better results. A hundred "races" gives better yet, a thousand "races" improves measurement replicability, ten thousand is even better, and so forth.
In other words, if you divide humanity into the three U.S. "races," then the differences between any two of those "races" (Whites and Blacks, say) are far less replicable, obvious, measureable, or reliable, than the differences between sub-groups (sinodonts and sundadonts, say) within any of the three "races". This non-replicability problem is lessened if you go with six "races". Replicability improves even more if you define ten thousand "races". But (with one exception, explained below) the problem never goes away.
Obviously, any definition of "races" that results in the different "races" (Black and White, say) being more similar than subgroups within each of the "races" is not persuasive to a scientist. And so, finding clusters of traits that define human groups objectively has been the holy grail of physical anthropology for over two centuries. It is still being pursued.
In mathematical terms, the question is: "Is it possible to categorize H. sapiens into groups such that inter-group variation (physical differences between groups) is greater than intra-group variation (differences between sub-groups within the groups)?" Hundreds of scientists have sought to do this. All of those investigators, without exception, found that the more "races" you define, the more objective and replicable the measurements get. But (with one exception) you never reach a point where inter-group variation exceeds intra-group variation.
...
Noah A. Rosenberg offers a present-day example of the same doomed grail-chase. See http://backintyme.com/admixture/rosenberg01.pdf. Rosenberg used meticulous statistical mapping programs in powerful computers to analyze hundreds of DNA markers in many thousands of subjects worldwide. He proved that if you tell the computer to indentify three clusters ("races") in humankind, the results are better than if you tell it to find two clusters. Assuming four clusters is better yet, five is even better, and six is best of all. (Rosenberg quit at six.) The statistical trend found by the computer is unmistakeable. There is no end to this chase (with one exception).
In short, even if you divide our species into millions of tiny "races," you will always find that there is more variation between sub-groups within each of those millions of "races" than there is between the "races" themselves.
The exception? You will reach the holy grail of "racial" definition if you divide humankind into 6.5 billion "races" of one individual each. Only then does inter-group variation exceed intra-group variation. The variation between different individuals is greater than the variation among the cells of each individual.
In conclusion, you can show objectively, replicably, mathematically, that our species comprises only one "race" of 6.5 billion individuals. Or you can show that we comprise 6.5 billion "races" of one individual each. But no one has ever found anything in between.
Incidentally, this discussion belongs in the DNA forum, not this bones forum. If you want to continue it, let us move to the DNA forum.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Wed 20 Aug 2008 18:49 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
You have the right to adhere to any faith-based belief that you find comforting. But if you want to argue a point in this forum you must follow The Rules.
Specifically, you claim to have heard it argued that lack of geographic phenotype discontinuity disproves "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties) in organisms. Please provide your source where this bizarre and obviously counterfactual argument was made. Geographic phenotype discontinuity does not exist even between species (hence, mules and ligers), much less between "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties). Virtually every trait (in humans as well as other organisms) varies gradually and continuously.
Actually, I take that back, as I admit that it was not a study, but a forum member who made that bizarre claim. I understand that that does not suffice as evidence, so I won't even bother looking for the direct quote.
Quote:
You have 24 hours to provide a source showing someone somewhere arguing against "races" (breeds, subspecies, varieties) in any organism due to, "the fact that concrete lines can't be drawn between each proposed racial groups to distinguish each race from another." Alternatively, if you prefer, you can 'fess up and admit that you simply made up the bizarre claim to give yourself something that you could attack with impunity.
Honestly, I didn't exactly make up the claim, but rather my approach was sort of my way of asking excatly why we can't observe humans as "races" or "breeds." It was still unclear at the time. But now I understand that, in simple terms, racial designations are innaccurate because there is greater intra-group variation than inter-group variation.
it was not a study, but a forum member who made that bizarre claim.
That is what I feared. That is why I asked. If you cannot recall, don't worry about it. But I would dearly like to know who would make such a claim.
Grasshoppa wrote:
racial designations are innaccurate because there is greater intra-group variation than inter-group variation.
Yes, but it is more than that.
It comes down to using one set of criteria to identify "races" (breeds, varieties, subspecies) in non-human organisms, and an entirely different set of criteria to to identify "races" (breeds, varieties, subspecies) in humans.
The former set of criteria (those normally applied to non-human organisms) are reasonably objective and replicable. At least they try to be. But if applied to humans they show that the species has no "races" (breeds, varieties, subspecies).
As to the latter, you can easily come up with a set of criteria that will divided humans into "races" (breeds, varieties, subspecies). But unless you forego objectivity and replicability (as does the U.S. judicial system, for example) you will always wind up with countless thousands of "races" (breeds, varieties, subspecies).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
