Let's play a game:
Find the worst rationalwiki article you can find and try not to rage at it. I'll start:
rationalwiki.org
Rational wiki
Hudson Cruz
Other urls found in this thread:
rationalwiki.org
rationalwiki.org
twitter.com
Jeremiah Ross
Human genetics doesn't work like racialists think it does. Race realists spend a great deal of time and effort pointing out genetic differences between geographically separated populations in gene clustering research and insisting this is evidence for "races".
In scientific work, gene clustering research in a set of populations is typically determined via subjective descriptors of ethnicity, language and geography. In this way, people can be reliably identified as members of these groups.[34] However, this way of categorizing people depends fundamentally on the quantity and method used to create the aforementioned framework of ancestral populations; how people are grouped into populations is completely arbitrary.[34]
In contrast, racialism relies upon the idea that large clusters of people who are homogeneous within the cluster and heterogeneous between clusters in terms of genetic similarity exist. However, this idea has no scientific basis and in fact there is evidence against it, as Witherspoon et al. concluded in their 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations".[35] As Maglo et al. 2016 write:[34]
Nicholas Gonzalez
Definition One: Human phenotypes don't divide neatly into geographical groupings:
Expressed genes turn into phenotypes, the actual manifestation of differences. Phenotype is, at times, fairly close to genotype and, thus, might fit into the genetics of race. However, it too is a flawed metric.
As a case study: The highest level of long-distance runners comes not just from Kenya, but a particular part of Kenya and their success is defined, in part, by common genetics.[38] But that isn't race. In fact, the opposite end of the running spectrum, sprinters, features a large proportion with ancestral origins in West Africa.[39][40] Both sets of genes favor running, but entirely different aspects of it. By these genes alone, the two groups might appear to be different races, even while our knee-jerk appearance-based definitions put them in the same race.
Applying the same technique as Witherspoon,[35] Strauss and Hubbe analyzed data of head shape and found that, across three regions that correspond to three common racial definitions, a typical person in any region was about 30% likely to be more similar to someone from a different region than to someone within their own region.[41] In other words, head shape, one defining factor of race, does not correspond consistently to geographical heritage in the way it would be expected were genetic differences determinant of race. In even shorter words, the genotype may be similar among a race, but phenotype is less similar. This may explain how one white supremacist was so surprised to discover his African heritage.[42]
Angel Sanchez
bump
Nathaniel Lee
>Imagine not trusting your own eyes that nogs are retarded and instead blindly following some kike's misleading data
William Wright
>Racialist views oversimplify the complicated history of humanity. For example, the racialist tree diagramWikipedia's W.svg (left) paints evolutionary lineages with very broad brushes. This effectively hides the smaller human evolutionary groups that can easily be seen in a scientific tree diagram (center). In comparison, the "trellis" diagram (right) most correctly shows the substantial amounts of inter-continental gene admixture that has occurred throughout human history.
Ethan Stewart
Rational wiki is just liberal garbage with no real citations/authority or fact checkers, best to ignore it and move on
Jaxson Clark
>If race were more than just a social construct, the genetics of race should show differences strongly associated with the definitions of race. The easiest distinctions come from things like skin color, hair, and eye shape which, yes, are genetically based, but the surface commonality is not enough to justify racial stereotypes. For those stereotypes to be true, the genetics of race have to extend deeper.
However, modern genetic data has demonstrated the vast majority of variation (>85%) is found within populations, rather than between them (
Brayden Jackson
This is not to say that there is no variation between humans. As the above table should make clear, it's quite the opposite. Indeed, genetic data does show that random people sampled from within a population are generally more similar to each other than a pair sampled from different populations.[35] (That's hardly surprising since, when left to their own devices, people tend to procreate with local folk more than with folk from another part of the world.) Moreover, with enough genetic information (i.e. more than 1000 genetic loci), it is possible to quite accurately identify the geographic origin of a sampled person's ancestors, but only when the chosen regions are quite distinct.[35] (Or: Icelanders and Ashkenazi Jews might be genetic clusters, but "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", and "Negroes" are not). However, Witherspoon 2007 cautions:[35]
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
In other words: Just because variation exists does not mean it is meaningful. As the above sections about race in animals should make clear, a little variation does not a race make.
Jacob Clark
[W]hile some minimal revision to the meaning of 'race' [...] is allowable in the search for biological backing for race, we must stay fairly close to the vest, or we risk not talking about race at all.
—Glasgow 2003[62]
The main problem is that new concepts of race used by racialists are watered down to the extent they are trivialised. Hochman 2014 writes: [63]
The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race.
Hochman (2013) rejects these new concepts and re-definitions on the grounds (emphassis added) "the criteria applied to humans are not consistent with those used to define subspecies in nonhuman animals, and no rationale has been given for this differential treatment".[64]
Another problem with re-defining race is: "To avoid making 'race' the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed".[65] Modern racialists however argue there is no threshold which runs into the problem of any population being a race: "There are undoubtedly no two genetically identical populations in the world; this has nothing to do directly with the validity of race as a taxonomic device. Unless we have defined exactly what we mean by this… differences between populations are population differences, nothing more."[66] Another objection is a "mismatch argument", where local breeding populations not ordinarily conceived as races (e.g. Amish, or Kalash peopleWikipedia's W.svg), become races: "a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence."[67]
Lincoln Morris
>as Witherspoon et al. concluded in their 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations".
You know, I've read that study. The "insignificance" of the genetic differences they found is established by the abstract, not the data. The data shows there's more difference between Europeans and Africans than there is between chimps and bonobos, which modern taxonomy recognizes as distinct species. But the same margins of difference between human populations are meaningless, because...reasons. No, I'm not gonna explain the reasons to you, you wouldn't understand. You don't even have a PhD. Just believe me, I've been invested with authority by the secular orthodoxy, to question me is heresy.
It's such bullshit.
Ryan Hall
What a fucking joke.
This shit is just intentionally meant to confuse people right?
Jonathan Scott
Caleb Garcia
Along the way from chemistry to expression, the environment gets its chance to intervene. Epigenetics studies the way in which factors outside of the DNA itself alter the way in which genes are expressed. Resembling Lamarckian genetics, epigenetic effects can be remarkable enough for a mouse to pass a specific fear response down at least two generations (F3).[68] In humans, increased risk for cardiovascular disease among African Americans is hypothesized to result from genetic expression modified by in utero experience of maternal stressors.[69] Epigenetic effects might tie socioeconomics to future IQ, explaining some portion of controversially observed racial differences.[70][note 14]
Ethan Ward
As an example of why arguments for racialism fail, consider the case of the "-oid" concept of race.
Ethnic groups and demes in Africa/East Asia/West Eurasia do not form a sharply discontinuous genetic (or phenotypic) cluster, nor are there substantial differences between populations in East Asia, compared to populations from other regions across the globe. Overall, genetic variation between continental human populations is fairly little (
Luis Taylor
Here’s the link
rationalwiki.org
Robert Barnes
One obsolete theory attempted to link cranial capacity (cc) to intelligence. While cranial capacity is an accurate measure of brain size, the fallacy was in assuming that a larger cranial capacity (and brain) correlates with higher intelligence. The size of the brain itself is only weakly correlated with intelligence.[75]
If this idea were taken to its logical conclusion, the world would likely be ruled by elephants, or sperm whales. It is only when a person has an extremely small brain, as with abnormal conditions such as microcephaly,Wikipedia's W.svg that absolute brain size has any negative impact on cognitive functions.
Furthermore, having a very large amount of brain tissue, referred to as megalencephaly, is recognized as being pathological and is strongly correlated with several neurological disorders, especially severe epilepsy and autism. What is much more important than absolute brain size includes factors such as cortical folding, neuronal organization, dendritic and synaptic connections, etc.[76]
Aaron Torres
A handful of 21st century racialists including figures such as J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen have continued to argue that certain races are just inherently dumb. While they still like their skull and brain size measurements, their arguments hinge more on pointing to differences in races' average IQ scores and claiming this is the work of genetics. These claims rest on several big assumptions:
That IQ is a measure of some kind of objective intelligence, rather than a measure of the skills needed to excel in 21st century Western society (a controversial claim).
That there are genetic differences between "races" big enough to explain the IQ difference.
That IQ is more dependent on racial genes than environment (or: if environment affects IQ, then the differences in IQ by race should still be significant after controlling for the environment).
Increasingly, evidence has been suggesting that environment plays a large role in IQ. This started with the discovery of the Flynn effect — the realization that national average IQ scores were increasing over time at a rate much faster than could be explained by genetics (and, interestingly, ethnic minorities were often making the biggest leaps).[77][78]
Josiah Rogers
Increasingly, evidence has been suggesting that environment plays a large role in IQ. This started with the discovery of the Flynn effect — the realization that national average IQ scores were increasing over time at a rate much faster than could be explained by genetics (and, interestingly, ethnic minorities were often making the biggest leaps).[77][78]
Relevant to this discussion also is Eric Turkheimer's study of twins separated at birth and raised in different socioeconomic environments. The study found that environment mattered more to the development of IQ in the poor kids than it did in the rich kids. Essentially, some degree of genetically-determined IQ exists, but the degree to which it develops is dependent on how intellectually-stimulating their environment as children is.[70] Other explanations, such as the stereotype threat, racial discrimination in the education system, lack of funding for schools in poor areas, more talented teachers avoiding teaching at schools in poor areas, and even differences in diet have been offered.
An irony
Although these IQ-based arguments for racialism are often used by white supremacists, taken to their logical conclusion, they would better support Asian or Jewish supremacy than white supremacy. Rushton actually agrees that Asians, not whites, are the intellectual master race, leading anthropologist Jonathan Marks to remark:[71]
First we must admire the apparent cranial expansion of Asians over the last half-century, when [earlier] researchers consistently reported their having smaller brains than whites. Obviously this implies the possibility of a comparable expansion in blacks. More likely, it implies the possibility of scientists finding just what they expect when the social and political stakes are high.
Jose Gutierrez
Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection of random mutations is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others.
This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be cultural bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped.
One such explanation could be that within a certain population the random mutations needed for certain intelligence boosts never occurred. The genetics related to brain development are not uniform among the genetically diverse and geographically distant populations (the microcephalin alleles being an example of brain-related gene complexes that are not geographically uniform).[79] Wade 2005 writes:[79]
Hunter Gonzalez
if you think something doesn't exist because you can't easily measure it objectively then you are a science nigger and you should kill yourself
t. retard who at first thought you wrote all that instead of just copy pasting it
Eli Hernandez
There are several common beliefs about how different races have different sporting abilities. Clichés include:
Blacks are good at track and field (especially sprinting[81]) and heavyweight boxing (hence the phrase "The Great White Hope"[82]).
Blacks can't swim.[83]
East Africans are good at long-distance running.[84]
East Asians are athletically weaker, at least at some sports.[85][86]
Whites are better at tennis.[87] (except the Williams sistersWikipedia's W.svg).
Whites can't jump (basketball).[88]
On the other hand, why has Norway (population 5 million) won 118 golds in Winter Olympics and Vietnam and India none?[89] Are Asians intrinsically terrible at skiing compared to tall Nordic types? Or does Norway have more ski slopes and better ice rinks and just care more and spend more money on it? Why has one small Catholic UniversityWikipedia's W.svg produced more Hall of Fame caliber National Football League (NFL) players than the entire continents of Europe and Asia combined? Is it because Irish-Americans are naturally fightingWikipedia's W.svg? Is it because running and throwing are inherently deficient in Europeans? Or is it because College Football is a huge money making business in exactly one country on Earth?
Brandon Long
That article actually mentions that DNA tests can tell what population of hominid you came from geographically then doesn't elaborate whatsoever.
Its pretty funny not just because that in of itself defeats the entire premise of the article, but that they felt the need to put it in there in the first place.
Josiah Ward
On the other hand, why has Norway (population 5 million) won 118 golds in Winter Olympics and Vietnam and India none?[89] Are Asians intrinsically terrible at skiing compared to tall Nordic types? Or does Norway have more ski slopes and better ice rinks and just care more and spend more money on it? Why has one small Catholic UniversityWikipedia's W.svg produced more Hall of Fame caliber National Football League (NFL) players than the entire continents of Europe and Asia combined? Is it because Irish-Americans are naturally fightingWikipedia's W.svg? Is it because running and throwing are inherently deficient in Europeans? Or is it because College Football is a huge money making business in exactly one country on Earth?
It appears that some factors implicated in sporting success are heritable (e.g. height), and therefore will be more or less common in groups with common ancestors. However, in many cases, these do not correlate closely to race (the Dutch are the tallest nationality[90], despite stereotypes about black basketballers). As the section on genetic variation makes clear, there is not a simple pot of genes that corresponds to each race, so you can't assume a member of a race will have a given gene. And there are few clear cases where genes define sporting success: even factors like height are affected by nutrition, medical facilities, etc, and distributed across races.
Ryan Hill
the point is that fake oppression makes money. Having whites feel guilty makes money. There is no way they will ever say whites arent racist because that would end the hussle. Hence even being raceblind is a form of racism.
Austin Thompson
Aren't rationalwiki editors wikipedia rejects? I remember one who spent the entire day editing the GG article there.
Hudson Campbell
Yes
Carson Cook
This "encyclopedia" is a fucking joke.
Carson Murphy
I can't think for myself and need peer reviewed institutionalized approval to accept certain premises and conclusions.
Xavier Young
Racialists quote forensic anthropologists who are said to be able to estimate ancestry of skeletal remains by continent ("race") with an accuracy of up to 90%.[citation needed]
Empirical flaws: Sampling bias
The high accuracy figures quoted above only apply to limited subsets of a sample. However, this high accuracy figure only matches limited subsets of a sample in each broad continental grouping, and "in cases where independent samples are used to test the methods, allocation accuracies decrease to levels that undermine the applicability of the methods in actual cases."[103] As such, broad groupings like "Mongoloid" have little to no utility.[104]
Two case studies should drive home this point. First consider Birkby 1966, who found a high allocation accuracy for "Native Americans" (>90%) based on an archaeological sample from Knoll, Kentucky.[105] When however indigenous remains were sampled from many other locations, the accuracy for the "Native American" racial category diminished: "the methods performed poorly on the respective American Indian samples (accuracies ranged from 14 to 30%), and confirmed Birkby’s conclusion that the Indian Knoll sample cannot be considered a proxy for the pattern of variation in numerous populations that are included in the group American Indian".[106]
Thomas Carter
The high accuracy rate claim for racial determination methods is also questionable since different methods have a tendency to produce different results:[107]
We have shown that even with 20 non-fragmented sets of skeletal remains none could be consistently placed into a single racial category. Individual variability may have played a significant role leading to inconsistency of the results found in this study, which further confirms the ideas of Brace and Ryan (1980), Henneberg (2010) and Lewontin (1976); that most human variation occurs between individuals of the same population rather than being attributable to geographic distribution.
Empirical flaws: Gradients of features within races
The fact that there are gradients of features within so-called races is widely recognized and contradicts discrete racial boundaries. As an example, let us consider Asia. According to Wu Rukang and Wu Xinzhi (1997): "The cephalic, facial, and nasal indices, plus stature, show clinal variation. From north to south [China], the cephalic index and the stature are seen to decrease, while the facial and nasal indices increase."[108]
This can easily be seen with an example. Ling & Wong (2008) provide a table of shoveling among East Asian populations, with results for tooth I1 reproduced below:[109]
Levi Bennett
>putting kenyans and west africans in the same racial group
I guess next they will deny the fact that I consider the Igbo and khoisan to be different racial groups despite their skin color
Nathan Rivera
This. Have a (you) good sir.
Colton Evans
It's hilarious, because as much as they see themselves as "fighting for science and rationality", it's people like them that are why normal people are becoming increasingly distrusting of science.
Nathan Williams
Theoretical flaws: Region versus race
Sauer (1992) notes that "to estimate, with varying degrees of specificity, a person’s place of ancestry from their physical features" is "not a vindication of the [biological] race concept".[110]
C. Loring Brace makes the same point that "region, does not mean race".[111] More recently terms such as "geographical ancestry", or "ancestral population" have replaced race in forensic literature.
Motivation of forensic anthropologists
If race is so meaningless, why do so many forensic anthropologists still use it? The simple answer is that laypeople often require them to do so. Smay & Armelagos 2000 write:[103]
Many forensic anthropologists understand race to be a folk taxonomy with little, if any, biological relevance. Given this, however, they point to the duty of forensic anthropologists to serve the medico-legal communities to which they have an obligation. These communities are not interested in the fact that race does not exist, and, according to Sauer and Kennedy, are not likely to be convinced of this in the near future. On the contrary, race is used as a key element in the search for missing persons, and forensic anthropologists are expected to provide this information in their reports. Even if races are not biologically "real", the accuracy with which forensic anthropological techniques are able to replicate the folk taxonomy from which they are derived should allow the anthropologist to make an educated guess as to how the person would have been identified in life.
Adam James
Most modern racialists redefine race as a "genetic cluster" by continent which captures a fairly small amount of variation (
Mason Gray
Modern taxonomy is pretty much complete bullshit to be honest. It's not about the ability to reproduce with each other, but the circumstance if reproduction between groups actually took place and was observed or inferred by us.
Of course chimps and bonobos are the same species, it just made someones career to play some high level semantics games that were ultimatively pointless and obscured the true meaning of species for dumb normies. Did you know orcas were turned into like eight different species recently? They even divides african elephants into two species.
According to those same rules, sentinelese are not humans, but no one will ever touch that ofc, we've got killer whale purity spiralling to be wasting our time with.