Do you believe in race?

[Goidelic]

1. Is race a politically incorrect term to use in your opinion?

2. Is biological ancestry a substitute for race in your opinion?

3. Do you believe race is a genetically determined set of features within a given population that distinguishes other populations?

4. Do you view race as a breeding isolate of a nation(s) or An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits?

5. Do you view race as a social construct, biological construct or combination of both?

6. Do you view race as just human genetic variation within homo sapiens sapiens encoding for phenotypes and unique genetic diseases within populations?

7. Do you believe the term race carries negative connotations?

8. Other, please explain.

9. Do you think race(s) exist?

Thanks

[Psychonaut]

8. Other, please explain.

I take my stance on systems of classification from Hans Vaihinger[1]:

The most widely used of those "provisional methods" which we have called "semi-fictions" is artificial classification. The ultimately valid construct corresponding to it, and eventually to take its place, is the natural system. All cosmic objects present special forms which are theoretically expressed in some classification, and when this specification corresponds with reality in every respect then it is a natural system. The natural system is in itself one of the most complicated problems of philosophy and of natural science, and from it arises the vital question of the nature of species.

A natural system is one in which entities are arranged according to the principles apparently followed by nature in their development. To put it briefly, the natural system of classification must be a copy corresponding to the actual origins and mutual relationship of all things. This is the goal of science and any direct method must work straight towards it.

It is at this point that all the considerations so far advanced are justified. The material at our disposal puts so many formidable obstacles in the direct path that the logical function strikes out along by-ways. It makes use of an artifice; it creates artificial classes. Now what does this mean? In our psychological terminology it means that it provisionally substitutes for the correct constructs others which do not directly correspond to reality. It then operates with these fictional classes as if they were real ones. We can here only draw attention to the well-known fact that the artificial and fictive classification always selects from a whole group of characters some one that is particularly prominent, and bases its division upon this without paying any attention to the way in which these characters are naturally determined by one another. These provisional classificatory aids not only serve the practical purpose of permitting objects to be arranged and brought under definite rubrics, and provide at the same time a sort of mnemonic device, but they also possess a theoretical value, in so far as they perform a heuristic service by preparing for and facilitating the discovery of a natural system. Artificial systems are generally based on these concepts of species, which themselves only bring superficial order provisionally into the confused mass of phenomena.

As long as such fictions are treated as hypotheses without a realization of their nature, they are false hypotheses. They derive real value only if it is realized that they have been deliberately constructed as provisional representations which at some future time are to make room for better and more natural systems.

So, yes, our current idea of race is a construct. No, it is not just a construct, so long as it is realized that it is a temporary facade of order that is reaching towards a perfect presentation of the natural schema of human variation.

1. Hans Vaihinger. The Philosophy of "As If." (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), 17-19.

[Östsvensk]

1. Is race a politically incorrect term to use in your opinion?

2. Is biological ancestry a substitute for race in your opinion?

3. Do you believe race is a genetically determined set of features within a given population that distinguishes other populations?

4. Do you view race as a breeding isolate of a nation(s) or An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits?

5. Do you view race as a social construct, biological construct or combination of both?

6. Do you view race as just human genetic variation within homo sapiens sapiens encoding for phenotypes and unique genetic diseases within populations?

7. Do you believe the term race carries negative connotations?

8. Other, please explain.

9. Do you think race(s) exist?

Thanks

1. I'd say so. On a Swedish TV program that was aired in the end of last year, they discussed whether races exists or not. One of the deniers admitted that there were races, but that he or she disliked the term "race". A more politically correct (and perhaps more correct otherwise) term for race would be genetic isolate.

2. No. I should admit that I like to speak of tribes and ethnicites, but that is a more political thing. I "admit" that Middle-Easterners are Caucasoid, but I don't consider them belonging to the same "stock" as me. Neither I don't see Eastern and Western Africans to be the same. Taking the politics aside though, I wouldn't deny the terms "Caucasoid" and "Negroids".

3. I don't really understand the question. Yes and no, I guess. Swedes and Danes doesn't really differ from each other, despite being two separate people's. Swedes and Nigerians differ from each other though.

4. Breeding isolate, I guess.

5. Mostly biological. But like I said, I don't see all people's belonging to the same race as being the same, so I have to add a little social too.

6. Yes, I guess. I believe breeding within own people's and tribes gives the best results for the offspring.

7. Since people shake of fear when hearing it being used on humans, I'd say so.

8. ...

9. Yes, I do.

[Anthropos]

1. Is race a politically incorrect term to use in your opinion?

Not on The Apricity it isn't.

2. Is biological ancestry a substitute for race in your opinion?

Come again? Or see question #5.

3. Do you believe race is a genetically determined set of features within a given population that distinguishes other populations?

Some physical traits, yes. But I don't believe in racial steretyping, nor in 'national character' and similar things.

4. Do you view race as a breeding isolate of a nation(s) or An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits?

Pass. This seems to be about population genetics and not about race.

5. Do you view race as a social construct, biological construct or combination of both?

Races are biological abstractions.

6. Do you view race as just human genetic variation within homo sapiens sapiens encoding for phenotypes and unique genetic diseases within populations?

Do I view ... as 'just' ... What do you mean? I'll pass.

7. Do you believe the term race carries negative connotations?

No.

8. Other, please explain.

Well this is a boring questionnare...

9. Do you think race(s) exist?

Yes.

Thanks

You're welcome.

What are you testing? Why are you asking these questions?

[Monolith]

Osweo has nice cartographulations.

[Poltergeist]

Race does exist as some very vague category denoting phenotypical variations among populations on earth.

Is it something truly important in and of itself, per se, as some supposed "biological fact"? No. No proof that it is about radically different types of humans (apart from the visible differences in phenotype), whereby
those differences would be (allegedly) "inborn" and "natural". I am speaking of differences in mind, psyche etc.

Individual is the only true base for judging humans, not any arbitrarily defined group as "race".

It can though assume identificational/identitarian functions in certain milieux, societies, countries etc, based on specific historical circumstances and ideologies.

Whether it is politically correct or politically incorrect, I couldn't care less.

[Brännvin]

1. I'd say so. On a Swedish TV program that was aired in the end of last year, they discussed whether races exists or not. One of the deniers admitted that there were races, but that he or she disliked the term "race". A more politically correct (and perhaps more correct otherwise) term for race would be genetic isolate.

This one;

Den nya rasbiologin;

I think that it was aired in march from this year. Surprised that this program was broadcast by SVT, I liked it. Or are you talking about other documentary?

[Östsvensk]

This one;

Den nya rasbiologin;

I think that it was aired in march from this year. Surprised with that this program was being broadcast by SVT, I liked it. Or are you talking about other documentary?

I think the program was called "Vetenskap som utmanar".

Articles in Swedish, I have no interest in translating them as it is late and they consist of much text:

http://www.realisten.se/2008/11/10/a...p-som-utmanar/

This article was written because of the program (in favour of those who believe in race, of course):

http://www.realisten.se/2008/11/05/r...es-television/

[SwordoftheVistula]

1. Is race a politically incorrect term to use in your opinion?

7. Do you believe the term race carries negative connotations?

Very much so, in western countries, the slightest mistep can be a career ender for a public figure, being outspoken can cause problems even for the ordinary citizen, and is even an arrestable offense in some countries.

5. Do you view race as a social construct, biological construct or combination of both??

Mostly biological. The only 'fuzzy' area is how to divide up the caucasoid peoples. Whether Southern Europeans, Russians, Jews, Persians, Turks, Arabs, Bosnians, Albanians, and Lebanese etc count as 'white' is somewhat of a social construct.

6. Do you view race as just human genetic variation within homo sapiens sapiens encoding for phenotypes and unique genetic diseases within populations?

Definately much more than that. Most scientific evidence points towards heredity having at least some influence on intellect and behavior, and this on top of all the empirical evidence.

[Goidelic]

1. Is race a politically incorrect term to use in your opinion?

Not on The Apricity it isn't.

2. Is biological ancestry a substitute for race in your opinion?

Come again? Or see question #5.

3. Do you believe race is a genetically determined set of features within a given population that distinguishes other populations?

Some physical traits, yes. But I don't believe in racial steretyping, nor in 'national character' and similar things.

4. Do you view race as a breeding isolate of a nation(s) or An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits?

Pass. This seems to be about population genetics and not about race.

5. Do you view race as a social construct, biological construct or combination of both?

Races are biological abstractions.

6. Do you view race as just human genetic variation within homo sapiens sapiens encoding for phenotypes and unique genetic diseases within populations?

Do I view ... as 'just' ... What do you mean? I'll pass.

7. Do you believe the term race carries negative connotations?

No.

8. Other, please explain.

Well this is a boring questionnare...

9. Do you think race(s) exist?

Yes.

Thanks

You're welcome.

What are you testing? Why are you asking these questions?

I'm curious about people's opinions and it seems many popular well known population geneticists and biologists refrain from using the term "Race" they use other secretive encoded semantic words designating "race(s)/racial variation."

#8. That's great , but it still looks like I'm not completely convinced you believe in races.

#5. Abstraction - an impractical idea; something visionary and unrealistic. Generalisation; ignoring or hiding details to capture some kind of commonality between different instances