How They Plan to Shut Us Up.

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Then debate me. Let's begin. Address one of my claims and provide a counterargument.

I don't really have the time to engage with alt right folk, but once or twice a year I pick someone to tear apart intellectually, just to see if the alt right has improved any of their talking points (it's been more of a continuous decline). I pick you

I just reccommend that you avoid the subject of genetics entirely because that discussion in particular will be extremely one-sided. I did talk to an alt right guy a few years ago who was getting his PhD in biostats, he did alright. Still lost to me, but I already have my PhD, so.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Let's pick genetics then. Any unsupervised machine learning algorithm will cluster peoples genetics into clusters similar to what we know as "races".

Swedes are more genetically similar to each other than they are to negros.

A European is on average around 100,000 years of evolution separated from negros.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Incorrect. Those algorithims are very much supervised. Let's take STRUCTURE as an example (but they all work this way). A human MUST tell the algorithim what k to produce. You can try to pass the buck to instead give the algorithim a way to calculate k, but it will still being doing so with the criteria a human gave it. The problem isn't that there is some undiscovered objective k value. The problem is that the way ML packages are set up to begin with makes the assumption of k mandatory.

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

A European is not on average 100,000 years of evolution seperated from anyone. You couldn't even calculate a variable like that. It is a meaningless number. You would have to estimate when a population diverged, then try to extrapolate how much influence genetic drift, convergent evolution, and local extirpations produced genetic alignment even amidst two distinct breeding populations. Then you would have to translate that speculative metric of diversity (itself a difficult calculation--do we count repeats in the code? Inversions? Transpositions?) from 'genetic difference' into 'years,' as if the rate of human evolution were a static variable that tracked well onto time. Which it certainly does not, given that the past 100,000 years of evolution were immensely consequential only at highly staggered intervals. Sometimes evolution moves in leaps, sometimes in baby steps, sometimes not at all. But all of this is going way over your head I'm sure. Standard alt right

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Incorrect. Those algorithims are very much supervised.

You don't know what the terms even mean. Please read up on what a supervised algorithm is.

A human MUST tell the algorithim what k to produce.

That's not supervised.

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

A European is not on average 100,000 years of evolution seperated from anyone.

I have this number from the experts in the field, David Reich and Svante Päabo, from one of their lectures.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I know exactly what supervised learning is. YOU are the one taking a specific computer science term ('supervised') and pretending that it connects back to the dictionary definition. It doesn't. Those algorithims ARE supervised in that humans provide the k value. They correspond to the dictionary definition of supervision, which is the one you were trying to shoehorn in under the guise of the specialized term. That's what I was calling you out on. The k value is determined by humans in 100% of cases. Find me one where it wasn't. I have citations ready to take down that argument from the last time an alt righter lost this exact same debate to me--and he was a grad student in computational statistics. Smart guy! Still wrong.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

You actually want to talk about subspecies?? Eh... let's not. You can take that move back. I would take your queen with that so I'll pretend you didn't even say this. I mean, unless you DO want to talk about subspecies. Your call.

I have this number from the experts in the field, David Reich and Svante Päabo, from one of their lectures.

Yes, scientists make bullshit claims that they are rightly called out for. Some people, such as yourself, are hoodwinked. I gave examples of specific scientific processes that would need to be settled to even begin to assess this metric of difference in years, do you have an appropriately technical rebuttal? How would you account for genetic drift in this calculation of years of difference? Are you factoring in inversions, transpositions, and repeats of genes? You know, the genetic similarity between humans and chimps can vary wildly, 10% or more, based on how you choose to quantify what a single gene is. There are position effects, VNTRs, etc etc. Genetics is a lot more complicated than you realize.

Look, you are clearly smart. You remind me of some of my brighter students. I wish lefties put in even a fraction of the thought that you have put into genetics. But the truth is that this field is WAY more complex than you realize. Of course genes modulate behavior and that behavior can be predicted based on ancestry. But that doesn't mean that race is a scientific concept in genetics, it isn't. It's a social science concept. I'm not here to tell you that you can't predict a person's temperament by looking at them. You probably can. But your annoyance with the fact that society refuses to say that out loud does NOT mean that you get to play fast and loose with genetics as a science.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know exactly what supervised learning is.

You clearly do not. Please learn what supervised vs. unsupervised is.

I will repeat this since you did not refute it and you simply agreed with our position on race:

We can genetically distinguish Scots within their own village and classify them into different races. Swedish folk in one town are more genetically similar to another than they are to Swedish folk generally. It's all a matter of how closely you choose to zoom the telescope in. You NEVER find a hard boundary on this topic until you zoom out enough to find an actual subspecies, which unfortunately for you is not a well defined concept in genetics.

Welcome to the alt-right. You perfectly described our beliefs about race.

As for this:

Yes, scientists make bullshit claims that they are rightly called out for.

I agree, that I have not myself done the calculations, and that I will have to defer to the authority of Svante Paabo for the claim of 100k years of divergent evolution between Europeans and Subsaharan africans (on average)- that is not to say zero gene flow has happend. Considering he's politically on the opposite side of the spectrum of me, he is likely UNDERESTIMATING, if anything. But to confirm I would have to do the calculations myself, which I'm not going to do- at least not this year.

Of course genes modulate behavior and that behavior can be predicted based on ancestry. But that doesn't mean that race is a scientific concept in genetics, it isn't. It's a social science concept.

The social science concept "race" is very different from the biological concept "race". One is based on ancestry and genetics (biological race) and the other is based on how people PERCEIVE you.
South Indians look black, so they would be black in social science BUT they are not black according to the biological concept of race. And they weren't grouped with negros either, historically.
I think you come to this debate with preconceived notions and are highly influenced by our modern culture.

Look, you are clearly smart. You remind me of some of my brighter students.

Thank you

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/851p/the_depressing_story_of_the_american_continent/ua42

This user has been here before arguing genetics and he doesn't even grasp basic concepts such as mixed race. It reminds me of the recent study that tried to debunk the concept of race by using the argument that mixed race people exist-- literally, that's the level of sophistication we're dealing with here.

Leftism is a mental disorder.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I am a geneticist. Race is not a scientific concept in genetics. There are some papers that tried to argue for a definition of race by using machine learning software packages, but these arguments relied on statistical analysis and hinge entirely upon feeding a computer the number of races you want to see. Race is politically and historically important, but it is not a scientific term in genetics. It has no definition in genetic science. There have been many proposed definitions that all suffer from the same problems, the biggest one being that there is no objective measurement of racial division in humans. The subspecies concept is the closest thing approaching a definition of race that one might use in genetics, but it doesn't apply to humans. Some of the more sophisticated 'Race Realist' thought involves trying to compare the fixation index for humans against the fixation index for known subspecies of some animal populations. The fixation index is a calculated variable in genetics that measures the extent to which genes are ubiquitous within a species ('at fixation,' as opposed to various alleles). That is a misguided effort for a variety of reasons which I won't bother to spell out because I have probably lost you already. It was a good attempt on their part though, or at least shows a slightly better understanding of genetics science than I usually see from the alt right. I'm usually dealing with people at a different level. Around about say... well, your level.

Funnily enough, here on saidit most of the race realists I debate quickly realize that they need to try and get away from the genetics discussion because they immediately are out of their league. So they maneuever the conversation to history, politics, society. Which is hilarious, they go the route of the postmodernists. It's a more fruitful realm of debate for them though, I don't have as much to say about all that.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am a geneticist. Race is not a scientific concept in genetics.

Take two Bantu people native from Africa and drop them in Norway. Ask them to produce a child.

If the child doesn't come out with fair skin, a larger brain capacity, different shaped skull, blonde hair and blue eyes like the rest of the natives living in Europe, then what non-genetic explanation is at fault? Money? Politics? Schools?

Sorry but it's a complete embarrassment to say that race has has no relation to genes. Implying otherwise is to say the people who can give birth to fair skin blond hair kids naturally, is some kind of coincidence or pure luck. Those same Europeans have been giving birth to kids who look like exactly them for thousands of years.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Strawman. You are talking about basic Mendellian genetics. Nobody here ever said that doesn't exist. Your conflation of that with a nonexistant genetic concept of human race is your own error, not mine. If you assume that other people have made the same error, then of course you will be unable to see your mkstake.

I never said race has no relation to genes. Of course it does. Guitars have a relation to genes. The shape of a guitar is crafted to match a human anatomy that is genetically determined. But guitars are not a scientific concept in genetics. EVERYTHING about humans implicates genetics. That doesn't mean everything is a scientific concept in genetics pertaining to human beings.

You're not going to win this, bro. You'll learn a few things, but you won't win.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never said race has no relation to genes. Of course it does. Guitars have a relation to genes. The shape of a guitar is crafted to match a human anatomy that is genetically determined. But guitars are not a scientific concept in genetics.

A guitar is not even a biological creature. Trying to mold it to look like a Human is just producing a fake copy of one.

The people who live and are native to Norway are real. Bringing a clearly Black Person from the heart of Africa and asking them to produce a White baby in front of them is an impossible task.

Evolution explains these blanks perfectly. Europe and Africa have enough environmental differences and pressures, that over thousands of years, natural selection took over and 2 different groups (or more accurately, "Races") where a result of this.

EVERYTHING about humans implicates genetics.

And those Humans can be easily classified into smaller and more identifiable groups because of that.

Notice how the conversation focused entirely on what is natural? I don't actually care about wealth status or levels of education received. That's how powerful the scientific concept of race is. You just can't pay a Black Couple a million dollars to have a White baby. There is no money in the world that can change genes like that...

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Race is not a scientific concept in genetics.

According to which authority? You? Who made you the supreme authority of science? Science knows no consensus nor authority. Sorry to take away your religion and your church.

There have been many proposed definitions that all suffer from the same problems, the biggest one being that there is no objective measurement of racial division in humans.

There is no such thing as "objective measurement" for anything.

Genetic clusters of races perfectly match the historical concepts in science known as human races. The fact that this is the reality we live in is something you have to deal with in order to debunk the concept.
I can pull up a 1933 scientific map of the human races and they will correspond to the genetic maps that are generated by unsupervised machine learning models.

Your "so-called" rebuttal is entirely semantic and without substance. It is a political position, not a scientific one.

[–]milkmender11 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to which authority? You? Who made you the supreme authority of science? Science knows no consensus nor authority. Sorry to take away your religion and your church.

Ok. Then define race scientifically within genetics. Not a fringe paper, a pet theory. Provide the established scientific definition of race as it is understood in genetics.

There is no such thing as "objective measurement" for anything.
What are you now, Heidegger? If we are doing science, we MUST presume objective measurements. At the very least we can take an anti-realist philosophy and accept that our presumptions may ultimately be wrong, but we still have to do it for science to work. Did you want to talk science or philosophy?? Well, it wouldn't be the first time that an alt righter tried to get me off the science and onto some other topic. Honestly, that's EVERY time. And it is indeed a smart move, because you weren't going to win on the science.

Genetic clusters of races perfectly match the historical concepts in science known as human races.

DING DING DING!! Lol. Honestly, I didn't write the prior paragraph before seeing this part of your post. No lie. I just know from many of these debates that yall always try to move the conversation away from science and to philosophy or HISTORY, as you do here. Since when does history change scientific facts? History is a humanity, not a science. Of COURSE clusters match historical partitions because HUMANS SET THE K VALUE. They intentionally male the clusters resemble historical categories. This happens in 100% of all machine learning cluster operations for race. You can pass the buck by asking the algorithim to calculate its own k... based on the parameters you provide. Which is just providing k with extra steps.

I'm not saying that there are 0 races. I'm saying that there are anywhere from 0 races to as many races as there are genetic profiles, and there are precisely 0 scientific techniques to make any of those numbers more empirically justified than any other. You are astute in that you seem to realize that you MUST leave science and look to history in order to find the k that you want. Geez this is a mirror image of the same conversation I have with every alt righter on this subject. You guys are always so smart but it works against you sometimes. There really is no substitute for cracking open a modern genetics textbook.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok. Then define race scientifically within genetics. Not a fringe paper, a pet theory. Provide the established scientific definition of race as it is understood in genetics.

You have it backwards. No wonder you're confused. Race is the caucasian race, and within it we have the english race, the scottish race, and so on. It is based on divergent/common ancestry and you can zoom out or in as you please.
We then see if genetics correspond to and agree with our understanding of race, and wouldn't you know? It perfectly does. We aren't imposing a structure onto the genetics to make it fit our understanding of race. We aren't creating a definition based on our knowledge of genetics. In fact, the strength of the concept of race is that it came BEFORE genetics but even then, genetics confirm our concept. This is the strength. This is called scientific. No overfitting, no ad-hoc changes based on empiri, etc. Simply does the 'model fit the new data' and yes it does.

If we are doing science, we MUST presume objective measurements.

Not how science works. Any measurement is based on presumptions and earlier hypothesises. You might consider something "objective" but it is only within your paradigm.

I just know from many of these debates that yall always try to move the conversation away from science and to philosophy or HISTORY, as you do here.

No. I did not invoke history. I invoked the scientific understanding of race before our universities in the west were taken over by marxists after ww2.
"historical concepts in science known as human races"
If you have problems with reading comprehension, then try to re-read paragraphs to increase your comprehension.

If you haven't noticed, I don't subscribe to your "scientific" (political) priests or so-called authorities or "consensus". I adhere to actual science. If you want to debunk the concept of race, then don't change the definition or the concept, and then debunk that. This is a strawman and entirely semantic. Instead work with the definition and understanding that scientists used before your "priests" changed the definitions.

Of COURSE clusters match historical partitions because HUMANS SET THE K VALUE. They intentionally male the clusters resemble historical categories. This happens in 100% of all machine learning cluster operations for race.

This simply shows that you do not even understand what an unsupervised algorithm is or how machine learning works. Why do you think I said unsupervised instead of using the word supervised algorithm? It is specifically to avoid what you are postulating here, but you fail to understand the distinction- likely because this is not your field of expertise.
To make it easy for you to understand: we aren't intentionally making the clusters resemble historical categories. Literally the opposite. If you continue to fail to see the distinction here, then please let me know, and I may spend some time to elaborate on the basics of machine learning.
There is in fact ZERO reasons why the clusters should or ought to or would resemble the historical clusters IF race was not a thing. But because race is a real thing, then the clusters do resemble historical categories. Please take some time to consider these two sentences thoroughly.
Your confusion might also come from a lack of ability to understand conditional dependencies. Have you ever taken any courses in conditional probability?

There really is no substitute for cracking open a modern genetics textbook.

Appeal to authority. I don't adhere to your religion or your priests.

Your problem is that our human genetics perfectly match the historical categories, and your only arguments so far have been appeal to authority, consensus, semantics, and worst of all: complete lack of understanding of the basic algorithms used in the field of genetics. I'm looking forward to you coming with any scientific arguments.