What? I just read the link and one thing it says is that
> In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a). The recent African origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than elsewhere and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled.
> It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall human population is found within individuals of the same population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group
I’m not the author of the comment we are both replying to, but I’m pretty sure you’re trying to use his comment as a soapbox to push your own views.
Moreover the quoted paragraph does support that claim, and you still have not engaged with it. You are the one failing to understanding statistics. The quoted paragraph does not support the idea that people can’t be categorized into races, of course depending on how you define race, but you’re the only one talking about that.
I think you need to check your tone and stop trying to politicize this discussion. You might have good points, but I’m really disappointed in how you seem to be trying to incite people.
To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other.
The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.
There is no single gene that determines skin coloration.
You are right insofar you allow yourself to be imprecise and make sweeping generalizations. Of course a light skinned person is far less likely than a person with darker complexion to have ancestry who lived ca. 2000 years ago in for example south africa, but there's a whole lot of leeway in those 2000 years and at the very least its ignorant of e.g. India. And then the question is whether the question mattersat all.
If we define a set of criteria by which that tweet can be deemed “antisemitic”, then applying that same criteria to comments about white people made by countless progressive-minded journalists would deem those journalists fanatically anti-white.
If this is one of the most devastating aspects of colonialism, then colonialism must not have been very bad.
Before we have a conversation about this, I urge everyone to research the degree of soil depletion in formerly-colonized Africa, and then compare that to the degree of soil depletion elsewhere in the world (including never-colonized parts of Africa).
(For bonus points, research how much of that soil depletion occurred since the end colonialism).
The numbers are widely available.
Colonial crop management was a boon for native Africans, not a bust.
A few months ago, a widely publicized study[1] indicated that moderate-to-large amounts of exercise caused a buildup of plaque in the hearts of middle-aged white men. This correlation was not seen in any women, nor was it seen in black men.
Unfortunately, this study included no Indian nor Southeast Asian people. I've seen unrelated studies indicating similar health outcomes for white men and Indian men, so as an Indian man, should I be worried about this?
Not even middle-aged white men should worry about it. It was more "This population had the highest coronary artery calcification, which matches what other studies have found. We should look into it more" rather than "These white dudes gotta slow down or their hearts'll give out".
I appreciate your response. I’m under the impression that the white men who exercised more had more calcification:
> Instead, Laddu and her colleagues found that participants in trajectory group three, or those who exercised the most, were 27 percent more likely than those in trajectory group one to develop CAC by middle age. CAC was measured during the participants’ 25th year in the study using computed tomography, a CT scan, of the chest. At year 25, participants were ages 43 to 55.
You probably eat different from most white men. If you are concerned, you could look for studies that correlate dietary choices or other factors to such calcification.
Exercise is just one factor here and does not operate in isolation.
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."
This doesn't preclude thoughts on race-relations—if that was the goal, it would've simply said so.
"Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion."
It doesn't take much creativity to recognize the inherent contradiction in this systemic line of thinking.
You strike me as reasonable. I would appreciate if you could answer a couple of questions.
1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
> 1. If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
You need to unpack this into a few different things:
1) Are there cognitive differences between the sexes? Probably true--but we don't have a great idea of what they are.
2) Do those cognitive differences explain different aptitudes for different intellectual pursuits? No evidence for this in the context of computer programming. Which is why Damore's memo was so intellectually weak. The reasoning was basically "studies show women are people oriented" --> ??? --> "men are biologically predisposed to prefer programming."
3) Is it okay to fire people for saying things that are true? Businesses aren't free speech zones. Actions that jeopardize team cohesion, recruiting goals, company image, etc., are and should be fireable offenses. If someone at Google prepared and circulate a memo on how advertising is evil and destroying America, they should be fired, truth of the matter aside.
4) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, to speak on their own behalf, on their own time. People don't have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. If you make a lot of money and send your kids to private school, you don't tell a room full of democrats "who cares about public education, let's cut the top tax rate." And if you do and people get salty, you don't say "but don't I have a right to speak on behalf of my own interests?"
1) People have been fascinated with this and have studied it for decades. Just because it isn't quantified, doesn't mean we have no idea what they are
2) You are choosing to frame other's arguments incorrectly and then attacking those imperfections. Men and women in the countries "most equal" are polarized even more in their career choices.
3) People high up in Facebook & Google have publicly questioned advertising & social media addictiveness without public backlash. The memo was firing back at policies that jeopardize team cohesion - in Damore's own words. You don't need free speech inside of a company to discuss data and reference studies.
4) Your #4 doesn't make sense but does demonstrate that you think in a very 'partisan politics' style.
> Hard to have a conversation with someone who just flat out lies at every turn
This thread is awful enough without people stooping to personal attack. We ban accounts that do this. Moreover you've violate the site guidelines quite a bit and we've had to warn you before.
> If there are indeed biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits, should it be firable to say so?
First, I'll note that "should it be firable" in the question is a little bit ambiguous. I'm interpreting it as "should a company be allowed to fire an employee for this", and not as "should a company fire an employee over this".
If you believe in at-will employment, then yes. Truth does not protect you from being fired.
I'm not a huge fan of at-will employment in general, but I think even in this context the 1A freedom of association makes it problematic to prevent companies from firing people for their speech. Even truthful speech.
As an individual has the right to speak, without interference from government actors, the employer has the broad right to choose who they associate with. Restricting that right is problematic.
> 2. If boys and men are discriminated against in order to pursue equal outcomes, should they be allowed to voice opposition?
Of course they should be allowed to voice opposition. The government should not interfere with their speech in any way. Further, the government should not discriminate against those individuals based on that speech.
However, as they are allowed to voice their opposition their may be social consequences for doing so. Speech often carries social consequences—some I agree with and some I don't. For me, how appropriate or proportional those social consequences are depend very significantly on the content and tone of the particular voiced opposition and the social response. That makes it somewhat harder to respond to a general question.
You are free to challenge my responses. I'm happy to discuss these ideas.
Some similarly constructed questions I would return:
1. If there are not biological differences between sexes that could help explain different aptitudes/predispositions for different intellectual pursuits—but a coworker asserts that such differences exist, that your sex is the one with less aptitude—could you see how upset employees and applicants of that sex?
2. If women have traditionally been discriminated against in this industry, and a co-worker voices support for this ongoing discrimination in a way that makes them uncomfortable, should they be allowed to complain about that co-worker? Should their complaints be taken seriously?
From a statistics point of view, this statement is dispositive: "...decrease the false negative rate, not increase the false positive rate."
The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship. You cannot decrease one without increasing the other. It is, for example, one of the difficulties in making good medical diagnostic tests.
P.S. snarky commentary such as 'read the memo yourself', implying I'm lying about having read it, doesn't contribute to civil discussion.
> The interaction between type I and type II errors virtually always have an inverse relationship.
If you're adjusting a dial, yes. But hiring is complex, and having more time to evaluate candidates means you can do a better job. Spending more effort is a simple way to improve false negatives and false positives. It's entirely plausible that a company might have extra time budgeted for double-checking resumes from certain groups.
I wonder whether this variant is similar to APOE E4 allele—which significantly increases one's risk of Alzheimer's—in that its affect can be minimized by lifestyle changes.
In men, APOE E4's disadvantages can be almost completely eliminated (compared to APOE E3) by regularly exercising and completely abstaining from alcohol.
> It's also possible for us to talk to women who work in the field and listen as they describe their experiences
When men and boys try to describe experiences—such as watching every girl in their high school computer science class receive amazing internships before any of the boys, regardless of their skill level—they're shamed and ridiculed. They certainly aren't given platforms by influential journalists and CEOs.
We can't give much weight to "experiences" while there are such uneven power dynamics in place regarding sharing them.
