I don't want this to be too /pol/ but if races don't real why can you determine what race/s a person will self-identify...

I don't want this to be too /pol/ but if races don't real why can you determine what race/s a person will self-identify as with over 99.9% accuracy by looking at their genes?

> races aren't biology its politics
thats such a SJWtarded thing to say senpai

>if races don't real
they are tho, senpai

Nope, you're thinking of speciation. In context of humans, anyway. Yes race is a biological word, but it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Do you happen to know how genetics can determine a person's racial heritage?

Isn't it someones ethnic heritage that shows the percentage of where his/her ancestors were from ? Like DNA testing can tell you you're 60% Anglo, 25% Latino, %10 Greek and %5 Arab or something ? I remember seeing ads where people get tested to find out accurate what race they are.

What race am I if I have north african, nordic, european and arab ancestors ?

Ancestry DNA. Found out I'm 2% African.

"Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term."
Keita; Kittles, Royal; Bonney, Furbert-Harris; Dunston, Rotimi (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics 36 (11 Suppl): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998.

"Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (...) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity."
Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

"Genetic studies have substantiated the absence of clear biological borders; thus the term "race" is rarely used in scientific terminology, either in biological anthropology and in human genetics. Race has no genetic or biological basis. Human beings do not fit the zoological definition of race. Race is not a biological category that is politically charged. It is a political category that has been disguised as a biological one."
Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention. London, New York: The New Press.

Just because something is a shitty system of classification doesn't mean that the categories that it proves aren't real - just that they're shitty.

In less words, "social construct" != "not real".

My point wasn't that it's not real, it was that it's not race, at least in the scientific meaning of the word. I was primarily responding to
>> races aren't biology its politics
>thats such a SJWtarded thing to say senpai
Perhaps I shouldn't have tagged the other post.

>I don't want this to be too /pol/
..ok

>but if races don't real
If you're not a /pol/ shill why are you starting the same old /pol/ invasion thread?

BTW: "social constructs" DO exist, your argument is a strawman.

I love how SJWtards immediately resort to their pol boogeyman even though we were having race threads since the beginning of Veeky Forums. Really makes you think.

Nope. I'm 50% Chinese, 50% Anglo.
Looking purely at genetics you'd have a 50% chance of guessing correctly, though that would become 100% if you had common sense.

They weren't though. The race threads didn't begin until 2006 when stormniggers started raiding Veeky Forums in retaliation for Hal Turner.

>Nope. I'm 50% Chinese, 50% Anglo.
>Looking purely at genetics you'd have a 50% chance of guessing correctly, though that would become 100% if you had common sense.
Not sure if the studies in question had participants choose which race they thought best applied to them or if they chose multiple, but either way the success rate was over 99%.

lmao youre making up bullshit like youre writing a war story, where as its just people asking simple questions about race and you get triggered because it involves facts that don't show all of them as equals. Evident by the fact how hard you try to call things you don't like "raids" and "invasion"

...

Because races are real, disregard the SJWtard propaganda. Don't engage with science hating sjwtards who have no idea about genetics, biology, anthropology, etc...

learn more at dna.ancestry.com to find out how the racial identification is done.

Because you are looking for similarities in a person's genome through comparing various regional populations that have been analyzed for years.

Before genetics really came to it's own, "race" was used as a blunt identification system solely on visual ques. Be it facial/hair/skin looks or by skeletal structure. But since that only told you part of the story it was a shitty system that clumsy lumped populations who had no solid genetic relation to each other. For instance sub-saharan blacks, khoisan, aboriginals and certain polynesian populations were all group together as "Negroid" despite the fact later on genetics proved they were NOT actually genetically related to each other.

This kind of "clustering" would be incredibly irresponsible in today's study of genetics and demonstrates a poor understanding in biology the people who were interested in "racial science" had. So actions like above and others gave "race" a black eye in the scientific community because it's models were poorly designed and lacked a high level of accuracy which is highly valued in science.

But because "race" as a social classification system had existed in the public eye for centuries it was ultimately kept and used today because it's the easiest way to identify an individual without getting too scientific.

That's why race is deemed a "social construct" now. It failed to be seen as scientific and is now stuck as nothing more than a social marker.

>SJWtards immediately resort to their pol boogeyman
I didn't bring up /pol/, OP did.
No go back to jerking off while watching Patrick Swayze movies.

It's the poltards who hear "race is socially-constructed" and think we said "whites and blacks have no substantial differences". That's not what anthropologists are saying.

They argue that it is a social construct. Race is still real under their argument, but its biological definition is fuzzy; and because of that we can't use it effectively to classify others.

Can I do it with steven seagal movies ?

>biological definition is fuzzy
If the biological definition is so fuzzy why do self-identified racial groups correspond with genes so well that you can look at two sets of DNA and tell which came from a black man and which came from a chinese man with astounding accuracy?

Not him but that's because you are using genetics to achieve that accuracy not race. Race by itself would say that the black and chinese guys are different because they visually have distinct features and attributes.

Also take note you are also giving race undue credit due to the fact it is piggy backing on the thousands of years of analysis made by geographic studies.

The same conclusion and connection could have been easily made if you only used geographic terms without the use of racial terms at all. Such as the man from Africa (or the specific nation they're from) and the man from China (or the specific district they're from). In some ways it is actually more appropriate to use geographic terms because you have a higher chance of achieving accurate identification of genetic relation because you are not using blanket terminology.

>Discussing facts

GTFO of here.