It's a social construct based on biological traits. easiest example: Too much underbite was a lot more likely to be seen in blacks from Africa and can stil be seen mostly there where the lips reach farther than the nose.
There are physical differences in people across the globe, but our notion of race with solid, man-made boundaries and categories is a social construct.
According to my science teachers the genetic difference within the same race is bigger than the differences between different races, but I think the differences go beyond just looks. In a way they go towards personality and disease protection.
Well it's a social Construct based on biological features. I don't think the idea of race as a scientific concept exists though as human DNA dosen't vary significantly enough for their to be races.
This has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. There are no genetic differences. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe this, it doesn't matter whether you are politically left or right, you are simply wrong on the science. These are facts, they don't get influenced by political conviction.
These IQ test results were all results from surveys taken in the US. Hence, the differing results can be explained by social attitudes towards race in US-American culture. If I'm black and people tell me every day that I'm stupid, I will unconsciously perform worse than other participants. This effect can very easily be proven. When similar IQ tests were taken but the participants took them alone (with no other people in the room) and without being told that the study concerns itself with the connection of race and intelligence, there were no significant differences anymore between the races. Also, when similar tests were performed in different countries on different continents, there were no differences to be found.
Yeah, actually, I'm the one who's got a decent education. It's sad to see such scientifically illiterate people. On race and intelligence: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
I'm sure you found more if you researched yourself and actually cared about understanding this matter - which quite obviously you don't.
Scientific American is not a mainstream media, it's a scientific journal. You have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. Neither is Nature a mainstream media: www.nature.com/.../ng1435.html
American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine according to numerous sources. Hardly anything decent to get scientific information from.
A decent education? Lemme guess. You took out a 70,000 dollar student loan, majored in liberal arts, graduated, couldn't get a job, moved back in with your parents, and now you work at Walmart. And when you're not faithfully stocking shelves your spreading Leftist propaganda on social media. You SJW's are all the same.
Except I'm not. And believe it or not, I have the whole scientific community on my side. You can quote whatever right-wing outlet you want, actual scientists disagree with you. And if you're so sure of yourself, please go ahead and tell me the exact gene that is responsible for the differences between the races.
Haha, sounds like you don't have anything even remotely mature to say anymore, so you're helping yourself out with some lame ad hominems. But to let you know, I'm not American, so I most certainly don't work at Walmart, nor did I pay thousands of dollars for an education. But one thing I am doing right now is explaining you science in a foreign language because Mr. White-people-are-so-smart only speaks English.
@BlueCoyote You have the whole scientific community on your side? What? The same scientific community that says men and women are the exactly same? The same scientific community that says children can choose their gender? The same scientific community which claims gender doesn't exist? Have you ever heard of James Watson? Of course you haven't but I'll tell you about him. He's a nobel prize winning molecular biologist and geneticist. He is the man who DISCOVERED the structure of DNA. According to James Watson, all the races are different on a genetic level and Whites and East-Asians are the most intelligent races. Your way out of your league here snowflake.
James Watson lived in the 1950s (yeah, I actually do know him). The fact that you think scientific research hasn't moved on from there shows how illiterate you are about the subject. The Human Genome Project looked sequenced the whole human DNA and they couldn't find a gene that is responsible for race because it doesn't exist. But again, if you're so sure of yourself, go ahead and tell me that exact gene. All you are capable of is deflecting and insulting me. Great job, you've reached the mental maturity of a 4-year old.
@BlueCoyote Yeah, Watson made his discovery in the 50's but he was an active researcher until 2007 when he was chased out of the field by the Social Marxists like you. This man has a 200 IQ and he discovered the structure of DNA. But I guess you know more than he does. Haha. I'm actually embarrassed for you.
First of all there is no evidence that indicates that race affects IQ. All we know is that there is a correlation between IQ and race. However, correlation does not equal causation. For example, Ice creams sales tend to correlate with murder rates. Does this mean eating ice cream makes people want to commit murder? Of course not. The explanation in this correlation is heat. People are more likely to buy Ice cream when it's hot outside and murder rates tend to increase during summer months. That third variable explains the correlation between ice cream sales and murder rate. Race and IQ is no different, except the third variable is environment.
The third variable between this correlation has been shown to be the environment. During WWII, the US military would conduct IQ test on recruits. They discovered that Black Northerners had an higher IQ then White Southerners.
Also, you mentioned James Watson. Don't get me wrong, James Watson is an intelligent man, but he is intelligent in the field of molecular Biology and Zoology. Intelligence is a concept created in Psychology and measured by Psychologists alone. Just because James Watson was knowledgeable in molecular biology and zoology doesn't mean he would be equally knowledgeable in psychology or neurology or dermatology or sociology or financing or being a country singer.
Being an expert in one field doesn't make you one in ALL fields. James Watson was out of his element when he tried to play Mr. Psychology despite not having any background in the field. He fell victim to the same irrationality that most of the population fall for when we conduct studies that find a correlation between two variables. Correlation does not equate to causation. Just because divorce rate in Maine correlates to Butter consumption (I'm not lying it does) doesn't mean butter consumption causes people to divorce in Maine.
Societies are racial constructs. That's why the superior races, White Europeans and East Asians have created the most advanced and greatest civilizations.
Yes it is? Do you think we'd have biologists if society didn't exist? Like, the shit biologists study isn't social, but the study itself sure as fuck is.
For instance: species. Do you think animals divide themselves into neat little families with distinct divisions between species? Because that's very much not the case. Where one species ends and another begins is 100% just a matter of how we as a society choose to classify them.
The latter Of Course, skin color is just a line of Genes on a DNA helix, the race is still home salient, no doubt there as a single trait like skin color cannot be used as grounds to differentiate race, but I can see where you made that connection!
"picking and choosing" isn't what defines a social construct. Whether or not the categories would exist without society is. And the categories of race and sex, while both based on biological fact, are still socially constructed. Where the line is drawn between one race and another, and what factors go into defining a race, are entirely issues of how society decides to define those things.
@cipher42 The are in no sense constructed. They would exist even outside of human comprehension. Just like water is still water even if you call it something else. Our title for it doesn't make it what it is. The line between race isn't a socially defines line. It's a system of biological differences which depend on where your ancestors are from. It is only more recently that it is harder to differentiate variations of race because of the cross mixing of so many races. But in the past it was very easy to separate the races.
Yes, they are constructed. The strict binary structure of male/female is constructed, because the factors that make it up are picked and chosen by humans. For instance, we say that people with XX chromosomes are female and people with XY chromosomes are male. However, there are disorders, such as down syndrome, where the person can possess an extra chromosome but still be categorized as male or female. As for race, the line we draw as to how different the features of two groups of people have to be before they're considered a different race is utterly arbitrary. Like we used to consider Irish people a different race, but we no longer do.
@cipher42 Having an extra chromosome doesn't stop you from being XX or XY... The chromosome that defines male or female is the 23rd pair. The Downs is in the 21st Chromosome.
When the 23rd pair is modified you actually get external confusion like in hermaphrodites. Because the genitals are modified.
Race is not arbitrary. People are still considered black even when they are light or dark. The Irish and other "white" looking races have all been bunched into "Caucasian" but before the melting pot of human race mixing, Irish would have been extremely easy to differentiate from other whites. Just like black people generally have wider noses, coarser hair, etc. Aside from the darker skin.
Okay, so you clearly don't understand what the fuck I'm talking about. Consider a spectrum of colors going from blue to green to yellow. The only thing that defines which colors are which is how we categorize them. The colors are different, and some of them are green, and some of them are blue, and some of them are yellow, at least according to our standards, but the distinctions between those colors are 100% our own social construction. That's how it works with race and sex. The differences are there, yes, but what we make of those differences is a social construction.
@cipher42 No they are not. If they were, then you could claim red hues were part of the blue family. The slight grey area where one hue crosses over to the next is the blending of the two colors, which would be similar to the mixing of races in this new melting pot of society we have. But yellow is yellow Blue is Blue and Red is red and although those are the names we put on those hues. The base light which creates those hues is primary.
You still don't get it. Where do we draw the line between blue and green? When does it stop being blue and start being green? Is green maybe just a yellowy blue? Or a bluey yellow? Is pink a different color from red? When does a color stop being black and start being gray? Where does a shade of grey with some color in it start being that color? That's all socially constructed. Like race. How dark does someone's skin need to be to be another race? Are people with black hair a different race from people with blonde hair? Etc.
@cipher42 the line between Blue and green would be the same as the line between black and Caucasian. It isn't a race it's a mix of races. We have variations of race now because people have cross breed for centuries. But that's the difference between an African and someone of African decent. A social construct would be something that wouldn't exist without society creating it. The Major Divisions of the Human Race most anthropologists recognize are 3 or 4 basic races of human in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups.
Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing: Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)
... Caucasion: Skull: Dolicephalic (Long-Head), High forehead, Little supraobital development. Face: Mainly Leptoproscopic ( Narrow) Sometimes Meso- or even Euryproscopic, Neither Facial nor alveolar prognathism occurs except among some archaic peoples. Nose:Long, narrow, high in both root and bridge.
Mongoloid: Skull: High incidence of Brachycephaly (Short Round Head) American Indians while Mongoloid are often Dolicephalic. Foreheads slightly lower than that of the Caucasoid. No Supraobital development. Face: Wide and short, projecting cheek bones, Prognathism rare. Shovel shaped incisors common especialy in Asia. Nose: Mesorine (Low and Broad in both root and bridge.)
Negroid: Skull: usually Dolicephalic, a small minority are Brachycephalic. Forehead most often high, little supraobital development. Face: Leproscopic (to a much lesser degree than the Caucasion), Prognathism common in most Negro populations. Nose: Low & broad in root and bridge with characteristic depression at root.
Yes they're actual characteristics. But the fact that a certain set of characteristics add up to a certain race is our own construct. Also just the fact that there are "usually" or "often" qualifiers in there shows how arbitrary the categorization is. Clearly the factors that differentiate one race from another aren't nearly so objective as you seem to think
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
92Opinion
It's a social construct based on biological traits.
easiest example: Too much underbite was a lot more likely to be seen in blacks from Africa and can stil be seen mostly there where the lips reach farther than the nose.
There are physical differences in people across the globe, but our notion of race with solid, man-made boundaries and categories is a social construct.
According to my science teachers the genetic difference within the same race is bigger than the differences between different races, but I think the differences go beyond just looks. In a way they go towards personality and disease protection.
i think race is a very broad term and the genetics of the individual is the only way to determine
Social construct. There's little to no difference between humans
The most beautiful people in god's eyes don't see race
Well it's a social Construct based on biological features. I don't think the idea of race as a scientific concept exists though as human DNA dosen't vary significantly enough for their to be races.
Race is very real. Each of the races are different on a genetic level. Only brainwashed SJW libtards believe race is a social construct.
This has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. There are no genetic differences. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe this, it doesn't matter whether you are politically left or right, you are simply wrong on the science. These are facts, they don't get influenced by political conviction.
@BlueCoyote Right. Then I guess it's just a coincidence that Whites and East-Asians have the highest IQ's on average of any race.
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed
psmag.com/why-your-race-isn-t-genetic-559908897f93
www.scientificamerican.com/.../
time.com/.../
@BlueCoyote Mainstream media garbage. The mainstream media is not there to inform you, they are they're to deceive you. Here is some information that is actually true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SJNVb0GnPI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeb09GS7ids
These IQ test results were all results from surveys taken in the US. Hence, the differing results can be explained by social attitudes towards race in US-American culture. If I'm black and people tell me every day that I'm stupid, I will unconsciously perform worse than other participants. This effect can very easily be proven. When similar IQ tests were taken but the participants took them alone (with no other people in the room) and without being told that the study concerns itself with the connection of race and intelligence, there were no significant differences anymore between the races. Also, when similar tests were performed in different countries on different continents, there were no differences to be found.
@BlueCoyote Haha. Just admit when your checkmated bro.
Yeah, actually, I'm the one who's got a decent education. It's sad to see such scientifically illiterate people.
On race and intelligence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
I'm sure you found more if you researched yourself and actually cared about understanding this matter - which quite obviously you don't.
@BlueCoyote You are in complete denial. Are you a self-hating white?
Scientific American is not a mainstream media, it's a scientific journal. You have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. Neither is Nature a mainstream media:
www.nature.com/.../ng1435.html
American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine according to numerous sources. Hardly anything decent to get scientific information from.
A decent education? Lemme guess. You took out a 70,000 dollar student loan, majored in liberal arts, graduated, couldn't get a job, moved back in with your parents, and now you work at Walmart. And when you're not faithfully stocking shelves your spreading Leftist propaganda on social media. You SJW's are all the same.
Except I'm not. And believe it or not, I have the whole scientific community on my side. You can quote whatever right-wing outlet you want, actual scientists disagree with you.
And if you're so sure of yourself, please go ahead and tell me the exact gene that is responsible for the differences between the races.
Haha, sounds like you don't have anything even remotely mature to say anymore, so you're helping yourself out with some lame ad hominems.
But to let you know, I'm not American, so I most certainly don't work at Walmart, nor did I pay thousands of dollars for an education. But one thing I am doing right now is explaining you science in a foreign language because Mr. White-people-are-so-smart only speaks English.
@BlueCoyote You have the whole scientific community on your side? What? The same scientific community that says men and women are the exactly same? The same scientific community that says children can choose their gender? The same scientific community which claims gender doesn't exist? Have you ever heard of James Watson? Of course you haven't but I'll tell you about him. He's a nobel prize winning molecular biologist and geneticist. He is the man who DISCOVERED the structure of DNA. According to James Watson, all the races are different on a genetic level and Whites and East-Asians are the most intelligent races. Your way out of your league here snowflake.
CHECKMATE!! LOL
James Watson lived in the 1950s (yeah, I actually do know him). The fact that you think scientific research hasn't moved on from there shows how illiterate you are about the subject. The Human Genome Project looked sequenced the whole human DNA and they couldn't find a gene that is responsible for race because it doesn't exist. But again, if you're so sure of yourself, go ahead and tell me that exact gene.
All you are capable of is deflecting and insulting me. Great job, you've reached the mental maturity of a 4-year old.
And this constant "checkmate" is also ultra immature.
@BlueCoyote Yeah, Watson made his discovery in the 50's but he was an active researcher until 2007 when he was chased out of the field by the Social Marxists like you. This man has a 200 IQ and he discovered the structure of DNA. But I guess you know more than he does. Haha. I'm actually embarrassed for you.
No more valid arguments? Okay, focus on that instead.
Psychology major here.
First of all there is no evidence that indicates that race affects IQ. All we know is that there is a correlation between IQ and race. However, correlation does not equal causation. For example, Ice creams sales tend to correlate with murder rates. Does this mean eating ice cream makes people want to commit murder? Of course not. The explanation in this correlation is heat. People are more likely to buy Ice cream when it's hot outside and murder rates tend to increase during summer months. That third variable explains the correlation between ice cream sales and murder rate. Race and IQ is no different, except the third variable is environment.
The third variable between this correlation has been shown to be the environment. During WWII, the US military would conduct IQ test on recruits. They discovered that Black Northerners had an higher IQ then White Southerners.
Also, you mentioned James Watson. Don't get me wrong, James Watson is an intelligent man, but he is intelligent in the field of molecular Biology and Zoology. Intelligence is a concept created in Psychology and measured by Psychologists alone. Just because James Watson was knowledgeable in molecular biology and zoology doesn't mean he would be equally knowledgeable in psychology or neurology or dermatology or sociology or financing or being a country singer.
Being an expert in one field doesn't make you one in ALL fields. James Watson was out of his element when he tried to play Mr. Psychology despite not having any background in the field. He fell victim to the same irrationality that most of the population fall for when we conduct studies that find a correlation between two variables. Correlation does not equate to causation. Just because divorce rate in Maine correlates to Butter consumption (I'm not lying it does) doesn't mean butter consumption causes people to divorce in Maine.
Well if it was just a social construct you wouldn't be able to tell the differences between parts of that image.
Skin colour is biological. Race is a social construct.
Societies are racial constructs. That's why the superior races, White Europeans and East Asians have created the most advanced and greatest civilizations.
"Superior races"... I think I'm gonna puke because of this BS you wrote.
It can be both, although it was first used by biologists, and then by sociologists.
Biology as a science is a social construct too.
@cipher42 it is not
Yes it is? Do you think we'd have biologists if society didn't exist? Like, the shit biologists study isn't social, but the study itself sure as fuck is.
For instance: species. Do you think animals divide themselves into neat little families with distinct divisions between species? Because that's very much not the case. Where one species ends and another begins is 100% just a matter of how we as a society choose to classify them.
biological category because no one can choose his race... we are born based on genetic materials of our ancestors, not by choice
I think biological you see differences from the outside but from the inside I think it's a social construct
The latter Of Course, skin color is just a line of Genes on a DNA helix, the race is still home salient, no doubt there as a single trait like skin color cannot be used as grounds to differentiate race, but I can see where you made that connection!
Both
A socially motivated crude biological categorisation.
There is a difference in levels of melatonin in both bodies. Talking about Social construct, what is not?
ethnicity is obviously a biological thing. we´re all the same "race" though by biological definition though.
Race, sex, age, height, weight and all of those things can NEVER be a "social construct", enough with this hippie bullshit
HAHA Race is about as much a social construct as sex.
So yes it's a social construct.
@cipher42 AHHH NO.
Sex is biological and so is race. You can not pick and choose either.
"picking and choosing" isn't what defines a social construct. Whether or not the categories would exist without society is. And the categories of race and sex, while both based on biological fact, are still socially constructed. Where the line is drawn between one race and another, and what factors go into defining a race, are entirely issues of how society decides to define those things.
@cipher42 The are in no sense constructed. They would exist even outside of human comprehension. Just like water is still water even if you call it something else. Our title for it doesn't make it what it is.
The line between race isn't a socially defines line. It's a system of biological differences which depend on where your ancestors are from. It is only more recently that it is harder to differentiate variations of race because of the cross mixing of so many races. But in the past it was very easy to separate the races.
Yes, they are constructed. The strict binary structure of male/female is constructed, because the factors that make it up are picked and chosen by humans. For instance, we say that people with XX chromosomes are female and people with XY chromosomes are male. However, there are disorders, such as down syndrome, where the person can possess an extra chromosome but still be categorized as male or female. As for race, the line we draw as to how different the features of two groups of people have to be before they're considered a different race is utterly arbitrary. Like we used to consider Irish people a different race, but we no longer do.
@cipher42 Having an extra chromosome doesn't stop you from being XX or XY... The chromosome that defines male or female is the 23rd pair. The Downs is in the 21st Chromosome.
When the 23rd pair is modified you actually get external confusion like in hermaphrodites. Because the genitals are modified.
Race is not arbitrary. People are still considered black even when they are light or dark.
The Irish and other "white" looking races have all been bunched into "Caucasian" but before the melting pot of human race mixing, Irish would have been extremely easy to differentiate from other whites. Just like black people generally have wider noses, coarser hair, etc. Aside from the darker skin.
Okay, so you clearly don't understand what the fuck I'm talking about. Consider a spectrum of colors going from blue to green to yellow. The only thing that defines which colors are which is how we categorize them. The colors are different, and some of them are green, and some of them are blue, and some of them are yellow, at least according to our standards, but the distinctions between those colors are 100% our own social construction. That's how it works with race and sex. The differences are there, yes, but what we make of those differences is a social construction.
@cipher42 No they are not. If they were, then you could claim red hues were part of the blue family. The slight grey area where one hue crosses over to the next is the blending of the two colors, which would be similar to the mixing of races in this new melting pot of society we have.
But yellow is yellow
Blue is Blue
and Red is red
and although those are the names we put on those hues. The base light which creates those hues is primary.
You still don't get it. Where do we draw the line between blue and green? When does it stop being blue and start being green? Is green maybe just a yellowy blue? Or a bluey yellow? Is pink a different color from red? When does a color stop being black and start being gray? Where does a shade of grey with some color in it start being that color? That's all socially constructed. Like race. How dark does someone's skin need to be to be another race? Are people with black hair a different race from people with blonde hair? Etc.
@cipher42 the line between Blue and green would be the same as the line between black and Caucasian. It isn't a race it's a mix of races. We have variations of race now because people have cross breed for centuries. But that's the difference between an African and someone of African decent.
A social construct would be something that wouldn't exist without society creating it.
The Major Divisions of the Human Race most anthropologists recognize are 3 or 4 basic races of human in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups.
Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:
Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)
The reasons are:
... Caucasion:
Skull: Dolicephalic (Long-Head), High forehead, Little supraobital development.
Face: Mainly Leptoproscopic ( Narrow) Sometimes Meso- or even Euryproscopic, Neither Facial nor alveolar prognathism occurs except among some archaic peoples.
Nose:Long, narrow, high in both root and bridge.
Mongoloid:
Skull: High incidence of Brachycephaly (Short Round Head)
American Indians while Mongoloid are often Dolicephalic.
Foreheads slightly lower than that of the Caucasoid.
No Supraobital development.
Face: Wide and short, projecting cheek bones, Prognathism rare. Shovel shaped incisors common especialy in Asia.
Nose: Mesorine (Low and Broad in both root and bridge.)
Negroid:
Skull: usually Dolicephalic, a small minority are Brachycephalic.
Forehead most often high, little supraobital development.
Face: Leproscopic (to a much lesser degree than the Caucasion), Prognathism common in most Negro populations.
Nose: Low & broad in root and bridge with characteristic depression at root.
These are actual characteristics not fabrications. They are differences in the physical human body.
Yes they're actual characteristics. But the fact that a certain set of characteristics add up to a certain race is our own construct. Also just the fact that there are "usually" or "often" qualifiers in there shows how arbitrary the categorization is. Clearly the factors that differentiate one race from another aren't nearly so objective as you seem to think