Race is much more than skin colour

Correlation =/= causation"Whole argument irrelevant emotional appeal." P1: Racism caused huge financial disparities P2: Poverty influences cognitive/physical development P3: Racism still occurs P4: It prevents people from obtaining advantages & resources P5: Racism is a huge variable P6: Race /IQ studies are correlationalI fail to see the irrelevance or emotional appeal"Unless you can prove that racism…"Actually, the burden of proof here lies on you P1: Race-based discrimination affects many variables like housing, jobs, education, etc. P2: You are using correlational studies Racism affects many variables which are known to affect cognitive/physical development. If you use correlational studies to prove that race affects IQ/skull size, you must either:1. Cite studies that control for racism 2. Prove this variable doesn't affect IQ/skull sizeRacism Affecting Many Variables: Examples *A pregnant black woman complains of pain to her doctor, but he thinks she is just being a dramatic black woman*A boy goes to private school. His teacher thinks he is a lazy black kid*Shaquan applies for a job. His resume gets tossed out because his name "sounds black"*Shaquan is called for an interview, but the interviewer doesn't like his natural African hair Racism Interestingly, mixed race people with lighter skin tend to experience more privileges based on their lighter skin tone. Racism is not just about color but shade Consider this study [1] [2] where children were asked to pick out the "dumb" or "ugly" or "bad" child out of a lineup. Children overwhelmingly picked the darkest ones. Even black children chose the darkest children. When 3 groups of black children were asked about which skin colors people didn't like, more than 70%, 61%, and 57% chose between the two darkest shades There is strong bias against darker skinObservable differences =/= genetic differences*Skin color is only a few genes, and "light" and "dark" alleles are present in all races *Hair color is many genes (100+). There are "light" and "dark" genes present in all races. Blond is thought to occur from a single mutation in Europeans *Height is many genes (700+). Certain genes "add" much more height than others. Height is also influenced by environment *Intelligence is many genes (thousands). It is greatly influenced by environmentPro never identified any/which hair color, height, or intelligence genes are linked to certain races. Recall that: *"Blond" is an observation, not genetic data*Height=measured observable differences, which may be caused by a single gene with high additive power*Intelligence testing only measures observable IQPro used observational data for these traits. This is not the same thing as genetic data. It does not tell us how broad genetic differences areGenetic Variation"Not necessary. Heritable traits must have causative genes" This is a red herring. Obviously heritable traits come from genes. Not the pointP1: You said we share 95% DNA with dogs P2: You cited, "what’s meaningful is which genes differ"But you can't tell me which genes make races have huge functional differences?"Animals dont have that much genetic variation."You do not provide counter-evidence to back up this claim. Last round, I used source 1: Recap: From human to human: about 0.1% difference Gorillas: 1.6% Chimpanzees: 1.2% The chimpanzees are split into 4 subspecies. So are the gorillas [3] Humans Humans haven't been around long enough to develop that much genetic variation. [4] [5] [6] [7] "Most biological anthropologists would agree that human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species." [5] "Our species actually displays less genetic variation than chimpanzees or penguins." [7] Birds appeared around 150 million years ago; great apes 14 million. Humans appeared around 200,000 years ago [8]Pro's Source The book review you linked points out problems with that author's race/IQ studies "This book is a frightening example of how an intelligent European author with good skills of academic presentation can argue any case by selectively ignoring vast areas of research on the roles of individual biological variation, cultural traditions and biases in psychological testing, and by creating conceptual entities from unreliable observational phenomena." [9]The author of the book himself apparently points out issues that make it difficult to prove genetic causation:"Using the critical approach of a modern scientist, the author explains that intelligence cannot be precisely defined, nor measured accurately. Then he proceeds to explain the meaning and formation of races using the same critical attitude. What follows, however, is based on the assumption that intelligence and races are real biological entities determined primarily by genes, with some environmental influences modifying their phenotypic expression." "Wrong… Europeans are 90% lactose tolerant." 10% of people is 1/10 people, so it's common