Chen019, you are a liar.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

The supra-ultimate argument, after the final argument, brought up in this sort of conversation is usually that the anti-racist argument is a Politically Correct argument, yada yada yada.

Well, it is. Even Professor Weinberg, in acknowledging the prospect of scienceuncovering differing distributions of genes linked to cognitive ability, notes the reasons why this is such a taboo area.

And privately polled a smaller percentage consider group differences to be purely environmental, than those who consider differences both environmental and genetic variation. Again, I’m not surprised people would be reluctant to mention this when you consider the physical violence and hostility experienced by people like Hans Eysenck who were open about this.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Well, it is. Even Professor Weinberg, in acknowledging the prospect of scienceuncovering differing distributions of genes linked to cognitive ability, notes the reasons why this is such a taboo area.

And privately polled a smaller percentage consider group differences to be purely environmental, than those who consider differences both environmental and genetic variation. Again, this isn’t overly surprising when you consider the violence and hostily experienced by people like Hans Eysenck who were open about this.

I did not said that you numbskull but it was Greg Laden, PhD from Harvard in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, and let the record show that you still insist on relying on old polls that avoided most anthropologists and geneticists. As pointed before it is a tactic worthy of creationists and climate change deniers, polling mostly to groups that would get the results you want and ignore the ones that already dropped the old definitions. The most stupid thing is that you already admitted before what is the current status of this among most scientists. By telling us to avoid going to China, it is clear that on the western world the consensus has changed, so drop that stupid out of date book.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

As pointed before it is a tactic worthy of creationists and climate change deniers

As pointed out before, it is funny you reference creationists in a perjorative sense given that:

a) you are one yourself.

b) One of the evolutionary biologists I’ve cited to provide an easy to understand explanation of human races runs a blog explaining why evolution is true.

@GIGObuster

By telling us to avoid going to China, it is clear that on the western world the consensus has changed, so drop that stupid out of date book.

What’s out of date? The data hasn’t changed. Gaps are still there as they were in the 1980’s. In fact, the evidence favoring genetic explanations have only strengthened on the back of cross racial adoption studies, and the fact that adjusting for income and education you still get persistent gaps.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

As pointed out before, it is funny you reference creationists in a perjorative sense given that:

a) you are one yourself.

That just demonstrates to others that you are just an incompetent even at comebacks.

@Chen019

b) One of the evolutionary biologists I’ve cited to provide an easy to understand explanation of human races runs a blog explaining why evolution is true.

Same old, same old, and with less respect from others scientists.

@Chen019

What’s out of date? The data hasn’t changed. Gaps are still there as they were in the 1980’s. In fact, the evidence favoring genetic explanations have only strengthened on the back of cross racial adoption studies, and the fact that adjusting for income and education you still get persistent gaps.

Tap dancing to avoid facing the fact that the consensus you claimed a moment ago was just smoke and mirrors.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/12/the_argument_that_different_ra.php

If you apply the methodology of the twin studies to language, you would find that having the capacity of language is of a similar heritability of having one head (as opposed to zero or two heads, for instance): Undefined. The number of heads does not vary, and heritability is a measure of covariation (I use the term “covariation” in a non-technical sense here). If you apply these methodologies to what language someone speaks, the heritability for that trait is very high, much much higher than for IQ. If you apply the same method to heritability of geography (the lat/long of where someone lives), it is even higher, especially for babies or people living in traditional societies.

Does everyone understand why that is the case? Familial or cultural causes may be very strong but not genetic.

The smoke and mirror part of this is equating heritability with inheritance. We speak the language we speak because it is the language of the culture we grow up in, not because of a gene for speaking French vs. a gene for speaking Sumerian.

This makes sense because we know how a person acquires language, so no one even tries to measure heritability of which language someone speaks. (Same with heritability of geographic location. It would be an absurd measure.) But people make the assumption that intelligence is inherited. Why do they make that assumption? Because lots of people for a long time wanted to, and in some cases, needed to believe this so, and thus it has become part of our culture. It is part of our uncriticized received knowledge, along with other racialized ideas and various sexist ideas, and so on. But recent research (meaning over the last 30 years) has shown us that other than in the case if inherited neuro-developmental diseases, it is impossible to imagine how intelligence can be inherited in such a way as to explain the variability we see in the most inter-group differences. That there is some genetic component is not impossible, but it is very hard to maintain the idea that it is genetic and ethnic, or genetic and racial, or genetic and explanatory of more than a few IQ points in most people. There are no genes, there are no developmental mechanisms, that have been identified. So, to many the issue of inheritance (not heritability, but inheritance via genes) of intelligence is not really an issue.

[Belowjob2.0]

“Tedious fuckwit” describes Chen quite aptly. His tedious, single issue zealotry. His fuckwitted inablity to grasp basic scientific concepts and his inability to see obvious contradictions in his reasoning.

[Blake]

@Chen019

I’ve addressed your point regarding the Andamanese several times.

No, you have not.

At no stage have you provided evidence that Andamanese and Pakistanis are closely related member sof the same race as you claimed.

I think people might just remembered if you had done that. Proving that short black people and tall white people are closely related.

As for Lebanese they would be considered white in NZ

@Chen019

The term generally isn’t even defined because it is taken as self evident - for example in NZ caucasian simply refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

No, Chen isn’t a liar at all. He is able to provide evidence for everything that he says, even when those things are mutually contradictory.

Apparently he has provided evidence for the claim that in NZ Caucasian refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

And he has also provided evidence that **in NZ Caucasian refers to people of entirely Asian ancestry, such as Lebanese.
**
Nope he’s not a liar at all, having provided evidence that Caucasian refers to those of European ancestry and refers to those with exclusively Asian ancestry.

Quite clearly Chen is God, since he can prove that two mutually contradictory statements are simultaneously true.

Please keep going Chen. This is some of the funniest stuff I have ever seen on these boards.

[Blake]

@Belowjob2.0

his inability to see obvious contradictions in his reasoning.

Oh come on. That’s going too far.

There are absolutely no obvious contradictions in reasoning that in NZ Caucasian refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe and simultaneously that in NZ Caucasian refers to people of entirely Asian ancestry, such as Lebanese.

No contradiction in that whatsoever.

[Belowjob2.0]

@MaxTheVool

I hate hate HATE to post anything that might possibly put me on the “racist” side of this or any other issue. But in any argument of this sort, I always feel like the anti-racist side somewhat overreaches. That is, I think the “correct” statement to make is something like “races, as traditionally defined, are vague and ill-defined enough that they would rarely be of any actual scientific use; and furthermore, they carry with them such unpleasant historical baggage that even in the rare cases when they might possibly have some meaning it is almost certainly best off not to use them”, or something along those lines. Something which can exist in a world in which well-meaning marrow transfusion centers might use “race” as a first (and not definitive) crude filtering system to help find matches.

However, I feel that anti-racist people go beyond that to something like “races have absolutely zero scientific or genetic meaning whatsoever, period. Any statement that tries to make even the slightest correlation between perceived traditional race and any inborn characteristic is always wrong wrong wrong wrong period no matter what period wrong, la la la, and anyone who ever even considers making such a claim or statement must be someone who’s trying to fool us into agreeing with some harmless claim because then we will have to agree that blacks are dumb, so we will scorch the earth and never given an inch”.
Imagine a thought experiment: we harvest 1,000,000 super-young embryos from pregnant women in America today, at a young enough age that the conditions of the womb haven’t yet had a chance to influence their development. We ship them all to the moon where they are raised in a skinnerian box by robots in a culture totally free of all possible pre-existing racial baggage. We raise them in an artificially created and defined society that places a high premium on a variety of competitive skills… sprinting and playing basketball and chess and a whole bunch of such things.

25 years later, we take photographs of each of those million subjects and have a bunch of normal earth people and say “what race is this person?”, and assign the million people into categories based on the most common answer given for each (which certainly means that some will end up as “dunno”, etc.). Then we see if there are any correlations between the racial groupings and the subjects who excelled at the various different competitive skills.

Now, I’m perfectly happy with a reaction of “uhh, why would we do that? what would be the point?” or a reaction of “you know, there are far more precise groupings you could use than perceived race”. But I feel like anti-racists (and I’m anti-racist in 99.9% of all real life situations) desperately want it to be the case that there would NOT be any such correlations, but I strongly suspect that (in the case of sprinting, for instance), there WOULD be at least some correlations. Which doesn’t prove anything or have any actual meaningful impact on the real world, and should not be the basis of discriminatory laws or behavior (I hope it goes without saying), but which I think makes it hard to make super-absolute statements about the meaninglessness of race.

There’s a difference to me between race being a scientifically USELESS concept and race being a totally genetically MEANINGLESS concept. I’m pretty much on board with the first, but think the second is overly absolute.

Population groups in the US aren’t natural. They’re man made, heavily filtered by legal action and extra-legal violence, for centuries. Without this, there simply wouldn’t be a visible black minority in the US. They would have disappeared decades ago through mixing, the way they did in Mexico.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, run your hypothetical experiment in Brazil, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and you get different results because the genetics have decoupled from the phenotype. Here in the US, we’ve made the genetics stay tied to the phenotype by force of law and by massive anti black terrorist violence. Hardly fertile ground for an unbiased experiment.

[Chen019]

@Belowjob2.0

His tedious, single issue zealotry. His fuckwitted inablity to grasp basic scientific concepts and his inability to see obvious contradictions in his reasoning.

Great! Another ridiculous hypocrite enters the discussion! Rather than name calling try actually making some arguments. Then you might not sound like such a tool

What concepts have I failed to grasp? The biological concept of races? I thought that was pretty well explained here and here tbh.

Blake thinks I’ve misrepresented Risch. You can read the paper I referred to and decide for yourself.

There has been a whole threadon the subject of how race is defined. Why don’t you revive that if you’re so concerned about the concept being misunderstood.

[Blake]

@Chen019

I’ve provided sources for everything I’ve said on here.

Then can we see these sources for where you said that in NZ Caucasian refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

And then can we see your sources for where you said that in NZ Caucasian refers to people of entirely Asian ancestry, such as Lebanese.

Because you just told us that you provided source for everything y9u said. I assume that includes all the many, many things that you have said that are self-contradictory.

[Chen019]

@Blake

Then can we see these sources for where you said that in NZ Caucasian refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.

That’s what isgenerally refers to in NZ. As usual you’re avoiding the context in which the use of the term caucasian was used. I was discussing this Time Magazine article on people seeking bone marrow donors. In the article they are referring to the UK, US and Germany as having predominantly caucasian countries.

When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. “We knew there was nothing out there for him,” Tatlow says.
To find a marrow match for anyone is hard. Even within one’s own family, the chances of finding one are only about 30%. According to the World Donor Marrow Association, while two out of three Caucasians find a match, the chances of a patient from another ethnic background can be as low as one in four. Despite rapid improvements in marrow registries around the world, the global registry is still disproportionately represented by the U.S., U.K. and Germany — all predominantly Caucasian countries. For a multiracial person, the chances are usually even worse. Athena Mari Asklipiadis, the founder of the California-based Mixed Marrow, one of the only outreach groups devoted to recruiting mixed race donors, says “the numbers are quite staggering … People compare it to winning the lottery.”

[Chen019]

Another example:

Changes in breast cancer incidence and mortality in
middle-aged and elderly women in 28 countries with
Caucasian majority populations Annals of Oncology 19: 1009–1018,..

data sources

We considered 28 countries with mainly European ancestry for which
incidence data of invasive breast cancer were available in successive
volumes of Cancer Incidence in Five Continent [4] (Table 1)

1009.full.pdf

[Blake]

Neither of those refernces mentions what a Caucasian is, much less what it is in New Zealand.

So once again Chen.

Can we see these sources for where you said that** in NZ Caucasian refers to those whose ancestry is from Europe.**

And then can we see your sources for where you said that** in NZ Caucasian refers to people of entirely Asian ancestry, such as Lebanese.**

Because you just told us that you provided source for everything y9u said. I assume that includes all the many, many things that you have said that are self-contradictory.

Please keep going Chen. This is getting funnier with every post that I get to make with those highlighted sections.
I just love the idea that you are going to provide sources for two mutually contradictory facts.

[Chen019]

Anyway, those who feel strongly about this issue shouldn’t be wasting their time here. You should be emailing the Oregon state officialswho are promulgating the concept of race. Even asking HR to perform visual assessments.

What is your race/ethnicity? Please mark the one box that describes the race/ethnicity category with
which you primarily identify:
������ (A) Asian or Pacific Islander: Persons having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for
example, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and Samoa.

������ (B) African American (not of Hispanic origin): Person having origins in any of the black ethnic
groups.

������ (H) Hispanic: Persons having origins in any of the Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American or other Spanish Cultures, regardless of ethnicity.

������ (I) Native American or Alaskan Native: Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of
North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community
recognition.

������ (W) Caucasian (not of Hispanic origin): Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of
Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.

Gender:
������ Male
������ Female

For agency HR use only:
������ AV (Asian or Pac. Islander –Visual assessment) ������ BV (African American – Visual assessment) ������ HV
(Hispanic – Visual assessment) ������ IV (Native Amer. or Alaskan Native – Visual assessment) ������ WV (Caucasian
– Visual assessment)

[MaxTheVool]

@Belowjob2.0

Population groups in the US aren’t natural. They’re man made, heavily filtered by legal action and extra-legal violence, for centuries. Without this, there simply wouldn’t be a visible black minority in the US. They would have disappeared decades ago through mixing, the way they did in Mexico.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, run your hypothetical experiment in Brazil, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and you get different results because the genetics have decoupled from the phenotype. Here in the US, we’ve made the genetics stay tied to the phenotype by force of law and by massive anti black terrorist violence. Hardly fertile ground for an unbiased experiment.

I don’t quite see how anything you’re saying is relevant to anything I was saying. Remember, I’m not saying races are IMPORTANT or MEANINGFUL, I just think that to say that they are totally orthogonal to biology, totally 100% biologically meaningLESS, is going too far.

[TriPolar]

@Chen019

Anyway, those who feel strongly about this issue shouldn’t be wasting their time here. You should be emailing the Oregon state officialswho are promulgating the concept of race. Even asking HR to perform visual assessments.

Wow! That’s amazing. Every time I check a different box my genes change!

[GIGObuster]

From the Oregon form, the important bit not quoted:

“For civil rights monitoring and enforcement purposes only.”

Anyway, as pointed before, guys like Chen just want to subvert or remove the laws in place to prevent the abuse made by people that do not understand how stupid is to prejudge people based on the looks one has.

[Chen019]

GIGObuster

Hahaha, so you’re happy to accept the existence of race if it benefits you. Nice to see that ultimately you’re just looking out for number 1

[Chen019]

@TriPolar

Wow! That’s amazing. Every time I check a different box my genes change!

Hence the need for visual assessment presumably. After all, as Professor Coyne points out:

the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become taboo. And this despite the palpable morphological differences between human groups—differences that must be based on genetic differences and would, if seen in other species, lead to their classification as either races or subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology).

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

GIGObuster

Hahaha, so you’re happy to accept the existence of race if it benefits you. Nice to see that ultimately you’re just looking out for number 1

So if one would know about discrimination of Christians in a place like Egypt (for example) then the authorities that are mostly Muslim would be wrong by surveying how Christians are being treated in the workplace? One does not need to be an Atheist to know what would be the right thing to do to get data to investigate ways to fight prejudice in that location. And one does not need to believe that race is important to know that there are people and groups that consider race to be useful to prejudge others.

Defending the rights of people assumes that they are equal to begin with, the fact that groups are discriminating for spurious reasons is no reason to give them free reign by preventing others from verifying if the spurious reasons for discrimination are present.

As **Blake **said, just continue, you are your own worst enemy at showing your true “colors”.