Talk:Race (classification of humans)

Proving how some claims are illogical and inconsistent.

First we need to define races. In Wikipedia we have this definition for all of us to work with:

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."

The key words are distinct, genetically divergent, populations, and differences. What is implied are scientific claims about specific criteria, measurements, data collected, geographical areas, genetic testing, statistics, two or more groups, and the individual living beings that make up members in each category. All of this is also in relation to the cultural and historical context of race theories, opinions, and conventions that originate in the past.

It can be proven, using logic, (not opinion, not science, not appeals to majorities, not appeals to authorities), that human individuals can be grouped based on any known differences, but this does not prove that the criteria chosen scientifically divides humans into two or more genetic races. Races being defined as distinct genetically divergent populations, based on some precise measurements. Two groups, based on facial appearance, are not by definition two races by some precise measurements. They are simply the two groups with the criteria of face appearance alone. A group of individuals with a specific gene named X are simply the X gene group, not a racial, genetic group with divergence.

How many question the idea of races to the extent that is necessary and logical? Philosophy and logic can be applied to help prove that race theories are not showing significant differences in the human species to prove two or more very distinct, genetically divergent, specific, and geographical populations over a recent time period. Arguing that a human group has a certain color of skin and certain types of bones is simply the group with two traits. These two traits would have to be proven to be causally linked, and not just correlated. Until there is a proven correlation and causation between two traits, then the two groups of color of skin individuals and kind of bone individuals are two groups out of hundreds of possible groups to divide up humans into. Showing a correlation between color of skin and a kind of bones in no way proves more than two races.

Some first questions are these: Why does one want to divide up the human species, for what purpose? Define race specifically to start, to know what we are exactly talking about. What do we mean when we use the categories, groupings, or label of races.

Here are some examples to make this far more clear:

A human group with large feet is not a race. A human group with the longest toe nails is also not a race. A human group with any known difference is not a race. It must be scientifically proven, by definition, that there are distinct genetically divergent populations with some measurable and known differences.

For what goals or ends are there claims for races? In what ways is it helpful or important to point out any number of possible differences in humans especially across very large and often unspecific geographical areas of many nations? Over what time frames should one scientifically study to look for these races? Once one has chosen a specific criteria of what is different about at least two groups, then how many categories should there be, based on what exact measurement? For example, one group has a certain genetic marker, and another does not. Are these two races or simply two human groups that are different in that one and only way? What is proven to be causal with other known differences? Logically, correlation is not causation.

Many scientists such as Darwin have clearly demonstrated how there are any number of possible and therefore arbitrary criteria and categories that can be used to divide up the human species. For example, skin color is very popular, because of conventions, customs, and traditions, but ear canal length, amount of freckles, toe nail length, and thumb width are not used as common criteria. For what purpose does one use the label of "brown" to divide the human species into two races? What exactly is brown? What shade? How many unspecific and arbitrary categories will one use for any criteria chosen? Are the racial genetic groups easily found by studying unknown samples of DNA? Even if one can do so, this is simply a group with a certain gene or marker, and certainly not a proven race. A group of brown skinned humans is not a race, instead it is simply the group with the members that have a specific wave length of reflected light due to various possible causes.

Many expert scientists and thinkers throughout history have inconsistently proposed a wide number of possible races, which shows how difficult it would be to finally determine if there is only one race, 2 races, 4, 10, or any other number, and what arbitrary criteria would be best to do so out of millions of options. The search for specific genes using induction and statistics also has major problems. Again, which genes should one search for and why? Are these then racial categories, or simply individuals with or without a certain gene sequence? What about all the gradations, mixes, exceptions, and even the varied expressions of those with the same gene or gene sequences? What are the margins of error, the sample sizes used, the populations, the geographical areas used, and again for what goal is all of this done? In biology and medicine, is it best to treat each human as a unique individual with many unique environmental factors that can affect the way a gene is expressed or not? Two identical twins do not have the same exact expression of identical genes. Individual humans are not 100% genetically predetermined and materially caused. What to do about the percentages that are the exception to any rule?

The key ideas about false race theories are the definitions, groups mistaken as races, goals, criteria used, an arbitrary category, hundreds of categories, gradations, degrees, statistical errors, margins of error, improper sample sizes, biased studies, unspecific geographical areas, and imprecise timelines. With a bit of logic and careful thinking one can easily disprove the claims that races of humans actually exist. If it is proven that human racial groups exist, then how many races are there to start off, proven with repeated experiments of measured differences for how many individuals needed?

Another example: The known genetics passed along by eight great grandparents is the a way to determine what genetically caused medical problems one might inherit. Why try to find some longer lineage, of a so called race, or some genetically determined human group, to prove what medical problems someone might have? Why not carefully study the known genes of parents and grandparents instead? The use of a theory by some does not mean it is actually proven. There are many contradicting authorities on this topic. What is true?

Joseph Prymak (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment

People who watch this page ought to comment here on a race & IQ matter Slrubenstein | Talk 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The everyday experience of racial perception

Wouldn't it be sensible to include something on the experience that the phenomenon, classification, folksonomy – whatever you'd like to call it – known as "race" is based on – where does it come from? I mean, it's a simple everyday experience: People who are in contact with people originating from all over the planet make the observation that people whose ancestry is from different regions of the world look perceptibly different depending on the regions their ancestors are from, and in a way that is actually (often – not necessarily always) easy and quick to perceive, even from afar – easier even than identifying the individual. Just like people can (often) tell from your accent or dialect where you have grown up, they can (often) tell your ancestry from your looks (not only or even primarily your skin colour, but also other features such as body shape, build/stature, facial traits, hair structure, hair and eye colour – most of these features are not connected). Both skills are considered somewhat useful, or at least interesting enough that many people bother at all. (Both skills also share in common that increasing mobility complicate and muddle the issue, but the differences don't completely disappear.) That's the whole "secret" behind race, and it's so obvious that I shouldn't even need to explain it. Does anyone deny that this experience exists? I doubt it. There is a strong predictive value to certain readily visible (as well as audible) features of human beings regarding their geographic origin, or that of their ancestors; I think that's uncontroversial and we aren't kidding ourselves here.

So, when biologists deny that there is such a thing as a "human race", the layman thinks his everyday experience is denied. How can that be? And that's where the incredulity comes from – "PC gone mad! Yeah right, there are no races, everyone looks the same and I can't tell if somebody is an African, European or Asian American, or mixed! Are you kidding me?!" That's certainly not a helpful approach. It doesn't make sense to say "races are ONLY a social construct of no objective consequence" – it's tantamount to calling the "race perception" an optical illusion, a figment of one's imagination that has arisen randomly. That's patent nonsense if its validity can be empirically tested. It makes sense to validate the lay experience explicitly. We perceive races, and this perception matters one way or the other.

The assertion that "races don't really exist" in an absolute sense is nonsensical; they exist in our minds, in the eye of the beholder, and in our self-perception. Many other things – categories – "don't really exist" in the same sense and scientists still work with them: that's how science works. Science makes categories up, categories that are to a sense arbitrary. "Race" is an abstraction, just like many other classifications, which doesn't make it invalid per se.

Science somehow needs to account for the phenomenon in question – I don't care if you talk about populations or phenotypes: something is clearly at work here, and it's the job of the scientist interested in human ethnic diversity, or the perception thereof, what exactly is happening when people perceive races and what they are observing, what criteria they use, and on which substrate of reality their perception is based.

I can't remember where exactly, but recently I read that people perceive another person's race within fractions of a second, just like the sex – before they notice anything else. (That's why you usually get victims or witnesses who will tell you no more than the sex and the race of a person they are reporting, of course.) There seems to be a lot of research in that field. That would be a useful addition to the article.

(I just found something here.)

Also, ignoring (or trying to ignore) people's race in certain cases simply doesn't work, or doesn't solve problems. It turns into an elephant in the room. "Colour-blindness" can also impoverish instead of enrich, by trampling over differences and diversity that human beings cherish. Whether you think they should or you don't. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about the topic

Is this about the racial system of classification, the term "racism", or about races of people?

Perhaps the problem is that there is controversy about whether races exist? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All of that is actually answered in the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern debate

Regarding this edit by User:155.198.36.56.

Genomics or not, basing conclusions on a single "latest" study goes against WP:NPOV. You must take into account other studies. And for that, you need to retain the older information. Not simply go with whichever study happens to have the latest publication date.

You have basically excised vast swathes of text to make it seem as if the scientific consensus is united in a single conclusion (that humans have three races) when that is obviously not the case. The weight of the number of references you have obliterated with your edit is still heavier.

The section is entitled "Modern debate" for a reason. Again, add the new information, do not change text wholesale.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:155.198.36.56 continues to revert the article without discussion. Everything he's added so far is so blatantly WP:SYNTHESIS: the references all have different conclusions. None of them being that "these studies validate the division of humanity into three major races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid." I'm now asking for third opinion as apparently this page being semi-protected prevents him from discussing anything and the BRD cycle is useless.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the request recently placed at WP:3O. Please sit tight and I will give my opinion shortly, which you may do with as you will. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian. It should be noted that the content in question is copied and pasted from 'Metapedia.org' - all of it is word for word. If this user wanted to do anything but wax eugenics, they would get a wiki account. -Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've decided not to bother to give a full third opinion on this. It's completely obvious that such widescale changes to an article on a topic such as this one (I'm guessing it probably falls under the Race and Intelligence sanctions, but even if not) requires proper talkpage discussion for each significant change that the IP wishes to make. I would note that the IP is unable to do that because the talkpage is semi-protected but the article is not, which seems a bit daft. All the same, the mention of metapedia, I think, seals the deal that admin intervention should be sought if this carries on the way it has done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Metapedia... I should've known. Anyway, IP appears to be blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor under sanctions. Thanks to the users who responded.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected, talk page unprotected

The edit warring was getting out of hand, but the IP should be allowed to state their case here. Favonian (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)