Followup studies on the marshmallow test also showed that how well kids do depends on whether they trust adults. In less stable environments, kids learn that adults don’t (or cannot) keep their word. They simply do not believe the researcher who says there will be 2 marshmallows later.
Better take 1 marshmallow now than risk losing even that one. If your life experience thusfar shows this is a more likely outcome.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-marshmallow-test-suggests-t...
Culture and race are not synonymous.
The argument is that there are population clines, which are biological, and then those population clines are divided into races by choosing to ignore or use specific traits at a certain point along the cline. This choice isn't biological, which makes race a social construct.
The underlying population clines aren't always along the same gradient. Skin colour and physical size might be gradients that run a different way across a continent; skin colour might change north to south to north again due to sun intensity, while physical size might change based on altitude and terrain. There's no disagreement that both skin colour and size are partly biological, but the decision to use one over the other to differentiate races is social.
happiness and IQ, which unlike race is not a social construct
Which one of those is not a social construct, you'd say? Happiness -- which relies on self-reporting, or IQ -- for which a person can change their score by 10-20 points by studying test preps?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4822363/
The "asleep" lie is that "black" means anything genetically. Every trait you want to attribute to "black people" is also found in people who wouldn't qualify as "black" culturally.
> it's consistent with scientific study
Source?
That race isn't biological isn't really up for debate, scientifically. You can believe that scientific consensus is too "woke" or has a systemic bias against the idea or whatever, but the consensus is soundly at "race is not biological".
I'm personally conservative in my political views, but I don't think that means I must reject scientific consensus.
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7682789/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X2...
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/EP09...
https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/does-race-exist/
https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:LabXchange:6fb7b...
https://www.kff.org/quick-take/race-is-a-social-category-not...
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/new-ama...
"Modern genetics has established that the biological basis of most phenotypic traits typically associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture, has demonstrated that they transcend ancestry across vast geographic distances spanning continents."
The fact that the above is also true of genes that cross species lines is, presumably, not an argument that 'species' is a purely social construct with no foundation in biology.
Another asserts that humans can't be divided into subspecies, ergo race doesn't exist. That is not science, it's wordplay.
Populations of humans were separated for millennia with very little intermixing. These populations diverged genetically, to the degree that the descendants of one population can easily be visually distinguished from one another. These groups have fuzzy edges, but they are obviously, undeniably rooted in biological reality.
That's a tough thing to read on HN, I have to be honest.
How can you cite the human genome project as evidence of the supposed a-biological nature of race? How is it possible that you can believe this, while also understanding that 23andMe can not only tell your ancestors continent of origin (a rough analog for race), but their specific region?
If you bothered to read these articles critically (instead of turning off your brain in response to a specious appeal to authority) you would see that they don't even deny that racial populations are genetically distinct. They are discernible in purely biological terms, which by definition makes them biological. The desire to present race as non-biological is purely political/ethical and not scientific, is why their arguments stoop to semantic games and emotional appeals.
You won't actually respond to the substance of my comment, because you don't want to think about this topic. I get it. It's deeply taboo, and we are hardwired not to question taboos. Think about it anyway!
Which genetic markers constitute a black person? Which constitute a white person? You clearly think such is the case, so I’m curious to understand how your definition of race functions.
The NIH article you seem to dislike has this as its opening paragraph:
> In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that “pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.” The statement continues: “... The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries... Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.”
How you could deny this as not the scientific consensus, or not a full rejection of race as a biological concept fascinates me.
The races are visually distinguishable. This is possible because there are genetic (i.e. biological) differences between the groups, which are expressed as differences in skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc. These genes aren't what defines race per se, they're merely proof that race--commonly understood in terms of membership in a geographically defined population--cannot be said to be some arbitrary social distinction with no basis in biology.
The paragraph you cite is a rhetorical slight of hand. They argue that that "pure races... do not exist". But nobody argues that "pure races" exist. This is the strawman fallacy in its most basic form.
I'm equally fascinated by your position! After a bit of thought, I might understand where we're getting mixed up.
It's possible that our disagreement comes down to a difference in what we mean when we say that race is/isnt "a biological concept". If the differences between races are insignificant compared to those between genus or species (I have no idea if this is true for all species distinctions, but i'll concede the point), and there is no existing concept in biology to account for such trifling differences as our racial differences, the it can be reasonably asserted that "race is not a biological concept". Another way to say this is "there are biological (genetic) differences between human racial populations, but they are so small that there is no analogous concept in biology/taxonomy."
Thus defined, the idea that "race is not a biological concept" is a narrow and purely semantic assertion. The problem arises when you conflate this semantic assertion with unrelated ideas like "race is meaningless" or "race isn't real". It was your use of the phrase in this latter manner that prompted my response.
Original comment:
> This is a White America thing and it is why we are in the situation we are in as a country but people want to pretend that race and culture doesn't play any role in anything.
Your response:
> It's not a White America thing to reject race as a biological concept, it's consistent with scientific study.
So you're saying the words "race is not a biological concept", but are you saying it in the narrow semantic sense in which it is true? It doesn't seem like it--an assertion about biology nomenclature would make little sense in context! It sounds like what you meant was something like "race is meaningless." But that is an entirely different assertion which (as I have been vainly arguing in previous comments) is not proven nor directly asserted by the papers you linked.
I suppose I'm trying to say that even though "race isn't a biological concept" is true in a narrow sense, it doesnt support your (apparent) assertion that race is meaningless.
Race is absolutely real, in that it is a social construct. Race is not, as you say, a biological concept. There are no sets of genetic traits that mark someone as of one race or another, but race has been loosely defined by various groups at various times to include traits that are heritable, such as skin tone and facial structure. Almost always, the group defining race are doing so in an effort to subjugate or stratify others in contrast with themselves, so usually racial classifications are done ignorantly and hatefully.
But, as a biological concept that can be defined, you're right that race does not exist. Though you argue this is semantics and therefore unimportant, which I find odd.
You don't consider semantic issues to be important. Wild! Words seem very important to me and to the people I talk to, I've not really ever met someone in my life who didn't think what words meant was important.
Doubly so when the topic is race and the position is that race is biological (you’re not even the first, sadly).
This modern mentality of "all cultures are equal and valid and none are superior to any other" is just ridiculous
Culture is something we are always looking to improve on. In this way, we are comparing our existing culture against hypothetical future cultures and deciding that one of them is more desirable
If we can compare a real culture with a hypothetical culture, then we can certainly compare two real cultures using similar criteria
Japanese culture is orderly, neat, autonomous and their children are taught to wait at an early age. That's awesome! We should emulate Japan, clearly their culture is superior. Nevermind the salary-man trope, misogyny, Hikikomori, and rigidity that comes with it.
Instead of thinking about cultures in terms of ranking, try to understand the history of why a culture is a certain way and appreciate why other cultures are not like that.
My dad always says that “Bangladeshis don’t know how to name kids.” We don’t have surnames, but instead two given names. And everyone uses a nickname anyway that’s unrelated to the legal names. That is just inefficient and unwieldy in a modern world where social circles are larger than a village. So I have my dad’s last name and so do my kids. None of us like the name and it has no historical value but it makes things more efficient going forward.
Did your dad choose your last name? (Which, I've read, has a specific meaning in Hebrew, but I'm guessing your family isn't Jewish.)
My wife’s last name is in the Domesday book, and they have extensive record of their family’s activities in the U.S.—which is a cool thing you can do when you have surnames! I feel somewhat guilty that the west coast line of the name will die out in favor of a name that has no family significance to anyone, but oh well.
The cultural relativism mentality that suggests we cannot judge other people's actions negatively "because that's their culture" is bullshit
In that spirit, I welcome your dissertation on how the Germany of 2024 is equal to the Germany of 1944.
Location: "Think about Japan", "Compare that to the US" - this is a pretty straightforward comparison by location about culture based on location.
It presumes a bunch and I'm grunching (and showing my age by using that term), and I'm not trying to disagree with you . . . just highlight the comparison you said you could not see.
> The marshmallow test also doesn’t account for cultural differences. In some cultures, waiting is baked into daily life. Think about Japan, where kids are often taught to wait quietly for meals or gifts. Compare that to the US, where instant gratification is practically a way of life. These cultural norms shape how kids approach situations like the marshmallow test. It’s not just about personality; it’s about the world they live in.
That's it. That's the entire quote about the effect of culture.
I see no mention of race or location—I see an argument that "the world they live in" affects children's ability to wait, and that culture is an important aspect of the world that kids live in.
Given that this is the actual text you're responding to, I'm not actually sure you disagree with them, because you go on to point out that smartphones are a dangerous component of modern culture.