How do you define race? You said its a social construct, so Im curious to how you would categorise some of the obvious physical characteristics such as skin colour.

How do you define race? — DingoJones

I never constructed a definition of it before, and I'd have to search for one I agree with, but I'd say that it's something like, "An attempt to categorize humans by genetic connections where:
(a) there's a focus on extremely superficial characteristics,
(b) there's a lot of brushing aside of the many variations of those superficial characteristics among members of the same gerrymandered categories in question,
(c) there's a lot of brushing aside of similar superficial characteristics among members of different gerrymandered categories, and
(d) there's a lot of ignorance about the actual complex genetic connections between people all around the world (where the facts that we apparently all initially stem from a relatively small population in a single geographical area and the subsequently scattered offshoot populations have regularly, complexly interbred with each other are more or less ignored, in the context of a lot of genetic ignorance in general)."

I cannot be bothered with the concept of race, — NOS4A2

You're going to have a hard time understanding Othello.

Well race just describes a certain set of differences between humans, like skin colour. Isnt that the standard definition?

If we leave out all of the detail, yes, but it's where there's supposed to be a significant genetic connection, and it's where we're brushing over differences among members in group A, brushing over similarities between members of group B and member of group A (re skin color, etc.), and ignoring the complex genetic interconnections there actually are between group B and A.

Sorry you lost me...those things you describe dont sound like social constructs, they sound like real, physical differences.

Well race just describes a certain set of differences between humans, like skin colour. Isnt that the standard definition?

That’s the colloquial version, I think. But there is no gene that determines race.

What do you mean? Ones “race” is determined by genes, just like every other biological trait...no? If not, then what determines skin colour or other “racial” physical traits?

I’m not a geneticist. I was just reading Wikipedia.

Genetic analysis enables scientists to estimate the geographic ancestry of a person by using ancestry-informative markers, and by inference the probable racial category into which they will be classified in a given society. In that way there is a distinct statistical correlation between gene frequencies and racial categories. However, because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race.[5][6][7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

Again, per the definition I gave this is an attempt to categorize things this way where we ignore/are ignorant of a bunch of stuff that makes the attempt not make much sense.

It's not that genetics aren't real or that they don't result in any sort of appearance differences. It's that that doesn't at all map to the nonsense of "races."

Bear with me, Im dumbfounded by what you are saying.
What is the nonsense of races? Why are you attempting to make a definition that ignores physical distinctions? And what part of that makes it a social construct?

Ok, no single gene. Racial traits are a too diverse to attribute to a single gene. Makes sense.

Why are you attempting to make a definition that ignores Physical distinctions? — DingoJones

So as I explained above, for one, in particular supposed "racial" categories, there's actually a very wide degree of variation among members in the supposed physical characteristics. Those differences are due to genetic differences.

And two, just like there is a far wider range or variety than the idea has it within a particular supposed "racial" group, there's also far more similarity between members of "different racial groups" with respect to those characteristics than the popular notion has it, and often those similarities are due to genetic connections.

The genetic map of humankind is extremely complex and it in no way coherently divides into "races" (even if we buy the idea of natural kinds, which is a necessary ontological idea to buy for the idea to make sense in the first place).

What I'm saying here isn't at all controversial in the biological sciences, by the way. People used to pay attention to it generally, but once the new racial narratives started taking over, which seemed to get launched around the early 1990s, folks started ignoring the fact that the biological sciences say that the idea of race doesn't make sense.

Ok, no single gene. Racial traits are a too diverse to attribute to a single gene. Makes sense.

I think the biggest problem with the category “race” is that there is more genetic diversity within races than between them. So for instance, a tall black man is genetically closer to a tall white man, than a shorter black man.

Also with the standard "race" characteristics of skin color, hair type, nose shape, eye color. There's a huge amount of variation within a supposed "race" on those characteristics. The idea of "race" relies on ridiculous, caricatured stereotypes when it comes to that stuff.

Absolutely.

I don’t believe the species can be subdivided into races in any coherent manner, but apparently the debate is still ongoing. In philosophy it’s race realists vs race skeptics (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/). I’m not sure of where this debate is, but it would be worthwhile to check it out. I’ve read Kwami Appiah’s “The Lies that Bind”, but never really looked into the race debate in its entirety.

Aside from the fact that if you go back far enough, we all apparently come from the same place, from the same general population (circa eastern (although by some accounts southern) Africa about 3 million years ago), as humankind spread out geographically and had a chance to diverge genetically, folks kept exploring and interacting (whether in a friendly manner or not) and being horndogs, so that any divergent genetics wound up back in a melting pot. The idea that genetics diverged and stayed "pure" in their divergence over time as we continued to spread out geographically is a bunch of hogwash.

Ok, so you are saying that there is more genetic diversity outside the “race” paradigm than inside it? And therefore...those differences in race are by comparison...some sort of arbitrary or unnecessary distinction?
I understand that “race” is much less genetically important than other genetic factors in a persons biological make up but its still a physical set of traits that are distinct.
Also, I dont think that “racial”differences are just superficial, appearance based. Some are, like hair texture and skin colour, but others are not, like specific genetic diseases or physical prowess.

Aside from the fact that if you go back far enough, we all apparently come from the same place, from the same general population (circa eastern (although by some accounts southern) Africa about 3 million years ago), as humankind spread out geographically and had a chance to diverge genetically, folks kept exploring and interacting and being horndogs, so that any divergent genetics wound up back in a melting pot. The idea that genetics diverged and stayed "pure" in their divergence over time as we continued to spread out geographically is a bunch of hogwash. — Terrapin Station

Well thats a description of race in my mind. Race is the distinctions that developed over time as the same species (human) adapted to different evolutionary stimuli.

I even think the idea that different biological sexes have significant dispositional and ability differences is mostly hogwash.

It's indicative of the tendency that people have to categorize and divide, but where it's just a bunch of nonsense. It's like when people make statements about Americans, or the French, or New Yorkers versus San Franciscans, or Yankees fans versus Cardinals fans, or anything like that--as if the fact that someone lives in America rather than France is going to tell you important things about their personality, their views, etc. It's a bunch of nonsense.

We even see it here in threads like that current one about atheism, where there are repeated attempts to paint all atheists with the same brush, merely by virtue of the fact that they're atheists.

The reason we make these gaffes is understandable--it's a relic of the necessity of thinking about things as kinds/types, because otherwise there's just too much information to have to parse on every new occasion, but we should also be able to easily see, on an intellectual level, just how stupid it is to suppose that all Americans, all French, etc. are the same in important respects, and different from each some important respects, where we're claiming that such things are simply correlated to being from America, from France (or being a Yankees fan, etc.)

There are tendencies and trends that a population to have, is accounting for that why you say “mostly” hogwash/nonsense?

There are tendencies and trends that a population to have, is accounting for that why you say “mostly” hogwash/nonsense? — DingoJones

Just avoiding objections from a strict literalist reading. For example, obviously women can do things associated with giving birth that men can not do.

To me you are describing stereotypes, not race. Stereotypes are trends/tendencies about groups/population.

That's the whole idea. As I wrote to NOS4A2 above:

"Also with the standard 'race' characteristics of skin color, hair type, nose shape, eye color. There's a huge amount of variation within a supposed 'race' on those characteristics. The idea of 'race' relies on ridiculous, caricatured stereotypes when it comes to that stuff."

Well some peoples ideas about race rely on the stereotypes, but it doesnt seem like stereotypes are intrinsic to “race” to me. Id call that conflating race and race stereotypes.
Anyway, thanks for being patient, I understand.

The logical dilemma is that you can't forward an idea of "race" that's accurate about what people and their genetic traits are like with the idea being coherent, because people considered the same "race" are at least as varied with respect to each other as people of different "races." So the idea has to rest on inaccurate stereotypes about the traits in question.

(i.e. signified) by some members of the racial majority e.g. white cops (US) - and thereby conducting oneself accordingly. — 180 Proof

As far as I remember, there's evidence black cops are more likely to use lethal force than white ones.

Also black men aren't more likely to be killed by police than white men when controlling for crime rate, they're actually less likely.

In bulk numbers, about 500 white men are killed by police in the USA every year, compared to 360 black men. Those rates have nothing to do with population and almost everything to do with violent crime rate. See men vs women.

Well they wouldn't be varied as you describe on certain traits (racial ones), and the trends/tendencies (stereotypes) wouldnt be something thats always applied to all members of the race since thats not what a trend or tendency is (they arent things we expect to always be the case fir all members of the race).
So it seems like a conflation of race traits and race stereotypes you are making, and then rejecting the concept of “race”.
I understand that might be my own idiosyncratic distinction, just for the record.

"race" are at least as varied with respect to each other as people of different "races." — Terrapin Station

I've never seen the scientific evidence for this, I hear it often but I'm sure it's a myth.

Now, the colonial way races were divided up which we still use may indeed not accurately reflect people's degree of biological relation (whichi si what race is). The best example of this is how much racial diversity there is in Africa among all "black" people.

But a nore accurate definition of race would be haplogroup. And that's what a race is in every meaningful way - a group of people defined by how related they are to each other compared to other groups. And haplogroups exist, which means race exists. People within that haplogroup will have more in common with each other genetically than they do with anybody from a different haplogroup.

The risk is the essentialism involved in racism, I think. There is an essence, characteristic, or set of “racial traits” for members of races, when such essences cannot be found with any exactitude, if at all.