When you put a word in parenthesis after a statement, it's a way of saying "which is to us, a definition of what races are"

Where does it say that race realists say that races are homogenous? It says instead that racial homgeneity is not consistent with genetic evidence.

` Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.`

it MAYBE make for a fun "debate"

if he's willing

Ok, I've banned this guy

babygotbach = mixed raCE btw

<:CHAD:396569198404435969>

because the quote was literally stating this. goodbye

lol

Did he block me?

thanks papa JF

he's completely dishonest person anyway

he's majority han chinese

with soem euro

Lol

Fuguer btfo

is he wrong tho

he's been here 2 times

aaaaaaaand the bitch is gone

well, he did give us all a chance to try to hone our debating skills.

It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.

everything was strawmen and projection

imagine reading all that shit

It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.

It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.

It's race denialism bullshit. Among other things, it relies on the conception that cognitive effects of evolution must have happened before migration rather than after, for which there is no evidence at all other than some supposition made by the author. Furthermore, it denies the differences existing between groups of people that find themselves in different conditions (i.e. perhaps cooperation is good in a winter if you live on average 1 km away from anyone, but not at the equator if you live with 40 people around you all the time who may have increased violent tendencies). It then commits the error of thinking that genetic diversity as measured on a per-letter-of-DNA basis is a good quantification to affirm or deny the presence of distinct evolutionary pressures applying to different groups. It doesn't. We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups. Finally, it strawmans the race realist position by stating that races are "genetically homogeneous groups," which is not the position and which should always raise a red flag in the reader, since setting such an impossible standard is clearly evidence that the author wanted to reach the conclusion that races don't exist.

reeeeee

oh jf said it

<:JFGOD:439598359628611604>

💯

_We could have less variation than chimpanzees in number of letters, yet stronger natural selection pressures could be at play in shaping the different frequencies between groups._

<:goldpill:626276664837537833>

this was the biggest takeaway from me

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4888873/ @JFGariepy we've been discussing with that guy whether or not this study means that we have to throw out twin studies as a basis for high heritability of intelligence

jf is fooking based

i have to donate

"do you have the genes"
"yes *posts the genes*"

"do you have all the knowledge about how these genes work"

that's the type of person

nope