Literature on the concepts of 'race' and 'ethnicity'

Good list, unironically based

>Asking for Yea Forums books on a /sci/ subject
No

would add:
nicholas wade - a troublesome inheritance
philippe rushton - race, evolution and behaviour
anthony walsh - race and crime
raymond wolters - race and education
jonathan peter spiro - defending the master race
michael levin - why race matters
arthur jensen - bias in mental testing

>>>/trannypol/

i cannot believe that's the real cover for this book

Ya, it's pretty tacky as a cover.

Honestly, no one is going to care but I'll try to explain what the deal on race is. I'm not a geneticist. Just a racial and intelligence hobbyist.

So races don't exist. Literally. They are approximations for populations which do exist as genetic groups. While that is true, it is possible that 2 Europeans can have more similar genetic data with a Chinese man, than they do with each other. However, this does not neglect the fact that the Europeans have evolved a certain cultural inheritance to their DNA. I.e. eurasians have been split from Africans for 50k years and mixed with Neanderthals (3% average DNA mix), long enough to be a bifurcation. Europeans and Asians have been divided for maybe 10k years, but I don't think it counts as a bifurcation, yet they display behavioral differences. Thus, Europeans have a certain way to them, as do Asians. But this Asianness and Europeanness is only cut down to certain genes on average that Europeans share with each other and NOT based on how similar overall they are genetically.

As far as African DNA, well DNA databases are largely European and cannot account for more than 30% (I think) of African DNA, thus there is an initiative to start sampling Africa. One of the main differences between Africans and Eurasians are the MCPH gene and the ASPM gene, two genes for brain growth, yet several studies have shown no differences in IQ of populations displaying and not displaying these genes. Despite this, polyvariance tests are able to get people's IQ scores down. Unsure to what degree though.

Overall, I think history will vindicate race realists in some way, but this whole race debate is entirely superseded by the fact that China already has 2 babies with a CCR5 Aids resistance / Neuroplasticity gene walking around. Genetic endowment is going to become meaningless as soon as designer babies become a reality. The real questions are what unforeseen issues lay on the horizon with gene environment interaction and gene gene interaction.

Also, I wouldn't be afraid of the White Race disappearing, seeing as they will incorporate plenty of traits from all races that are perceived advantageous, so who knows what will happen.

I'm tired, so sorry if this jumble of info is messy, but that's pretty much where the whole race thing is at.

>I'm looking for books that prove ....
Tragic

>So races don't exist. Literally. They are approximations for populations which do exist as genetic groups.
It always blows my mind how low-tier race realists on here have trouble grasping that, or the fact that any biological determinism is *very* noisy with little predictive power on any reasonably small scale. At a high level I think most can accept these two points, but when they get succinctly stated as "Race isn't a real thing, and it certainly doesn't determine outcomes" they freak out.

fpbp

Races exist just like colors exist.
There are virtually infinite variations of colors and of human genes, yet you can still meaningfully divide them into a smaller number of categories.

Attached: Colour-Wheel-Rainbow-Spectrum-Color-Wheel-1740381.jpg (720x720, 38K)

Ya, I'm actually not too sure what the predictive power IS of genetic testing. People like Robert Plomin claim that it is quite high, higher than many would be comfortable with. Add to this the fact that I've seen environmentalists use the case of "feral" or neglected children as a case for the argument of nurture. In doing so they conflate a lack of stimulation with the ability or possibility/likelihood to compensate for a lack of potential or aptitude. Who knows if it's even a disingenuous argument.

Other arguments I've seen against determinism include the idea that we are reifying concepts and are imposing human categories onto spectrum of behavior. While this has its own issues, I think it holds more merit than the previously mentioned environmentalist account. I must admit though at times I feel like we are running away from the determinist's claims instead of challenging them. The true challenge is in gene-environment and polygenic interactions. These are the largest hurdles to genetic testing today I believe.

Overall, it remains unsurprising to me, as a minority, the anger and frustration I see middle-class white folks and asians have when confronted with the minority programs. Is it any wonder Trump was elected? Let alone people like Don Lemon/CNN stoking the fire through attempts to use end-conclusions of democracy and neo-liberalism as a check-mate against conservative ideals. As if neo-liberalism is the correct answer and we haven't made a grave mistake in "liberating" the common man, i.e. allowing children to speak at the table.

Idk, I'm rambling. But ya, low-tier race realists are definitely adding to the issue. They are the SJW equivalent for conservatives. I'm just unsurprised at people trying to find ANY reason to run away from the egalitarianist policies being implemented. Especially when the middle class has been squeezed so hard and wealth has been accumulating up top as it has.

>I'm looking for books that ignore scientific consensus so I can affirm my beliefs
You're a climate change denier as well aren't you?

I know right. Those idiots think that blacks run faster because of genetics lol.

In reality, blacks run faster because they have a culture of running and non-blacks are discriminated against and don't have enough non-black role models.

Attached: usain-winning-100m-finals-2.jpg (960x640, 126K)

Unicorns exist just like horses exist.
The two species have distinct anatomies, yet you can still meaningfully distinguish limbs, heads, manes and viscera.

Attached: whatdoesathingwhichdoesntexistlooklike.jpg (1280x720, 79K)

>Unicorns exist just like horses exist.
Well, no, that's quite obviously wrong and it's a stupid comparison.

>Those idiots think that blacks run faster because of genetics lol.
This is the kind of shit I mean. *Some* black populations have a genetic disposition that is conducive to fast sprinting, and so often the *fastest* few people in the world will be such blacks. However a single random black person is slower than millions of white people who run. The determinism in the outcomes for individuals based on their race is incredibly noisy and non-predictive.

Blacks run faster because their brains weigh them down less.

Issue with your point is that our society does not require running as a central economic force. If it did, we would have the same situation as now, but flipped.

race is real lol there’s more than enough variation to assume subspecies

>The determinism in the outcomes for individuals
>for individuals
You're moving the goal posts now.
Just because you can't reliably predict the outcome of some random guy in the street doesn't mean the concept is invalid or that you can't predict the outcome of 1 million random guys of a specific group.

How does anyone not want to fuck that?

>Issue with your point is that our society does not require running as a central economic force.
I mean it barely requires intelligence either, at least in the economy. Arrogance and sociopathy are by far the most rewarded characteristics for achievement in American society, and I feel like that is definitely more a "nurture" rather than "nature" thing.

That does not seem like a supported claim. IQ has been predictive of economic success as high .4, add to that the notion that determinists also claim personality is in part inherited, one starts to see a case being made for an irredeemable gap. Of course I think this doesn't prove we shouldn't do what we can, but at this point that's an arbitrary moral.

Yes, but genetically race isn't a thing. The subspecies category should be distinct and genetically races aren't distinct. They are muddy.

>You're moving the goal posts now.
>Just because you can't reliably predict the outcome of some random guy in the street doesn't mean the concept is invalid or that you can't predict the outcome of 1 million random guys of a specific group.
I didn't move the goalposts, this is literally the central premise of OP >the fact that any biological determinism is *very* noisy with little predictive power on any reasonably small scale. At a high level I think most can accept these two points, but when they get succinctly stated as "Race isn't a real thing, and it certainly doesn't determine outcomes"

It's not that the "concept" that genes affect outcomes and that populations can be loosely grouped on gene commonalities.... that's a trivially obvious point; you're not brave for saying that, it's literally the basis of genetics.

>that you can't predict the outcome of 1 million random guys of a specific group.
There is no specific group. These are amorphous, fuzzy groupings of a genetic pool. There is no single outcome. Each individual has different outcomes. You can add up the outcomes and take an average but that doesn't capture the variance in the outcomes and isn't the "group" outcome because the group entity didn't take an IQ test or run a 100m sprint. If you're only point is that simple averages are different between some fuzzily defined population group, sure, whatever, again this is a trivial point.

Once again, the race realist either makes completely trivial points, or he misinterprets data distributions and causal inference because he is mathematically illiterate LARPing as if he is some logical empiricist.

I went through a /pol/ phase. Now I'm still racist but I think politics is a massive waste of time, especially for people like OP who want to read about the science/philosophy of racism so they can win arguments on the Internet.

People who deny subgroups in humans should be openly mocked harder than flat earthers.

No it's a wonderful and lovely comparison. Because despite the similarities of the two concepts and the usefulness of the one in illustrating the other they still remain to be empirically proven.

>IQ has been predictive of economic success as high .4
My god you mathematically illiterate morons. You don't just take a fucking point estimate from an already terribly flawed statistical model. Point estimates are useless without variance explanation and that's ignoring the fact that you don't satisfy the mathematical assumptions to be running these statistical tests anyways. Social scientists need to neck themselves, they have no idea what they are doing. Maybe some of the game theory economists can be saved, but the rest need to be purged.

>People who deny subgroups in humans should be openly mocked harder than flat earthers.
I have to wonder, do people like you think that color isn't a spectrum with fuzzy terminology based on context to loosely group certain areas of the spectrum, but rather is actually defined sharply by the names Crayola gives their crayons?

Its funny that we can make reasonable predictions about different subspecies of animals but for some reason somehow it is """"""""""""""((impossible))""""""""""""""""""" for humans because you say so, even though it demonstrably happens all the time.

>There is no specific group.
Yes there is. You can make up any group you want. You can divide people into categories of those born in the odd/even days if you want. It doesn't fucking matter, as long as you get statistically meaningful results. "Black" and "White" categories manage to achieve that, even though they're fuzzy.

Is the color green "empirically proven"?
No, horses and unicorns don't exist in the same way. Stop making stupid posts, please.

>the only difference between subgroups of humans is skin color
Pure retardation. Let me ask you, Retard Timmy, is the only difference between a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua a coat of fur?

>So races don't exist. Literally. They are approximations for populations which do exist as genetic groups.

Semantics. Call it genetic strata/clusters or whatever, but there are large groups of people with similar genotype and phenotype that differentiate them from other such groups. It is easy to determine which group an individual belongs to, by simply looking at him, or by DNA sampling. Outliers of these groups or clusters may be harder to place, but that doesn't mean that the groups don't exist. Just like colours are on a spectrum, races flow into each other.

>While that is true, it is possible that 2 Europeans can have more similar genetic data with a Chinese man, than they do with each other.

Wrong. Look up Lewontins fallacy before you make a fool of yourself. When comparing two ethnic Europeans full DNA profile, they will always be more similar to each other, than to an African or Chinese man.

>As far as African DNA, well DNA databases are largely European and cannot account for more than 30% (I think) of African DNA, thus there is an initiative to start sampling Africa. One of the main differences between Africans and Eurasians are the MCPH gene and the ASPM gene, two genes for brain growth, yet several studies have shown no differences in IQ of populations displaying and not displaying these genes. Despite this, polyvariance tests are able to get people's IQ scores down. Unsure to what degree though.

IQ is inherited to a large extent. That is why we see smart families and stupid families, as well as IQ differences between races. But is determined by multiple genes, therefore looking at single genes is pointless.

>Overall, I think history will vindicate race realists in some way, but this whole race debate is entirely superseded by the fact that China already has 2 babies with a CCR5 Aids resistance / Neuroplasticity gene walking around. Genetic endowment is going to become meaningless as soon as designer babies become a reality. The real questions are what unforeseen issues lay on the horizon with gene environment interaction and gene gene interaction.

Cool fantasy.

>Also, I wouldn't be afraid of the White Race disappearing, seeing as they will incorporate plenty of traits from all races that are perceived advantageous, so who knows what will happen.

Do you feel the same about other races or is it just white people?

Attached: jew-stereotype.jpg (1600x900, 243K)