= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (898)
Eh? What is this thing you call "race," Earth Monkey?
We used to think the answer was obvious. You know, it's obvious what "race" someone is, isn't it? Until you start to look at the details.
Race is a cultural convention. There is a science of population genetics, and it isn't about "race." Rather, people use population genetics to infer the social marker called "race."
I adopted an African girl. What "race" is she? What determines this? She has tribal markings on her eyes -- or the scars from tribal medicine for conjunctivitis, hard to tell -- but the markings are characteristic of her region and tribe, so someone who knows could tell where she comes from, as to the region.
I once had a friend tell me that my Chinese daughter was, of course, going to be more intelligent than the Ethiopian girl. The Chinese daughter is no slouch, intellectually, but her younger sister is definitely smart as hell. My friend was a racist. Lots of people are racist. That is, they believe that race is a biological or even a "spiritual" reality. He wasn't being mean, he was just being ignorant.
Genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.
A quote from wikipedia:
"Forensic physical anthropologist and professor George W. Gill has said that the idea that race is only skin deep "is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm" and "Many morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)" While he can see good arguments for both sides, the complete denial of the opposing evidence "seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all". He also states that many biological anthropologists see races as real yet "not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship".
The input is the claim 'Race is a cultural convention.' You output the interpretation: 'None of the phenotypic variations associated with any racial schema are physically real; they are hallucinations or figments.' Given how transparently ridiculous the assertion is, one must at least take a moment to pause and reconsider whether the anthropologists' claim is really what you take it to be.
Perhaps what is being denied is not the existence of morphological variation between human populations, but rather the conceptualization of these differences under the traditional concept of Race, with its assumptions of discreteness and of other markers of cultural and bio-diversity strictly mapping on to a small set of physiognomic markers. Perhaps what is also being asserted is that the precise boundaries between races, and how large or small a 'race' gets to be, is culturally constructed and varies across different groups possessing 'race'-like categories. Is it more likely that anthropologists are speaking somewhat loosely and infelicitously, or that they think the existence of darker and lighter skins in different parts of the world is a Grand Alien Conspiracy?
Given how I might have said/believed something similar myself just a couple years back, I think I know what is meant. You get a photo of Colin Powell and he was about light-skinned as Bush -- so since different people of the same skin-hue are one called 'white' and the other 'black', one thinks it might the division may be entirely a cultural artifact.
Also there's no single characteristic which doesn't fluctuate gradually across populations -- so any grouping seems again entirely arbitrary.
But a visual that got me to understand the above view was too-simplistic was this graph here at Lewontin's argument and criticism. Though any one characteristic wouldn't suffice to divide humanity meaningfully into races, several characterics taken together in can form clusters...
So such groupings are in fact meaningful.
If you used to believe this yourself, then maybe you can explain to me what you mean(t) by 'entirely a cultural artifact.' Did you think that the people in question didn't have different skin tones? That skin tone isn't a genetic trait? That there was no correlation between a racial grouping and any phenotypic or genetic marker, like skin color? That genetic relatedness is confabulated in a grand game of make-believe?
"there's no single characteristic which doesn't fluctuate gradually across populations" - No, some traits have reached fixation in a population, or are totally absent. But I take your point. It's still understandable that categories predating our modern, sophisticated notions of genetic variation would be controversial in their attempted modern reimaginings.
Colin Powell did not have a different skin tone than George W. Bush; yes -- no categorization based on skin-color would actually put Colin Powell in a different category than Bush, while putting him in the same category with Condoleeza Rice: Relevant photo.
And whole groups that Americans called non-white (like Middle-easterners) looked likewise pretty white to me.
There was correlation with physical characterics obviously -- much like you could say that Swedes are more often blonde, but that the actual lines drawn around the category didn't really have anything to do with physical characteristics -- same way that Swedish citizenship correlates with blondness but isn't defined by blondness.
I've seen the photo. So your claim is that anthropologists, like yesteryou, once believed that 100% of 'black' people had darker skin than 100% of 'white' people, with zero overlap? This seems very implausible.
That's no coincidence. American authorities typically group most Middle Easterners with Europeans as 'Caucasians.'
But being of Swedish descent does have biological meaning and significance, albeit to a lesser degree than being of African descent. So what can be meant by the claim that race is 'merely' like being Swedish? Is it merely a fuzzy quantitative shift, not a categorical disagreement about what 'race' is or how it fits into the natural world?
Allow me to attempt to rationally reconstruct what the younger you and the straw-anthropologist believed. Based on the evidence that changed your mind, I gather that your old view was not that racial distinctions were nonexistent, but that they were biologically superficial. The obvious phenotypic variations very nearly exhausted the distinctness of each racial group. So when you advocate racialism, what you're really trying to draw attention to is that race is more than skin deep, that there are many many genetic traits, some very significant, that break down along racial lines of various sorts. And this is indeed an important point, though framing it as a dispute over whether 'races' are 'real' is, to put it mildly, misleading.
I don't know about anthropologists. I thought I explained that my yesterme saw the opposite of what you just said: saw that some people labelled 'black' had skins as light (or almost as light) as 'white' people. So I saw the dividing line between 'black' and 'white' to be utterly arbitrary, a line arbitrarily drawn in some continuum, and which best seemed to identify cultural not biological differences.
Keep in mind that my yesterme was a Greek boy, and had no occasion to have known about e.g. Afro-textured hair or different nose structures, etc. or any other collection of physical characteristics that together could form a cluster.
No, I'm not talking about mere superficiality, nor about how insignificant or significant the traits were. I'm talking about an utterly arbitrary line drawn between populations of people. As if someone had arbitrarily said that the numbers >72 are the "orange" numbers and the numbers <72 are the "purple" numbers.
With only one trait in question to divide the races, this judgement of mine would have remained valid -- no matter if it's something as insignificant as skin-color or as significant as IQ.
It's the combination of more than one trait (e.g. skin-color AND hair-texture AND nose-shape) that makes racial visual identification a classification of actual observed clusters in the human species -- again REGARDLESS of whether the traits are "significant" or "superficial" or "important" or whatever.
Middle Easterners' skins do look noticeably darker than those of typical native English speakers of European ancestry, to me. But then again, so do those of certain (but not all)¹ Italians, whom I don't think any sizeable number of Americans would call non-white.
...and seven hours after I post this, I see a friend of mine whose skin is almost as pale as that of a typical Irishwoman and I remember that her parents are from the Middle East. God, I am full of crap certain times.
The problem is that when asked to justify that statement 'Race is a cultural convention' anthropologists in interpret it in the way you describe in your second paragraph, but they than proceed to use it in arguments as if it means 'None of the phenotypic variations (except possibly skin color) associated with any racial schema are physically real; they are hallucinations or figments'.
That's extremely strange and surprising, if true. Can you provide an example of this?