Is race a social construct? If not, how many races are there? What defines a human "race"?

I prefer to think of it as "racial classification is a social construct" myself

After all, you can either go by skin tone, which contains ∞ in-betweens, skull size, geographic origin... it just gets to be dumb

People who try to use it as a justification for calling anything racist are retards who discredit the notion of discriminating based on something you can't change tho.

>Is race a social construct?
no, race is a real thing, but some specific 'races' aren't real (e.g. jews actually are just white) and are therefore social constructs

>If not, how many races are there?
only 4 to 6 depending on definition. e.g. mongoloid (asian), negroid (african), caucasoid (european), australoid (native australiasian)

>What defines a human "race"?
it's an archaic term meaning the human species

And how the fuck do you suppose that would clear things up.

And I would argue that the current usage of race is not exactly based on skin color. "White" is more than just skin color, else people wouldn't question if Greeks were white and would warmly accept pale koreans and japanese as fellow whites. Obviously that's not how things go. It's a cultural label more than anything and in particular a western one. The designation of "Asian" being the most laughable. Everyone from the sub-continent to Japan are similar enough to be grouped into one race?

Of course genetic variation in humans exists, but where we divvy the lines is up to whimsy more than science.

Is "white" a modernish concept?

As in the last 300-200 years? Yes, and who qualifies as white has shifted as well. Originally it was just anglo-saxons and their germanic counterparts who were truly "white". Over time this expanded into a sort of pan-europeanism and now we're at the point where the US census counts Arabs as white.

Don't forget white Hispanic.

Man left Africa where he was confronted evolutionary pressures which selected for traits which were most conducive to reproductive success in that respective environment.

If you want to call them races, or sub-species, or breeds, or populations, or x, y, z, it does not matter, yes race or whatever word you want to use for it, is a social construct, its an arbitrary distinction used to facilitate taxonomic classification. Does this mean the phenotypical variation found in different populations of humans is a social construct? No, differences exist and they are not just skin deep and no this does not justify racism.

>is it hard to believe a pseudo science which has already been debunked

Yes it is.

Like everything it's nature and nurture.

I believe that race exists in terms of skin colour/ ethnicity etc. but to say that an asian or an african is an entirely differen't species to one another is a load of shit, as it scientifically doesn't hold up.

You know that phrase, there is no race, except the human race?

Well that quotation has merit.

Technically yeah but its not arbitrary if thats what you're asking. Depending on which classifications you categorize race from, there are 5 primary races:

Caucasian (europe, north africa, middle east, west asia, etc.)
African (sub saharan)
Asian (steppes of asia, china, parts of india)
Native American (north and south america, carribean)
Pacific Islander (aborigine, somoan, etc.)

These are very general categories, but they have noticable physical (pigmentation, eye and face structure, slight bone differences) and cultural (religious, etc.) differences between them.

It's a social construct in the sense that we draw a line between genetic distances and observe a phenotype.

I would say it's more accurate to describe races as subspecies. Anyone who tells you that race is pseudoscience and that cognitive abilities don't differ between races aren't observable are being politically correct.

An example is East Asians of the poorest income bracket out scoring the highest income blacks. IQ for blacks and whites are virtually the same no matter the country. Mestizo iq has a .8 correlation with the amount of European ancestry.

You dropped your edge there adolf

>iq for blacks the same in each country
>there have been no gains

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/black-iq-gains-in-britain-kenya-and-dominica/
>Blacks aren't outperforming whites

unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

It's a pseudo-science, boss.

What about the warrior gene?

Happens in every one, pal.

It's mainly, but not entirely, a social construct.

But shouldn't europeans (Nords to be exact) be more propense to have this warrior gene? Why are black the most propense to have it?

>But shouldn't europeans (Nords to be exact) be more propense to have this warrior gene?
No?

>Why are black the most propense to have it?
Not discounting you but I'll need a source.

>Is it so hard to believe in pseudo-scientific nonsense?

I don't have time to debunk that article on my phone. One thing I noticed is comparing IQs at age 11, when blacks actually develop faster.

Listen to this without bias:
m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

>heh, I was almost forced to """"debunk"""" evidence which acts as counter evidence to mine

You're an idiot if you still believe in that pseudo science.

racialreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/african-iq-and-the-flynn-effect.html?m=1

youtube.com/watch?v=WIjnkV_j0yk

livescience.com/163-big-brains.html

Deal with it lad, it's been debunked.

theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com.ar/2011/03/racial-controversy-of-violent-gene.html
I know it's a blogspot but it has its sources there. I'll post more if I can later.

>this is the first thread I see when coming back here

Debunked when and by whom?

& Humanities was a mistake.

Fuck, marry, kill

they aren't outperforming whites on iq tests tho

Dr. Richard Neisbitt

youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5J13sSto8

>if I keep calling it pseudoscience maybe the data will go away
>muh debunked Flynn effect

m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

The gap can't be closed between whites and blacks no matter how we try.

>gap can't be closed

>rejects evidence of closing gap

>muh sound cloud pseudo science

>denying evidence which debunks this.

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

Though I suppose it doesn't surprise me that racists like you tend to have low iqs too.

livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Take your pseudo science and shove it up your arse.

Jesus, if I wanted an argument with a mental deffective I would have visited a special-ed school.

When I was in university my intro to psychology professor stated that "the differences between races are small compared to the difference within a race".

What does this mean? When I heard this I just discounted it as some progressive liberal pseudoscience shill talk.

ITT:

>what are phenotypical traits

Racist.

I hate political correctness. I want my science back.

You didn't link me to a study where the gaps have completely closed at adult age, which is impossible. IQ is BOTH nature AND nurture, not just one.

You can improve black nurture as much as you want. If white and Asian nurture is equal, they will out score blacks every time.

Just accept it and give up your religion of egalitarianism.

m.soundcloud.com/darwin-digest/episode-3-race-and-iq

Do you see people in this thread denying that they exist? Like really I'm not sure what you're getting at.

not him but it's funny how suddenly iq is relevant to you people when politics is brought up

Alright, let me rephrase then.

ITT:

>is race a thing
>no, race doesn't exist
>what about ethnicities?
>okay yeah

But ethnicities are mostly cultural and linguistic too.

Humans run the gamut in appearance, if you wanted to split people up based on phenotype you'd have to draw a couple hundred borders per continent and even then you'd have to quantify what exact nose + forehead shape makes you a member of x group. It's a labor no one wants to start.

Race is painting with very broad strokes. Koreans and Indians don't look very similar but they're the same race. Swedes and Greeks with the same dilemma. African tribes can actually have more genetic difference and look surprisingly distinct from one another (hutus and tutsis are a famous example) but again, thrown into the same race.

Where we draw the lines is questionable, the fact that people look different is acknowledged.

it's just a dumb platitude. it's based on the way genetic mutations accumulate in populations. there are more random mutations within populations than there are between distinct populations, but not all of those mutations are meaningful or expressed phenotypically, so it's a misleading factoid.

can't watch the whole video but this about twins is true
I had identical twins in school and one was rather smart, other was dumb as fuck
and they were always fucking together

Because it is difficult to determine you believe it doesn't exist, full fucking stop?
So between Saorise here and there is absolutely no fucking difference in inherited traits at all?

I realize unless you are an utterly blind dolt that you can perceive the variations in appearance, yet because they can be numerous between a Korean and an Indian, you posit that there is no point in distinguishing the two?

What the fuck?

Are dog breeds a social construct?

This guy gets it.

Why are you putting so many words in my mouth. I'm saying that racial distinctions are not very clear cut, and in fact are mostly cultural. Not that differences between humans don't exist.

So when race realists or whoever posit that there are real scientific differences between white people and black people for example what they're saying isn't entirely incorrect. It's just the definitions of "white" and "black" are so broad and arbitrary as to be almost useless. At least on a genetic level. And in fact are kind of vague if we're speaking phenotypically too.

People who don't believe in racial differences must not believe in evolution.

Your brain consumes around 20% of your calories. Do you really think there wouldn't be intelligence differences after tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments?

>all these retards thinking it has to either be one extreme or the other

>black skin
>white skin
>vague

>epicanthic fold brown eyes
>rounded blue eyes
>vague

Again, I completely understand where you come from about those realists who think the aforementioned differences can constitute some grand different categorization as a whole other SPECIES, that's looney.

But the inverse of declaring all humans utterly the same in every way is equally as looney to me.

Just because the differences are minute does not mean they don't exist.

Just because the definition can be warped does not mean a line can't be seen, and doesn't warrant ever evolving categorization and acknowledgement.

Just because it is hard doesn't mean it isn't real.

Your brain comsumes a tenth of that nazi. Stop being a coward, show your face racist

how the fuck do you even measure equal nurture? you seem to be saying that if two people are of the same socio-economic status then they have the same nurture, which is insane

Also you're failing to account for that fact that IQ tests skew against people who's upbringing has taught them that they are less intelligent (which I would argue american society does for blacks). The same phenomenon can be seen when you test white people in sporting prowess.

what does that have to do with tribes? is that from the time when all tribes within a certain area looked exactly the same you fucking dumb faggot?

ethnicity? no not at all

Humans aren't dogs, nor can they be compared to them.

creationist detected

>whites being bad at sports is a social construct
Religion of egalitarianism in a nutshell.

race realist detected

I think he means that tribalism as people still think as if they were in a tribe even if tribes no longer exist. A tribe is a group of people who can all trace their ancestry back to one or so person, so they will all look similarly

It is an interesting line of thought and many actions, such as some forms of political corruption and patronage, may be explained within the a priori assumption that humans are tribalistic in nature.

*realist
I happen to believe man is an animal subject to the same processes that affect other animals. Really makes u think.

then why don't dogs hate other dogs based on their breed?

not enough brainpower to reach up to things like hate/love/etc...
your are avoiding the point

maybe humans aren't subject to the same processes that affect other animals then

It is a trope that preference for one's own kind is "hate" for all others.

when it comes to taxonomical classifications, they certainly do, or should we treat humans differently only because they have higher cognition?
you sound like a specist, it's 2016 ffs

what? animals classify each other taxonomically?

>or should we treat humans differently only because they have higher cognition?

you seem to think that brainpower is a noteworthy variable

yeah, keep avoiding the point buddy

you have no point

>it's the current year

Australian Aborigines

Those things predate the Cro Magnon on the homo sapien evolutionary tree.

Paying hundreds for beer first thing in the morning and huffing petrol is a social construct.

Needing a parallel legal system is a social construct.

Australian guzzoline has to be specially made with fewer aerosol components. So that the Abos don't huff it.

Have to tell the Abos to not sleep in the street.

Abos were considered wildlife in Australia until the 1970s.

Australian government took abo children from their parents and gave them to white families. Thinking they might be able to raise them into functioning humans.

>Race isn't real
>Can literally tell someone's race by examining their bones

Okay cuckboy

ethnicity supposed to be more specific, for example: race: mongoloid, ethnic: siamese
or race: caucasoid, ethnic: irish

Species: Human

Race:
Caucasoid : whites, middle east, north indians
Mongoloid : east asians, south east asians, native americans
Negroid: africans, south indians
Australoid: native australians

notice that the categorisation use bone structure and not skin colour

Melansians.

races can be broken down by admixture or lack of.

caucasoids, mongoloids, some sub saharan africans, and amerindians have neanderthal DNA.

Melansians only have desnovian admixture. though desnovian shows up all over eurasia.

sub saharan negroids are pure homo sapien.

Of course race is real but humans are special snowflakes that think they are exempt from every natural law including environmental natural selection intelligence gains, the idiots that insist all races have equal intelligence are stupid fucks that think human intelligence is some random mutation that came out of nowhere, actually the environment where the human lives determines its intelligence thats why Neanderthals were smart because the Ice Age made mutations geared for higher reasoning and planning necessary for survival in contrast we humans were violent stupid savages raping eachother in Kenya because the African climate we came from was unchanging, and there were not enough predators to warrant a serious forethought mechanism in our brains, we lived in the moment, and seeked pleasure by any means necessary that is why we are so violent and sex addicted. Even the purest humans on earth(the Kalahari Bushmen) have adult IQs in the 54 range meaning the original humans were terminal retards compared to us, so where did we get our higher intelligence from?

Well you see us Eurasians had an ancestor that came from Neanderthal interbreeding to a minor scale(since we are only 1-5% Neanderthal) and this was during the Ice Age in the Middle east where selections for higher intelligence took place. However one of our cousins the Australoid the ancestor of the Negritos, Abos, Tasmanians, and Indian/Papuan/Indonesian Natives had migrated into tropical Asia before the Ice Age intelligence selections could occur thats why humans that currently exist from this lineage are so stupid today especially the natives of Papua New Guinea holy shit. See tropical Asia is full of jungles so its more or less the exact same as Africa so the Australoids retained an early human level of cognition and only adapted physically but remained the same mentally.

The Black Africans and the whatever the fuck you would call East Africans are the only humans that stayed in Africa.

Who is this chink temptress?

Western-European
Central-European
Eastern-European
North-African
Near-Eastern
Balkan-European
Eastern-SSA
Pygmy
Austrolisians
East-Asians
Central-Asians
Amerindians
West-SSA
Aboriginals
very-simple-and-easy

You-can-immidiately-tell-anyone-from-these-groups-denoting-the-genetic-differences.

Except that's not true. The Maya lived in the tropics and were among the smartest amerindians in the continent. Hell mesoamerica and the Andes in south america were the centers of civilization in the Americas.

It's BOTH a social construct and a biological reality.

Why can't you idiots accept that argument? Yes you can observe race but at the same time there have been groups of people of the same, biological, race that considered themselves not of the same race since shit like religion/culture/language/mere geographic location determined conceptions of race itself throughout all history.

Why must race be a single-faceted concept? Are you all fucking children?

models.com/models/yue-ning

yes there are different races, anyone that says otherwise doesn't' have eyes

>pure homo sapien
Incorrect,SSA-have-significant-different-hominoid-dna-just-not-neandethal-which-were-spawned-in-europe

>Is race a social construct?

As far as academic consensus is concerned, yes.

>If not, how many races are there?

We don't know. Race realists don't have any objective criterion for how to categorize people into different races; they don't even have an agreed upon definition of race to begin with.

> "Similarly, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like.” - Steve Salier

>What defines a human "race"?

See the above.

That isn't race, that's genetics

Race is taxonomy my nigga

Are dog breeds a social construct? If not, how many dog breeds are there? What defines a dog "breed"?

t. retard sjw OP

>Humans aren't dogs, nor can they be compared to them.

>Dog, Social mammal
>Human, Social mammal
>Similar carnivorous/omnivorous diet
>Cohabited in a friend/ally fashion for at least the last 10,000 years
>Fairly intelligent animals as a whole, besides the derp breeds just no

We've domesticated dogs but you seem to forget that we've domesticated ourselves along with them. It's the domestication that brings out these types of differences. I don't see what the big deal is about looking at people in a similar way, they're still people but I'm just making a general statement about their 'genetic trend'. Is a corgi somehow better than a border collie? Probably not, I'm just sayin, but that's not my point.

I'm of some fucking European descent, I'm a White Male. That's what breed I am. Ok.

Wolves and Chihuahuas are the same species.

Dog Breeds ARE social constructs.

In fact, a lot of them are fucking artificial via humans over centuries pedigreeing them.

Enjoy your fucking analogy.

atavisionary.com/tag/human-genetic-diversity-lewontins-fallacy/