Markup /zellig/55301

Comment
>>55209
>race as we currently understand definitely is not the greatest framework for looking at genetics. the simple categories of "black", "white", "asian" etc. come nowhere close to providing an adequate lense for looking at genetic differences, because their socially constructed categories based on simple factors like skin tone, which are shared in population as disparate as sub-saharan africans and aboriginal australians
>socially constructed category
When you call a category a "socially constructed category", you imply there are some categories that are not socially constructed. It is not possible to have such a category, simply because categories are names belonging to a language about which there is (or isn't) a social consensus as to what they mean. Therefore, it makes no sense to use the term, unless you use it for its emotional salience, to label some categories as "fake" and other as "true".
>the simple categories of "black", "white", "asian" etc. come nowhere close to providing an adequate lense for looking at genetic differences
Obviously, full genome sequencing will give you more information about a person than just a racial label. It doesn't mean that there don't exist such groups as "black", "white" or "Asian" sharing common evolutionary history and thus exhibiting genetic and phenotypic similarities.
>categories based on simple factors like skin tone
Actually, they are based on genetic distances, skin tone (and other phenotypic features like skull shape, intelligence or propensity for violence) is just an evolutionary adaptation developed to deal with the features of environment a given population evolved in (like the intensity of sunlight) and as you have noticed yourself, different populations evolving in separate, but similar environments can develop similar phenotypes.