Joseph Graves Lies on Race repeated here regularly

Graves doesn't even know what Race is.
He thinks it's .25 Fst or more.
He's an idiot.

He Lied about where deduced that info: Sewall Wright
Sewall right knows what Race is, and it was NOT Fst.

Wiki previously linked:

Morphologically differentiated populations

Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.​

Some people Confuse the old 75/25 rule with Wrights .25 or some erler Lewontin claims
Cont'd

In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered Different Subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones."""​

That is what race is according to all the Moden originators of the term.
`

 

That's right..
The person cited most in this section by a factor of TWENTY, has Race wrong.
He made up/Morphed/Mischaracterized Sewall Wright's threshold for Race.

One really could therefore DISMISS everything the Flunky NCAT 'scientist' has to say on the topic.
He can't make valid claims that use a word he is wrong about.

Imagine too, how much the board would clear out/open up to REAL discussion without the daily Spamming and Obsessive citations of him.
I've NEVER seen anything like it on any board in any section.

not even Jesus is quoted in the religion section as much as Graves is cited here as a percent of posts in the respective sections... and maybe overall in absolute number as well.

I'm going to try and figure out how to screen out all references to this Idiot marching band college clown who doesn't even know what Race is.. or Lies about it. And he probably doesn't even know which he's doing.



`

`


`

 

This level of disdain for scientific research from a single source borderlines on OCD ritual (pathological bias). You might as well be a vampire or a demon having the Holy Cross held in front of you. I'm sure that you would not only like any quote or mention of Joseph Graves erased from the board but his very existence wiped from reality!

Maybe I could at least help you wipe it from your mind.....



Maybe instead of complaining about the citation of Graves you should find a hero among your circle of sources with the bravery to actually challenge him in an academic debate?

Politicalforum - Why are Proponents of Scientific Racism Afraid to Debate in an Academic Setting?

 

The egregious FALLACY of this entire thread stems from the title;

There cannot be any "lie" when there is no agreed upon scientific definition of "race" as far as humanity goes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

The entire thread is based upon a fallacy in order to promote the nefarious and discredited "scientific racism" bovine excrement.

 

What Fallacy?
That word isn't even appropriate for this discussion.

What we had was Graves Lying about what Wright said, then Mischaracterizing his .25 Fst as a minimum standard for subspecie delimitation of others.
and WTF!
you don't know what Fst or the other barometers for Genetic distance are!

And just because/even if there was disagreement, Graves abused Wright's .25 as a standard which Wright said it was NOT in the SAME book!
So regardless of any std, Graves falsely attributed one to Wright,

You just wing it.

AGAIN You're just hostile, trying to Bluff your way through.
You know nothing about the different genetic distance types.. but again, I DO.
Again, your just combative with NO knowledge of the topic.
Bye III.
`

 

Reading comprehension failure duly noted for the record. It probably explains a great deal as to why there is there a mendacious BELIEF in the DEBUNKED falsehood of racism.

 

No, he did not lie. Graves said that Wright developed the concept of FST as a statistical measure of population subdivision and that the use of his threshold for classification of sub-species was a post-Wright phenomenon. He cited sources for this and acknowledged that in his book Wright himself held the position that there were biological races within the human species. They disagree on division of biological race but Graves doesn't need to adhere to Wright's definition of biological race to analyze population subdivision within the human species.


I address this in Post #7. I also invited the uploader of the Youtube video you are basing your claim on to this message board for a discussion of his claim that Graves is a liar. Failure to support your argument will be dismissed as a baseless accusation and character assassination.

PSEUDOSCIENCE displays a remarkable and characteristic indifference to fact. Writers tend simply to make up bogus “facts”— what Norman Mailer calls “factoids”— where needed, instead of going to the trouble of consulting reliable reference works, much less investigating directly. Yet these fictitious facts are often central to the pseudoscientist’s argument and conclusions! This can also be seen in the fact that pseudoscientists never revise. The first edition of any pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book may go through innumerable new printings, over decades or centuries. Even a book with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page is just reprinted as it is, over and over. Compare to college science textbooks, which usually see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts, ideas, discoveries, experiments and insights in science. - Rory Coker

 

Indeed Rowe was correct in Graves using a separate, tighter definition of race to declare race does not exist. The "American definition of race" he defines here does not fit anything in common American culture, anywhere, at any time. He used that fake definition as his first springboard to declaring that race doesn't exist.

Rowe stated that,

Graves absolutely did entirely ignore trait frequency.

Rowe is indeed correct, specifically regarding Graves' definition of race -

Graves page 5 (which is the introduction):

I have never heard of race defined in this manner, and what any lay definition may exist isn't relevant regarding a scientific topic. Even with this Graves distorts definitions as well on pages 5 and 6:

That question, actually, Graves never answers, including on page 39 where the index says the citation "defines" the term:

He simply states it to be the case and moves on to ranting about racism, as if he paused in his writing to make a sammich and then forgot what he was talking about and switched subjects to beat a political drum.

Nowhere does Graves offer to clarify the amount of "genetic differentiation" required to be an acceptable subspecies nor does he qualify it. One has to dig through outside sources to find out his definition, and I find that Graves is a member of the "constructionist" movement which seeks to selectively attack the common taxonomic definitions of sub-species but only when it comes to humans and not other animals, plants, or insects because according to the accepted standard definition, human races are sub-species based on the same critieria applied to all over living things because that just won't fly in today's progressive movement.

In that, constructionists have not offered a viable genetic definition of how we can distinguish what is or is not a subspecies in any living population.

Not only are we sub-species by even by the common dictionary definition that Graves offered above, but we contain varying admixtures of extinct human species, be it Neanderthal or Denisovan.

In Graves' writings on the topic of whether or not race exists there is always a deep mix of politics, racial drum beating, and a slew of references to past notorious figures to poison the well so as to brand anyone in advance of being a racist/white supremacist/whatever other villain just-like-the-dead-guys if they disagree. And in Graves' book - which I now own for a whopping $1.25 - there is far more politics than actual science, and much of the science itself is lacking adequate source cites. He simply says it is and we as readers are apparently supposed to take that cue.

He continually mixes whatever prejudices existed in the earlier decades of the sciences to disqualify the classification systems that were developed in that era. In other words, this guy was a bigot ergo everything he says is false. This ideological Pavlovian manipulation which Graves presents throughout. Such cheap character assassinations appear quite frequently.

He devotes some time to invoking environmental factors influencing human intelligence, clearly clueless of the APA's stance that socioeconomic status and test bias aren't factors, that adult IQ is highly genetic with minimal environmental effect in average Western citizens, that there is no race-environment interaction to disqualify high heritability of IQ in any Western demographic, that the IQs of adopted children resemble their biological parents far more greatly than their adoptive environments as they age, etc ad nauseam. Graves has attempted to step outside of his area of expertise and venture into psychology and performed very poorly on all fronts.

And with all of that, the book was published in 2001 and as such in scientific terms, is becoming a bit fossilized