:rolleyes:
Do you really think for me to make money I need to be right 100% of the time? Yeesh.
I’ll make you the same deal. Let’s do it for a day. Sure, it’ll be an expensive lesson for you, with all the tens of thousands you’ll be paying me, but education can be expensive. The only thing more expensive, as you will no doubt learn, is ignorance.
But this doesn’t disprove the assertion. It’s not that “black” has zero correlation with African genetic ancestry – there is some non-zero correlation (but, considering all the non-African ancestry in many “black” people, the correlation is probably not very high). The point is that “black” is not a valid grouping based on genetic ancestry. There are tons of “black” individuals and populations that are more closely related, considering genetic ancestry, to non-“black” groups than to various other “black” groups.
Self-described “Black” has very high correlation with an average genetic pool that reflects recent sub-saharan ancestry.
How high that correlation is depends on the context of the individual.
In the US, it would mean as a group average 80% of your genetic pool is recent sub-saharan–and of that, probably mostly west african. The other 20% is mostly european.
In Brazil, considerably less might be sub-saharan. I don’t know that studies have been done.
In africa, considerably more, for reasons related to historic migration patterns.
For a given individual, very context dependent. Barack Obama, for example, knows he’s at least half european genetically.
For group averages, though, pretty high correlation, although for a lot of self-identified “blacks” it’s true they have some percent of eurasian genes. Just not nearly as high an average percentage as do self-identified whites and asians.
From a genetics/performance perspective, it would be interesting to do admixture studies for high academically performing blacks against low-performing ones in countries like the US using modern DNA techniques for determining recent ancestry. Primitive proxies such as blood group or skin color are pretty useless while modern techniques are quite good. Such studies would be considered horribly inappropriate from a social perspective, and are not likely to ever get funded. There is no one I know of who is confident they would show no difference since the difference in outcome for the source pools is so profound.
This is gibberish. If there is a non-zero correlation, then to that extent it is a valid grouping.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not a valid genetic grouping – in Australia, the correlation (between “black” people and African ancestry) would probably be way below random chance. There are no valid genetic groupings that are only valid on certain continents.
I have been suggesting this to you for a long time. “No one” you know of tells us nothing at all, of course – all it means is that (if you actually know the thoughts of all your acquaintances) you only know people who believe black people are inherently genetically inferior in intelligence on average.
If your side actually had a shred of courage or true intellectual curiosity, they would do such a study – it would be neither particularly difficult nor expensive.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
Huh? I’m not aware of a scientific definition for “valid genetic grouping”. Just pointing out that, logically, if a grouping is valid genetically, then it should apply equally anywhere. Further, why would we use such a grouping when better ones (that actually would apply to all continents) are so easily available?
Why use a poor indicator like “skin color” or “the sociological group called ‘blacks’” when we have much better indicators with modern methods?
What is the difference between a scientific genetic grouping and a valid genetic grouping?
Regards,
Shodan
Can’t think of one. Can you? I’m not aware of formal definitions for either phrase.
No - let’s see you try it at a Sydney turnstile, instead…
I wonder why you’d suggest that. Afraid I’d do too well in NYC, eh? And why do you think that would be?
But let me remind you of the discussion: “Why do black pupils in the US underachieve academically when one factors out poverty?”
Do you think that discussion has anything to do with Australian Aborigines? When the phrase “black people in the US” is used, do you think people are talking about Australian Aboriginals? Please.
Cherrypicking.
Are you suggesting an Aboriginal walking about in New York subway would not be considered “Black” by people who saw him?
So, you agree that I’d be able to make a fortune be using skin color, among other physical features, as an indicator of what we’re talking about as the Black race?
Depends. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll take your bet in Australia. I get $100 for people who I visually correctly identify as being Aboriginal and $100 for people who I correctly identify as being Black, as we are discussing here. You are blindfolded and do so randomly. Great. When do we start?
Perhaps, you can now answer what I asked of you:
An intelligent post by Salvor with which I strongly agree. (Or am I being redundant? 
) My opinion of SDMB went up when I saw no attempt to rebut Salvor (excepting a Godwinization by … redneck :o )
The genetic history of India, along with a caste system which perpetuates differences, is interesting. At the risk of drawing accusations of racism upon myself, I wonder if caste breakdowns are available for immigrants to U.S.?
Of course skin color is the main indicator of the sociological grouping known as the “black race”. This doesn’t tell us anything at all about whether individuals of the “black race” have more genetic ancestry in common with each other than with those outside the “black race”. In fact, many inside the “black race” will be much more closely related, genetically, to non-black people than to other black people.
We aren’t talking about individuals, we are talking about groups.
Regards,
Shodan
The same goes for groups. There are plenty of groups within the “black race” that are more closely related, genetically, to groups outside the “black race” than various others inside.
Yet overall for the SIRE of “blacks”
Regards,
Shodan
He provided no cites, and he’s talking specifically about African Americans. And actually African Americans are a pretty good example of my point – in terms of genetic ancestry, African Americans have a lot more in common, in general (on average), with white Americans then they do with, say, the Khoi San in Central and Southern Africa.