I find it interesting that you cite genetic similarity as the basis for race while discounting research that shows a lack of similarity. What’s really dishonest?

Ok? Once again, that’s data, but you’re also imposing your paradigms onto it

No it’s just the facts of the situation

Ok, let me ask you a hypothetical question

Let’s imagine two couples. One couple is blonde haired, blue eyed, European, total Nazi’s dream couple. The other is from central Africa, dark skinned, as African as African can be. By your definition of race, they’re different races, correct?

GG @abby_ella, you just advanced to level 4!

Yes

Now, both women become pregnant by their respective man. But, suddenly, out of nowehere, gamma rays from space hit both newly formed embryos, altering their DNAs. In a totally unlikely and basically impossible in real life scenario, their DNA mutates in such as way that both babies now have identical genetic codes. The two children are now, for all genetic purposes, identical twins. Are they the same race?

Yes, whatever race the gamma rays made them, potentially an undesignated race

That’s a very interesting answer, because I don’t think most people would agree with you on that. Whatever that’s worth

Why not

I feel like most would throw something about culture or heritage or geographic location in, which further cements the idea that race is an imagined community sort of thing

Race and culture are different

Still, your framework for understand race requires you to sort and categorize data into fairly arbitrary categories based on small similarities, so it’s still interpretive on your part

I agree that race and culture are different. Race is arbitrary categorization while culture is about collective creativity

I base race purely off of genes

Now, I’m positive race does have effects on culture

Why are you positive of that?

But, it doesn’t mean that people can’t adopt the cultures of other races

You know what they say: only fools are positive, geniuses hesitate

Lol

Look at Asian brains and how their culture reflects it

Their culture was formed in a way that they saw best due to the way they think

Language plays a role as well

But language is also constructed by the brain

You could just as easily argue that culture forms in response to historical and geographic context.

The overall themes of Asian culture are from their hardware

Such as collectivism

When they look at a picture, they don’t focus on the details

They focus more on the whole

I think their language goes a long way into further trapping them in that, but they have some genetic influences as well

Africa is quite collectivist as well but in different ways

Europeans are as well

🆙 | **abby_ella leveled up!**

I mean, look at all the social programs European governments have designed

I don’t think they are capable of being on the level of Asians as far as being collectivists though

The problem with all of this, though, is why Asians, or Africans, or Europeans would lose that sense of collectivism when they move to America, which is exactly what has happened throughout history. America is far more individualist, so if collectivism has a genetic basis, why wouldn’t we see that in the US?

It’s possible that the journey to America was like a filter. Those that had brains with that individualist spark were more more likely to leave Europe

As in maybe some genes were turned on or off

That’s purely speculation

Seems reasonable enough