/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17796927]

Any good books explaining the biological differences in physical characteristics between races like why some races are better at some sports than others? No racist shit just actual scientific works

[Anonymous No.17796934]

>>17796927
most biological differences were probably created due to thousands of years of living in different environments

[Anonymous No.17796945]

>>17796927
Kenyan guys live in high altitudes without roads for thousand of years. Kenyan guys run fast and long.
It's really not that complicated.

[Anonymous No.17797851]

>>17796927
Unironically Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid. Some chinese social anthropologists are looking into that atm, but i think they're racist and not as objective as they could be. there's a lot of work in philosophy of race and philosophy of biology (but i'm skeptical of "philosophy of" stuff)

some stuff from a prof
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272204662_Ontologies_and_Politics_of_Biogenomic_%27Race%27

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/377397

[Anonymous No.17797857]

>>17796927
>No racist shit just actual scientific works

[Anonymous No.17797867]

>>17797857
Op is genuine; kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.17797873]

>>17797867
>Op is genuine; kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.17797877]

>>17797851
also i forgot this one
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3130610?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

the book: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674212619&content=toc

[Anonymous No.17798112]

Daily reminder that races are by definition sub species (members of the same species who have branched out in their evolution because of living isolated in different environments) and there is LITERALLY no objective and scientific explanation saying they are not, and the line separating races from being subspecies according to progressive scientific communities is LITERALLY just a completely and utterly arbitrary line drawn in the sand with no concrete scientific justification

[Anonymous No.17798145]

>>17798112
but anon, arent you aware that there is more genetic variation between members of the same race than there is between members of different races? This isn't meant to be a gotcha, it's a very basic scientific fact about genetics. You are likely more genetically similar to plenty of "nonwhites," than you are to "whites,". Race is fairly arbitrary, arising from political needs not concrete and salient differences..

[Anonymous No.17798146]

Origin Of Races: Coon, Carleton S

[Anonymous No.17798153]

>>17796927
>Posting on the /lit/ board
>Not able to use google
Your colors show through /pol/cuck

[Anonymous No.17798261]

>>17798145
You have unfortunately been sort of lied to about that. Every ethnic Swede is more related to every other ethnic Swede than they are to any Aboriginal Australian person, if you take their entire genomes and compare them. If you look at only one gene or five genes, then you may be more similar to someone from another ethnicity, but as you add genes(as you look at a more complete section of the entire genome) the chances of being more similar to someone outside your ancestral group drops to zero, which....if you think about what ancestry and genes are should be kind of obvious.

The term 'race' is carrying some obfuscatory weight as well, a European is I believe more genetically similar to a Bantu than either is to a Bushman. Since Bushmen and Bantu are sometimes both called 'Black' this is used as evidence that the categories of race are meaningless. This is kind of facile obviously, it just means the categories are more nuanced and complicated than the broad guesses of earlier peoples, though there is a fair amount of correlation between those and the underlying genetic reality. The categories like "white'' are not precise, they describe rough clusters of genetic similarity complicated by complex histories of separation and mixing. As a rough rule of thumb though the people we call white are usually more related to each other than they are to an East Asian or Sub-Saharan or whatever, so the categories are not simply arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.17798358]

>>17798261
wait
what? That just isn't true. See this:
>A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.

>In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).

>If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

[Anonymous No.17798367]

>>17798358
i'm on your side in this... but "a landmark study" should be a huge red flag.

[Anonymous No.17798376]

>>17798358
>>17798367
furthermore the prestige of a university is fundamentally irrelevant to the results of a study.

[Anonymous No.17798404]

>>17798376
I am not claiming the authority itself offers proof, but that the argument they posit is convincing. The differences that demarcate races are ultimately minuscule relative to how similar we all are.

[Anonymous No.17798415]

>>17798358
It is true, that study is not looking at the entire genome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.

The key sentence there is ''it breaks down with datasets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero."
ω means ''the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population.''

In other words it was just a rather dishonest tactic, you can be more similar if you look only at some parts of the genome, rather than the whole.

[Anonymous No.17798418]

>>17798404
i'd love to agree with you, because i'm sick of the race conversation, but please have higher standards for your arguments <3

[Anonymous No.17798476]

>>17798418
anon please help me undestand... I don't want to fight I want to learn

[Anonymous No.17798483]

>>17798476
i would just say study more logic. articles that claim "the historic x" or "a landmark study" are typically propaganda trying to sell the results. all i can really say is to become a scientist or something, but quite honestly i'm probably being more harsh than that article deserves. i'm pretty pessimistic lately

[Anonymous No.17798498]

>>17798483
also, those phrases are characteristic of what Karl Popper called "historicism" which he talked about in reference to social sciences, but the notion is widely applicable.

just ignore my salty ass

[Anonymous No.17798533]

>>17798483
I have studied some Logic, for sure. And I am not looking to the study because of the fluffing adjectives. Rather, because the article outlined the results derived from it and those results indicate that race is far more fluid than is assumed, and far less salient than people insist it is.

[Anonymous No.17798797]

>>17798533

[Anonymous No.17798826]

>>17798797
PLEASE STOP DEMEANING ME. JUST TALK TO ME.PLEASE FREN. YOU ARE HURTING ME. I FEEL DUMB BUT DONT KNOW WHY. PELASE.

[Anonymous No.17798842]

>>17798826
no i'm not trying to demean you i'm just an angry shit poster don't listen to me you're probably already doing way better than me <3

[Anonymous No.17798851]

>>17798842
please no please dont say that please I just want to talk to someone please for the love of god I am so lonely I am sorry for fighting and getting mean please for the love of god just talk to me.

[Anonymous No.17798861]

>>17798851
you weren't mean we're good fren <3

what do you study?

[Anonymous No.17798894]

>>17798145
>but anon, arent you aware that there is more genetic variation between members of the same race than there is between members of different races?
So that means if we truly want a society rich in diversity we need to exclude all foreigners. Brb kicking out all the browns blacks and yellows for the sake of diversity.

[Anonymous No.17798922]

>>17798894
>conflation of levels

[Anonymous No.17798935]

>>17798894
kek "I love science' leftoids fucking destroyed

[Anonymous No.17798937]

>>17798358
saved link because it's probably good

[Anonymous No.17798954]

>>17798358
>If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region.
7.4% is a massive amount when it comes to DNA
we share over 60% of our DNA with bananas

[Anonymous No.17798993]

>>17798954
You are conflating different levels of genome.
You also share only 50% of your DNA with a full sibling. Does that mean that your closest living relative is a banana?

[Anonymous No.17798998]

>>17798415
>>17798358
are you just not going to reply to this or what

[Anonymous No.17799044]

>>17798993
>You are conflating different levels of genome.
How so?

>You also share only 50% of your DNA with a full sibling. Does that mean that your closest living relative is a banana?
It seems like you're conflating human DNA in general with the DNA of particular humans. Pretty dishonest argument if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.17799058]

>>17799044
Humans share almost 99% of DNA with chimpanzees, so you are a chimp. That's just science.

[Anonymous No.17800026]

>>17798998
no he won’t lol

[Anonymous No.17800039]

>>17796927
no

[Anonymous No.17800245]

>>17796927
White people are the colour of dog shit because they are all bone and no meat. —KJV, Acts 3:14