gardenofobjections
No bio...
User ID: 2919
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
I don't think he is?
You mean genetic differences. There are a lot of technical arguments here but ... sure, why not. There are many white people with lower IQ than the average black person. This doesn't mean that the average black IQ isn't lower than the average white IQ, and it doesn't mean that doesn't have a genetic component to its cause.
Do you have any strong evidence that controls different factors (socioeconomic, historical, cultural and even diet) for the claims of IQ? When I looked, most of these differences between IQ are overblown or if the data does show differences, it often is more complex and can't be taken by face value. This isn't exclusive to just IQ of course but even other traits like skeletal structure and even height.
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
Anyway, I don't see why social constructs are illegitimate things as a result of prejudice, rather than categorisations based often in valid and important things, including biology.
I've never disputed the usefulness of it, merely pointing out that others seem to conflate this as an easy argument to win against. It doesn't change that it is a social construct. To add from my previous comment, I was also pointing out that this is just one mode of thinking that dominated racial categorizations because I am sure you know already that different cultures do not have the same conception of race as the western system does.
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
Can you explain further?
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
(1) "Inasmuch as there's a sensible biological phenomenon of "race" or "subspecies" that we can talk scientifically about all across biology (not just humans), we've broadly agreed to define this phenomenon in terms of ratios of genetic variation within and between populations. Morphology and behavior isn't enough. If you want to tell me that you've discovered a new subspecies of gray flycatcher, the distinctive markings on its tail feathers and the distinctive song that it sings aren't going to cut it -- you have to show something about the ratio of overall genetic variation within vs between candidate populations of gray flycatchers.
I am pretty sure racial categories from professional scientific point of view has been criticised, not because of politcal pressure, but more or less along the lines of what you are saying, due to lack of precision.
genetic differences and variations exist, but race as a category is socially defined. Socially defined does not negate usefulness (as with many systems in our society). Money is a social construct, but we don't consider it useless. The genetic variation and differences are real, but you also need to keep in mind most of these broad claims about IQ or even physical characteristics fail to take it a step further and discuss the numerous factors that influence such differences (socioeconomic, environmental, cultural and geographical).
I am very confused because it seems there is confusion between map for territory. You talking about genetic material being different between different populations and sub-populations doesn't mean that race is not socially constructed. It seems we agree that social construction of race is not useless nor does it mean that there are differences between groups of people?
A black man and a white man has more similarities in genes, just different expressions of phenotypes, which often is what is used to classify race to begin with.
My understanding is also that differences within one race are higher than between. African populations have more genetic diversity within different sub-populations as an example.
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/new-study-confirms-africans-are-most-gen/
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
Race is both a social construct and a biological category with real consequences independent of how society chooses to treat it What do you mean by this? I am pointing out how race is defined is a social construct. Could you clarify what you mean by real consequence and relate that to racial categories? If anything, your example with height is not really about race but more about a specific trait.
I think Scott is opening with a straw man (or is it motte and bailey? I don't know). There probably are people who will deny that there is some genetic variation in different populations if you cherry pick for radicals, but just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it has no utility. I am not sure where this claim of his is coming from. It's understood that money is a construct, but we don't deny it's utility. Saying something is a social construct was never meant (in a serious discussion) to mean it is useless.
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
There are biological differences between different populations and sub-populations, but deciding a group of phenotypes (like skin color) was unmistakably influenced by Western biases. You are probably aware of the issue of defining whiteness and blackness (Mixed ethnicities in United States or exclusion of certain ethnic groups from White category) . There is no perfect system of categorization of course, but the issue with Scott is he tries to conflate asserting race as a social construct as somehow not existing. Social construct doesn't simply mean "it doesn't exist" or "useless". I am sure there are radicals who think this, but that is cherry picking for easy wins
I am not sure what your counterargument is for. I am not disputing the existence of genetic variation in different populations. I am pointing out race (mostly Western system) is a social construct. I am not even disputing the utility of these categorizations. I am just saying Scott makes the conflation that social construct means it doesn't exist.
For your example... Color is a spectrum. It's not that one color definitely ends here and starts there. Language is a limiting factor. There are terms for different types of colors that aren't existent in Anglo Saxon. Useful categories, but doesn't mean they aren't socially defined. Socially defined doesn't necessarily mean there are no differences between a certain part of the spectrum compared to the other.
Though I understand you are just using an example, it's not a very good one since genetic differences between races aren't always clear. I am pretty sure ethnic differences are larger within one race than between different races. Way less clear than physical phenomena in hard sciences. Defining it by skin color or certain phenotypes is just one way of doing it.
That's not for me to decide. I am simply just pointing out that it is a socially defined categorization. If someone wants to come up with a better system, they can. It has utility, but Scott misunderstands and makes an error (not sure if this is motte and bailey or strawman) by conflating social construction as useless or non-existent. Not just him but many of the responses here seems to misunderstand what a social construct is imo.
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
People use the claim “there’s no such thing as biological race” for a lot of purposes, mostly to confuse and deceive people, but here it’s worth focusing on the tiny sliver of justification for such a claim: the biological clustering of populations isn’t exactly 100% the same as socially-defined racial categories
Scott seems to not understand. Race is still a social construct. There are genetic variations among different populations, but this doesn't mean the categories of race are not socially constructed. Who decided we are going to define one race white and another black, based on skin color? He uses the example with Jews, but this makes no sense since their categorization of race is different from the Western categorization. These racial categories have a purpose and are useful for a variety of reasons, but he's not making a convincing point that racial categories are not socially defined. Certain racial categories are fuzzier and an American invention: whites and blacks.
gardenofobjections
8mo ago
discussion on the motte ever actually led to anyone solving culture war problems? The closest thing I can come up with are TracingWoodgrain's exposés, which while incredible have hardly moved the needle on public awareness.
I think you underestimate that conscious awareness of something does affect people. It might not lead to definite results right away, but people's attitudes do change over time. You are right that most might go into the void, but it depends on what is the void to you. If one or two people who propel the next revolution are influenced by discussions from the motte, I think that's meaningful.
This might sound optimistic, but there any culture war that became out of hand started from something small. Ideas do affect and change people and can even spread to the masses. If anything, what you are saying is proof that talking to the void isn't really talking to the void
Of course not! I am pointing out this is just one mode of thinking that has dominated the way we perceive and categorize race. Racial categorizations are more complicated in different cultures was my point. Regardless, I am not disputing usefulness of these categorizations. Acknowledging biases when approaching and building conceptual frameworks is essential in science. It's not even because of political correctedness, but more for understanding limitations and accuracy.
An analogy is that when studying other religions, there is a tendency to interpret different religions from a Christian perspective (most likely because it is the dominant religion in the western sphere and most researchers who approached different religions were mainly Western). It's why early cultural studies has been updated to reflect a more accurate understanding.
If pursuing the truth and accurate information is the goal of any research field, then there should be no issues in acknowledging some limitations and biases of racial categorizations. I am not really concerned about political correctedness even, but more so it's a pretty big discussion amongst professional geneticists that there are issues with this classification.
More options
Context Copy link