|
Obama's "race" on the Cobert Report (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Sure, for some sociological issues like education. If it is the case that people of different ancestry have different outcomes for both standardized tests and finished level of formal schooling, then it may be useful or at least interesting to investigate why that pattern occurs. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
patterns of ancestry are all I mean when I speak of "race." |
... which would have to rely on social constructs and cognitive biases anyway. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Well, no. The fact that a certain man inseminated your mother and the zygote that formed eventually became "you" is not a social construct... |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Well, no. The fact that a certain man inseminated your mother and the zygote that formed eventually became "you" is not a social construct... |
Yeah, but the definitions used to describe your parents are. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Not if the only description you give is of who your parents' parents were and where they lived most of their lives. ;) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Not if the only description you give is of who your parents' parents were and where they lived most of their lives. ;) |
Have you noticed that this is leading to an infinite regression? You'd have to take in considerations cities, rather than countries or regions, and you'd also need to know about migrations to that area and whether it had any influence on that family's lineage. You'd have to know the background of pretty much every ancestor you've got. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Nah, you would have to know it for many of them but not all. This is helped by the fact that until a few hundred years ago people simply didn't move around very much at all, and if they did it happened very, very slowly. Genetic analysis can provide clues, too. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Nah, you would have to know it for many of them but not all. This is helped by the fact that until a few hundred years ago people simply didn't move around very much at all, and if they did it happened very, very slowly. Genetic analysis can provide clues, too. |
You sure people didn't move around that much? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Well, there was the migration out of Africa which involved a lot of moving, yes, and the moves to Australia and the Americas. But the fact that haplogroups "are often geographically oriented," as the article states, should tell you something; and that is not that geography is unimportant because people moved around too much. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sure, for some sociological issues like education. If it is the case that people of different ancestry have different outcomes for both standardized tests and finished level of formal schooling, then it may be useful or at least interesting to investigate why that pattern occurs. |
There has already been studies done on this and surprise, it's directly correlated with SES more than anything else. So it is not 'race' that makes scores on standardized tests and finished levels of formal schooling different, it is the fact that certain 'racial' groups have different SES standings and thus provides a poorer or richer environment for development. Due to the fact that they develop to only a fraction (in the poorer scenario) of their full potential the cycle repeats itself. 'Race' has nothing to do with intelligence or other heritable traits, it is a mix of the environment and whatever range of development the trait of the particular person has. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Of course it will be arbitrary. "Species" works in much the same way; we come up with different boundaries depending what we use as a criterion for separation. This does not mean that all discussion of "species" is meaningless. |
That is largely true, which is why I tend to ascribe to a relatively nominalist view of such classifications.
That said, there is a significant difference between the two problems. The problem with defining species is simply that there exists so much diversity among organisms, even in the way that they reproduce and therefore pass along their genetic material, that it is difficult to construct a definition which is applicable to every form of life.
For human "races" the problem is the opposite: human beings are so overwhelmingly genetically similar, that it is necessary to cherry-pick traits which are much more frequently (but not always) found in those with a particular common ancestry in order to find a line upon which to attempt to distinguish. Again, such classification may be useful in a particular situation relevant to the particular characteristic being considered - but as far as being a basis for a system of racial classification in a general sense, they are neither here nor there.
| quote: | | I agree; the definition should vary according to its utility in the field in question. I would not propose giving just one definition to "race" and then using it in all fields. |
Indeed. My contention would be that there is no biological definition of race that has any utility whatsoever with regards to the issue raised here in this thread. That is, unless we're talking about Senator Obama's race in the context of how likely his offspring are to have sickle-cell anemia, or something similarly obtuse. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
'Race' has nothing to do with intelligence or other heritable traits, it is a mix of the environment and whatever range of development the trait of the particular person has. |
It is my understanding that the extent to which intelligence is heritable is under some debate. |
|
|
|
|
