# Chen019, you are a liar. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 9, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246 "2012-03-09T09:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/121 "2012-03-12T02:20:48Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Then quote my lie. Otherwise, perhaps it’s you who is the lying asshole. I was just going to ignore this. But, then I realized that your little mind would interpret that as a victory. So, I was reading through this thread for a cite when I found that **Kimstu** had already cited a lie of yours in this very thread. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/122 "2012-03-12T02:31:53Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Classification systems in other species don’t require 100% accuracy. More like [75%](http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=18&cts=1331518462875&ved=0CFcQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sei.org%2Fowl%2Fmeetings%2FPresentations%2FJune%2FDumbacher%2520Taxonomy.pdf&ei=i1tdT8DfGIuZiAeWwbyiDQ&usg=AFQjCNE1Rel7y1o8irdV5txsmKgFhUKdWQ&sig2=A5SiTg06CrTobiQDw9emPg). The failure rate in distinguishing Melanesians from sub Saharan Africans is closer to 100 per cent. Unless you’re willing to abandon phenotype entirely - in which case we’re not really talking about race - your classification system also fails in Brazil, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Madagascar, and parts of the US. Mighty leaky boat you got there, sailor. Maybe you want to head back to port. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/123 "2012-03-12T02:33:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, I see what you’re saying now. That’s helpful. I completely get that the two Black Africans may not be [as] closely related genetically as two individuals who appear to not share overt characteristics. I wasn’t concentrating on that, but I agree with the logic behind it. But that doesn’t negate my point, which is only that two African Blacks, or two Asians, or two Caucasians DO share genes that make them similar. If I understand you correctly, you’re pointing out that shared genes in a population often result in members of that population looking similar. Yes, that’s certainly true. And if you’re making the point that racial categories **can** to some extent overlap with actual genetic populations, yes, that’s true too. Some populations who are classified as being in the “same race” because they look alike are indeed quite closely related to each other genetically. > [@magellan01](#): > > The fact remains, that there may be (are) certain identifiers that are very reliable for classification. For instance, dark skin, or kinky hair, or dark skin _and_ kinky hair. :eek: But but but but but… you just last page were saying that having dark skin and kinky hair is **NOT** a reliable identifier for classification in “the Black race”! Specifically, that there are entire **populations** of people with dark skin and kinky hair who are **not included** in “the Black race”, such as Australian Aborigines: > [@magellan01](#): > > Anyway, as far as your point concerning the Black race and Aboriginals, just because a race my have a characteristic like black skin, that doesn’t mean that all people (or groups of people) with black skin are of the Black race. Simple fallacy. Just because all dogs have four legs doesn’t mean that a cow or a table is a dog. If not all groups of people with black skin “are of the Black race”, then how on earth can we claim that having dark skin is an “identifier” that is “very reliable for classification” into racial categories? That just doesn’t make sense. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > all I’ve said is that I think it’s legitimate for scientists to come up with racial groups for purposes of doing studies as long as they explain how they did so. If by “racial groups” you mean “genetic populations”, then sure, as I’ve already said, there’s nothing wrong or unscientific about that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/124 "2012-03-12T03:08:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > For example, if I divide the human population into “non-smokers,” “light smokers,” and “heavy smokers,” does this grouping have scientific validity? Why or why not? It might have scientific validity or it might not, _depending on what characteristics you used to categorize people_. Here’s an example of a scientifically valid criterion (not the only possible one, of course) for grouping the human population according to their cigarette smoking levels (ignoring cigars, pipes, and other smokable substances for the moment): **Non-smokers:** Never smoke at all. **Light smokers:** Smoke more than zero but fewer than ten cigarettes per day, on average. **Heavy smokers:** Smoke ten or more cigarettes per day. The dividing lines between these categories are of course somewhat arbitrary, but they’re well-defined and reliably distinguish between the smoking levels of the different groups. Here’s an example of a scientifically **invalid** criterion for the same grouping: **Non-smokers:** Do not cough, clothes don’t smell of smoke. **Light smokers:** Cough infrequently, clothes smell slightly smoky. **Heavy smokers:** Cough persistently, clothes reek of smoke. What’s wrong with that classification scheme is **not** that the category boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, but that _ **the different categories intrinsically don’t accurately represent different smoking levels** _. All the smokers who don’t cough and who are very fastidious about always having fresh-smelling clothes will be mis-classified as non-smokers. All the non-smokers who have smoky-smelling clothes because they live with smokers and/or work in smoky environments will be mis-classified as smokers. Although I doubt that you intended it to, your example illustrates perfectly what’s wrong with attempts to use phenotype-based racial categories as proxies for genetic populations. When we want to know how much somebody smokes, we seek to find out **how much they actually smoke** , rather than just examining their superficial characteristics to see how “smoky” they seem and drawing conclusions from that. Similarly, when we want to know the genetic relationships between populations, we should **look at their genes** , rather than putting them into categories based on superficial phenotype characteristics and trying to deduce or assume their genetic similarities from their shared categories. Again, the problem is not that the category boundaries are a bit fuzzy, but that _ **the categories themselves aren’t reliable indicators of what we’re trying to find out** _. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/125 "2012-03-12T03:10:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If by “racial groups” you mean “genetic populations”, then sure, as I’ve already said, there’s nothing wrong or unscientific about that. Super. We have no beef, then. Welcome to my fan club. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/126 "2012-03-12T03:43:55Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > The failure rate in distinguishing Melanesians from sub Saharan Africans is closer to 100 per cent. Really? John Relethford found from WW. Howell’s craniometric data looking at six geographic areas, polynesia (Easter Island, Mokapu, Moriori), australasia (Tasmania, Tolai, Hainan) sub saharan africa (Teita, Zulu, Dogon), east asia (South Japan, North Japan), americas (Peru, Arikara, Santa Cruz) & europe (Berg, Zalavar & Norse), 97% classification accuracy for males and 96% for females. In terms of DNA, they’re quite separate [clusters when you aggregate individuals](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/figure/fig1/). > [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Unless you’re willing to abandon phenotype entirely - in which case we’re not really talking about race - your classification system also fails in Brazil, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Madagascar, and parts of the US. Mighty leaky boat you got there, sailor. Maybe you want to head back to port. See [comments above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14858173&postcount=111)regarding intergradation areas. That is actually what you would expect within a species, as opposed to groups of different species. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/127 "2012-03-12T03:50:37Z")
> [@grude](#): > > There is no point in even engaging him, might as well go debate a phrenologist. How prescient. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/128 "2012-03-12T04:13:00Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Really? John Relethford found from WW. Howell’s craniometric data looking at six geographic areas, polynesia (Easter Island, Mokapu, Moriori), australasia (Tasmania, Tolai, Hainan) sub saharan africa (Teita, Zulu, Dogon), east asia (South Japan, North Japan), americas (Peru, Arikara, Santa Cruz) & europe (Berg, Zalavar & Norse), 97% classification accuracy for males and 96% for females. > > In terms of DNA, they’re quite separate [clusters when you aggregate individuals](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/figure/fig1/). > > See [comments above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14858173&postcount=111)regarding intergradation areas. That is actually what you would expect within a species, as opposed to groups of different species. Chenny Chen Chen, we’re talking about magellan’s claim of being able to visually ID different populations. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/129 "2012-03-12T04:59:12Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In terms of DNA, they’re quite separate [clusters when you aggregate individuals](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/figure/fig1/). Exactly! It totally makes scientific sense to distinguish between different **genetic populations** on the basis of differences in their **genes**. In fact, it’s so sensible that it’s damn near tautological. Like classifying the severity of someone’s smoking habit based on how much they smoke. What **isn’t** so sensible is to try to use an unreliable superficial phenotype characteristic as a proxy for actual genetic relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/130 "2012-03-12T06:00:20Z")
Can anyone tell me what it means when we can break people into groupings based on genetic markers? Tell me what it means specifically other than being able to make cool maps based on the genetic markers. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/131 "2012-03-12T10:15:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Exactly! It totally makes scientific sense to distinguish between different **genetic populations** on the basis of differences in their **genes**. > > In fact, it’s so sensible that it’s damn near tautological. Like classifying the severity of someone’s smoking habit based on how much they smoke. > > What **isn’t** so sensible is to try to use an unreliable superficial phenotype characteristic as a proxy for actual genetic relationship. Exactly so. Genotypes and phenotypes are different things, as I (and a lot of other people) keep saying. Folks like **magellan** like to trot out the idea that people with the same genotype will tend to share phenotypical traits, which is certainly true. The problem is that, by implication or direct statement, the conclusion meant to be drawn is that people with the same phenotype can be assumed to share genotypical traits, which is demonstrably **not** true. This is equivalent to saying that if an animal is a cat it probably has four legs, therefore if it has four legs it is probably a cat. You don’t even really need genetic research to kick the (four) legs out from under that argument, you just need Logic 101. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/132 "2012-03-12T10:17:46Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > I was just going to ignore this. But, then I realized that your little mind would interpret that as a victory. So, I was reading through this thread for a cite when I found that **Kimstu** had already cited a lie of yours in this very thread. Please give me the post number of the post in this thread where **Kimstu** does that. Although **Kimstu** is on my ignore list, I intend to click the “view post” button to see what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/133 "2012-03-12T10:22:26Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Relax Blake, it’s ok for there to be human races just as there are in other species. Unless you’re a creationist like Rick Santorum? > [@Chen019](#): > > Or **Blake’s** dishonest creationism for that matter. I am disappointed. You forgot to mention that he’s also a fat socialist pedophile terrorist who smokes, doesn’t tip and declaws cats. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/134 "2012-03-12T10:38:42Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Can anyone tell me what it means when we can break people into groupings based on genetic markers? Tell me what it means specifically other than being able to make cool maps based on the genetic markers. Well, you could use it to track things like genetic diseases I guess, if the marker in question is associated with the genes at fault. You could possibly use it to track people’s ancestry if they were curious. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/135 "2012-03-12T12:18:09Z")
**Brazil84** [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14857170&postcount=81](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14857170&postcount=81) This is just the first that pops up. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/136 "2012-03-12T12:59:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, you could use it to track things like genetic diseases I guess, if the marker in question is associated with the genes at fault. You could possibly use it to track people’s ancestry if they were curious. Since that is pretty much the answer, why do people keep thinking its somehow important for classifying races or even people into distinct populations? Why do people conflate genetic markers with genes? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/137 "2012-03-12T13:11:12Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Since that is pretty much the answer, why do people keep thinking its somehow important for classifying races or even people into distinct populations? > > Why do people conflate genetic markers with genes? Because they want to say “black people are stupid” without appearing stupid. Unfortunately, they’re a hundred years behind the times. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/138 "2012-03-12T13:20:50Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Because they want to say “black people are stupid” without appearing stupid. > > Unfortunately, they’re a hundred years behind the times. You say that, but have you read Risch? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/139 "2012-03-12T14:43:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What term would you prefer for African Blacks? Negroids? Africanus? The issue isn’t the term, it’s the definition for what that term means. What are the criteria for inclusion in that category? Be sure to make this a phenotypical definition, not a social one, since that’s the issue under discussion. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246/140 "2012-03-12T14:44:13Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > **Brazil84** > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14857170&postcount=81](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14857170&postcount=81) > > This is just the first that pops up. Okay, so according to you, the following statement is a lie: > [@](#): > > You can make the same objection for many other categories. But it’s only when race is at issue that these objections start coming out from Leftists. Do I understand you correctly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-you-are-a-liar/615246.md?page=8)