Race Realism

I'm wondering how many people identify as race realists, what they think it means, and what they believe.

To anyone whose not familiar with the concept, race realism is the idea that races exist in an ontological sense, that these classifications are based on defined, immutable criteria that hold through time. The opposite position is that "race" is a social construct that is mutable or can even be abolished. This is my position.

I'd like to start by asking three questions:

What is a "race?"
How many races are there?
What criteria distinguish them?

 

Race is a description for human phenotypes.

These are absolutely exist and to say otherwise is to deny reality.

So what you're asking is if you accept reality or not.

 

That sentence literally doesn't make any sense. Why do phenotypes need to be "described?" How does race accomplish this? What does the word "for" do in your sentence, there?

Yeah, like geneticists and sociologists do.

You didn't answer any of my three questions.

Anybody here want to actually try?

 

what part of it to are you having trouble with?

they don't as far as I'm concerned that's something biologists do with all sorts of life.

this doesn't make much sense to me race is a description of human phenotypes. It doesn't accomplish anything it's not meant to accomplish anything. It's just one of the ways we categorize people.

There are lots of ways we do that.

it's a preposition, when I say something is a description for something else, like the word yeah is slang for yes I'm explaining that the purpose this word exists is to replace another.

geneticists would be discredited if they suggested phenotypes don't exist. I would think a sociologist would be as well.

If they are, they are absolutely rejecting reality.

That's a lie. I answered the first one, "what is race?". It is human phenotype you didn't respond to that except for weathering on about why people classified human phenotypes.

It's for the other two I don't care, and it doesn't matter in that order.

 

I'm not "having trouble with" it. It just doesn't make any sense. I have top-notch reading comprehension, bud. 100th percentile. 12.9+ reading level at 8. You're not making any sense, here.

What biologists classify races?

"Race is a description of..."

Again, makes no sense. Do you not know what "description" means? Sounds to me like you're just throwing together a word salad. Seems like you're struggling to fit the words "race" and "phenotype" together in a way that makes sense.

Okay, so your claim is that "race" is a stand in for "people of a phenotype."

Alright, we might be getting somewhere.

Okay. Which phenotypical traits are to be taken as definitive? Why isn't any specific bundling of phenotypical traits just arbitrary?

 

it makes perfect sense to me if you can explain what's wrong with it then there's nothing wrong with it other than maybe you just disagree and don't know how to argue. Or more likely you can't argue

I understand it and it does make sense.

Perhaps you have to pretend things don't make sense that you cannot argue.

That's a shity tactic mate.

any biologist that recognizes phenotypes.

pretending you don't understand English is not a good argument. Yes I know what description means.

I thought you had excellent reading comprehension.

no you're finally catching up this is what the hundredth percentile means where you come from?

it's not my area of expertise and further I don't care.

because it's based on genotype and environment.

Come on Mister 100% tile learn the words that are being used.

 

How is race a description, "for" or "of" (or both) phenotypes?

I accept "zero" as your answer.

I do, and I see through the embarrassing fumbling you're doing here.

This is at the center of the race realism debate.

 

Great, race does not exist, ditto for racism.

 

Would race be similar to a classification in taxonomy?

 

just like how a sedan is a description of an automobile.

Jesus are you sure you are in the 100%

Then don't accept them.

I don't get embarrassed if I make mistakes so I typically admit to them. That's what adults do.

So how clever and perceptive you must be to see through a facade that never existed.

I don't debate that's a childish game. I discuss because I'm an adult. if you want to go pull your logic traps so you can stroke your ego on someone you need to find someone who's willing to participate in your little hobby I'm not interested.

 

"Realism" is used here in an ontological sense. Nobody doubts that race exists as a social construct.

Technically it would be taxonomy. And if you really want to get into the weeds of philosophy of biology, one of the biggest problems biology has faced has been the problem of Species Realism vs Species Nominalism vs Species Pragmatism. But we're not discussing the well-known "species problem," we're discussing the extremely clear-cut case of Race Realism, which is obviously bunk.

My position on this is actually a bit nuanced. I do believe that we could create something like a scientifically rigorous "racial taxonomy," but it would be a far cry from how we currently interpret race.

 

A lot of running here. Let's get down to the central claim you're making: Certain bundles of phenotypical traits get bundled into the concept of "race." What you need to prove now is that any particular way of choosing which traits go into a certain bundle isn't simply arbitrary, in order to avoid falling into the Race Nominalist camp. Give it a shot or keep running, whatever floats your boat.

 

What I know :
_ Science don't know at 100 % the origins of IQ and intelligence in a general way, it was never proved that a "race" or another is smarter than another, it was never proved neither that some race had a more specific behaviour than another. The consequence is that I don't exclude neither I think that some races are on average smarter than other.
_ I already met some very smart people of every ethnic group, so clearly, even if an ethnic group is dumber than another on an average, there is exceptions and you can't juge the intelligence or the value of someone only on her race.

About human races. Clearly there is different classifications. We know for instance that white people has a better innate ability to digest lactose, that eastern asian tend to resist malaria, that western black people have better bodies for athletism, that kenyan are very good at running marathon because they have better genes to do so . So on non polemical topics, we know that some ethnic groups are better than other.
Clearly there is different genetic profiles but it's more complicated than black/asian/white simply because there is more genetic diversity inside africa than outside.

 

there is no need it is in post number two.

You rewarding it and chopping it up and creating a straw man is only necessary for you to feel like you've accomplished something.

so thanks for trying to put words in my mouth but my mouth is plenty big enough to speak for me.

 

You seem to share my position, but the fact of the matter is that in meaningful ways the debate hinges around the idea that race as we currently interpret it has some basis in reality. That "black," "white," "south Asian," etc. are legitimate ontological concepts.

In other words, I can see race realism as a potentially valid position, and I think it could even be useful to understanding human migration and the impact of genetic factors on behavior and traits.

But, as it stands, race as we use it is simply a social construct with no scientific grounding. And it sounds like you probably understand that. Cool.

Boat = Floated.

 

I didn't vote yet. I see humans as a race.

While black people make easier athletes and asians make easier mathmaticians, all ethnic groups can potentially fill all roles (an asian could be the best athlete and a black could be the best mathmatician), and none are 'better' than the other.

Certain cultures are demonstrably superior to others, but culture is a social construct, ultimately a voluntary one, and any affiliation between race and culture is socially constructed (and potentially socially deconstructed).

So does that make me a 'racial realist'?

 

My answers

(1) It depends on definition. Races among animals are biologically defined.
Races among humans are subjective and/or political, unscientific assumptions. In fact, today there's only one human race left: the Human Sapiens. All others are extinct.

(2) In terms of humans: only one on this planet.

(3) Their origin or ancestry.

 

Well, they definitely are in Warcraft, Warhammer, and Lord of the Rings.

I don't think so, but your claim about "black people being better athletes and Asians find mathematics easier" suggests some version of Race Realism. As our French comrade has already pointed out, there is less genetic diversity between whites and Asians than there are between different populations within Africa, which would make the aforementioned fact about blacks extremely unlikely to be true on a genetic level.

 

I find your faith in Species Realism alarming. (I'm joking.) This is an interesting take, simply turning Race Realism into Species Realism. I guess that makes Race Realism a lot more defensible, but also a far cry from what most people mean by the concept.

 

People from Kenya are statistically better at running than anyone else. Is that because they are a different race?

 

Let's assume that's true on a genetic level (which I don't know). That this might be true of a certain population within Africa, within Kenya or parts of Kenya, wouldn't necessarily hold true if you move into Mande or Zulu populations.

That's the problem here, what is "a race?" Is it that particular population within Kenya that has that trait in preponderance? Is it all people from Africa with dark skin? How are we defining the concept and how are we distinguishing between them?

 

Most likely, there was long ago some dynamic that required people in the Kenyan region to be able to run fast or they would not survive long enough to procreate (too many lions, maybe, idk). Identifying and then testing for the genetic markers passed down from then to now would identify which of those people can run fast now as a result of that adaptive or evolutionary event. I would not call them a race.

 

Okay, so what would you call a race? Further, whatever your answer is, do you differentiate between race as a genetic concept and race as a social construct? For example, you can claim, as you did earlier, that "human" is a race, while accepting that "black" is a race if we're talking about "race" as a social construct without any basis in genetics?

 

Race is an oversimplified classification of human genetic diversity. For instance, European explorers saw that Indians wore red paint and so called them red Indians, creating "red" as a racial category in 1740. It was scientific enough until the early 20th century.

 

I try to avoid the word 'race' as much as possible due to its subjectivity and lack of accuracy. I try to limit my use of the word to referring to humans vs non humans, such as in hypothetical discussions of ETs, NHEs, etc. Whereas other people might commonly use the word 'race', I say 'ethnic group' or 'cultural group'. Its my opinion that most of the differences that cause 'racial' tension are in fact cultural differences. In the US, for example, racism is effectively dead. Culturism however is as strong as racism ever was. Living out 'in the sticks' I can tell you that a flannel-clad black guy driving a lifted F150 with a shotgun rack in the back window and a 6 point buck lashed to the hood is going to get as warm of a welcome at 'Bubba's Redneck Roadside Grill' as redneck Bubba himself would, while a white guy who pulls up thumping 'gangsta' rap from his 'ghetto cruiser', sagging his drawers and flashing gang signs will be met with skepticism and derision. None of these things are 'race' driven, but culture driven.