A definition of Racism.

[Clippy]

You said that you observed those differences and attacked them, one of the reasons you offered (which I chose purely for convenience) is that you wanted to push that different person away because you wanted people who shared "genetic relatedness" with you.

Studies have shown that there is more variation WITHIN apparent "racial groups" then between them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation). As I explained to you, this is assuming that the apparent differences caused the person to be more genetically "different" from you than people who appear racially closer.

There's your fallacy. There's the definition. You stepped in it. Sorry to break it to you. You can ask and throw a tantrum over and over and it's just going to result in different people trying to explain it to you until you understand it or until you break down so thoroughly that the mods kick you out.

And once again, I have not said that the observed differences are the cause of the genetic distance. I am saying that they allow me to classify this person as being from a different race. You really need to review the definition of correlation/causation fallacy.

What is the point you are trying to make with the highlighted sentence? Are you implying that people from different races are more similar to one another than people from the same race? Are you saying that 2 individuals from different races can be more similar genetically than 2 people from the same race? Clarify the point you are trying to make and I will reply.

I'm sure that you would be very happy to see me kicked out of the forum. This thread is not going well for you. So I'm going to make it a point of being very polite to you. No more comments about your intelligence or psychological state.

[Clippy]

That's interesting, but Clippy has also said this when asked about his racial preference



? ?

ProbeX, I don't know if you think I am advocating this violent action against people from another race. I am not. I am only using this as an example to show that the definition in the OP is inadequate.

[Clippy]

Some recommended reading For EGarrett:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization (example 1 in your definition)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy (what I suspect you are trying to get at in your most recent reply)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation (what your definition requires)

[GreNME]

At the risk of sounding like a nazi, I think Egarret and Gren are being unfair to clip here.

First, clip said:

"Why I prefer people of my own race could have any number of reasons. Could be that I prefer those with whom I enjoy greater kinship (shared ancestry, genetic relatedness)."

The key word here is "greater". I don't think clippy is claiming no relationship between blacks and white, just that white white is a greater relationship than white black.

It's not Clippy we are arguing has this preference, it's her/his hypothetical individual who chooses to assault a black person for an as-yet-unclear reason. So far, Clippy has moved around a bit with vague descriptions of reasoning, and at each point she/he quickly attempts to shift the goalposts around to try to make it not sound like a correlative fallacy while every indication is that the same basic reasoning of "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" is at play.

I realize that Clippy's long game of evasion and tangents make this a bit more difficult to follow, but that's the long and short of the error EGarrett and I have pointed out in Clippy's example.

Then, egarrett says:

"Studies have shown that there is more variation WITHIN apparent "racial groups" then between them. As I explained to you, this is assuming that the apparent differences caused the person to be more genetically "different" from you than people who appear racially closer."

This argument is flatly wrong. I accept that within group differences can be larger than between group differences. The flatly wrong part comes in assuming the between group differences have to be trivial.

Here's an example:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/Sexdiffs/Textbook/chap1_files/image002.jpg

This is the sex difference on height.

Looks to me like the variability within sex (two bell curves) is bigger than the mean difference between the sexes.

But it's profoundly salient that men on average are taller than women on average.

The correlation between lead exposure and IQ (in 5 year olds) is .40. This would result in distributions that overlap massively. By your logic, though, we shouldn't care what's in the paint?

I don't see how you've responded to or explained how EGarrett's statement was "flatly wrong" since you just used two refuting examples that do not display the same thing EGarrett was talking about. He's describing the amount of variation within geographical groupings versus the amount of variation between two distinct geographical groups, and he's correct. Variation is a necessary component for a population to thrive, and as such variations increase within a given population (provided sufficient numbers of people procreating). EGarrett wasn't attributing a value judgment on whether the variation was good or bad-- within populations, variation tends toward good because variation is essential to maintaining a healthy growth level-- he was simply pointing out the fallacy of supposed "genetic relatedness" because the variation in a given cluster can be just as much as between clusters (or more) without the outward appearance differences.

In my opinion, however, one doesn't even need to get that granular (though it's funny watching Clippy get twitchy with contempt), since the original fallacy lies in the "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" conclusion being reached. Clippy is continuing to try to claim that the only conclusion reached is "not like me," which doesn't follow logic given the example she's/he's attributing it to that clearly has made a decision to perform an act of violence based on features. The reason Clippy is being so vehement in trying to focus on the "not like me" as the reasoning is because it's perfectly clear that "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" is the correlation-causation fallacy at play in her/his example. I was hoping that eventually Clippy's insistence that it was simply the difference that was the reason would keep her/him boxing herself/himself in more and more, bpesta, but you've gone ahead and finished the job (of boxing him in) for her/him.

While this won't stop Clippy from digging deeper, does that make more sense bpesta?

ETA: and in case it's not clear, the correlation-causation failure is in assuming that "looks like me" equals good or desirable, which leads to the "therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" in Clippy's little scenario.

[Clippy]

It's not Clippy we are arguing has this preference, it's her/his hypothetical individual who chooses to assault a black person for an as-yet-unclear reason. So far, Clippy has moved around a bit with vague descriptions of reasoning, and at each point she/he quickly attempts to shift the goalposts around to try to make it not sound like a correlative fallacy while every indication is that the same basic reasoning of "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" is at play.

I realize that Clippy's long game of evasion and tangents make this a bit more difficult to follow, but that's the long and short of the error EGarrett and I have pointed out in Clippy's example.

The reason was made very clear in the example (making those from another race feel unwelcome in my neighbourhood), as were possible motivations (preferring those more similar genetically, aesthetic preference for members of my race). If you can't understand that much, then maybe I shouldn't wonder that can't even understand or remember the paper that you yourself have cited (see below).

I don't see how you've responded to or explained how EGarrett's statement was "flatly wrong" since you just used two refuting examples that do not display the same thing EGarrett was talking about. He's describing the amount of variation within geographical groupings versus the amount of variation between two distinct geographical groups, and he's correct. Variation is a necessary component for a population to thrive, and as such variations increase within a given population (provided sufficient numbers of people procreating). EGarrett wasn't attributing a value judgment on whether the variation was good or bad-- within populations, variation tends toward good because variation is essential to maintaining a healthy growth level-- he was simply pointing out the fallacy of supposed "genetic relatedness" because the variation in a given cluster can be just as much as between clusters (or more) without the outward appearance differences.

Do you even remember the conclusion in the paper that you yourself cited. What does ω approach as the number of markers increases? Are you just trying to frustrate by playing dumb?

In my opinion, however, one doesn't even need to get that granular (though it's funny watching Clippy get twitchy with contempt), since the original fallacy lies in the "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" conclusion being reached. Clippy is continuing to try to claim that the only conclusion reached is "not like me," which doesn't follow logic given the example she's/he's attributing it to that clearly has made a decision to perform an act of violence based on features. The reason Clippy is being so vehement in trying to focus on the "not like me" as the reasoning is because it's perfectly clear that "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" is the correlation-causation fallacy at play in her/his example. I was hoping that eventually Clippy's insistence that it was simply the difference that was the reason would keep her/him boxing herself/himself in more and more, bpesta, but you've gone ahead and finished the job (of boxing him in) for her/him.

While this won't stop Clippy from digging deeper, does that make more sense bpesta?

ETA: and in case it's not clear, the correlation-causation failure is in assuming that "looks like me" equals good or desirable, which leads to the "therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" in Clippy's little scenario.

And, just like EGarrett, you also don't understand what a correlation/causation fallacy is.

[Clippy]

Help. I am looking for someone who knows just a little bit about genetics and who understands what a correlation/causation fallacy is. I'm sure you're out there. I would appreciate it if you could comment. Thank you.

[GreNME]

The reason was made very clear in the example (making those from another race feel unwelcome in my neighbourhood), as were possible motivations (preferring those more similar genetically, aesthetic preference for members of my race). If you can't understand that much, then maybe I shouldn't wonder that can't even understand or remember the paper that you yourself have cited (see below).

Again you decide to skip right over the conclusion leading from possible ways that the assault victim was "different" to the results of the logical process (that hinged on "different") in the form of an action. Your flimsy denials so far have done nothing but underscore how hard you're willing to try and evade the reasoning.

I don't see how you've responded to or explained how EGarrett's statement was "flatly wrong" since you just used two refuting examples that do not display the same thing EGarrett was talking about. He's describing the amount of variation within geographical groupings versus the amount of variation between two distinct geographical groups, and he's correct. Variation is a necessary component for a population to thrive, and as such variations increase within a given population (provided sufficient numbers of people procreating). EGarrett wasn't attributing a value judgment on whether the variation was good or bad-- within populations, variation tends toward good because variation is essential to maintaining a healthy growth level-- he was simply pointing out the fallacy of supposed "genetic relatedness" because the variation in a given cluster can be just as much as between clusters (or more) without the outward appearance differences.
Do you even remember the conclusion in the paper that you yourself cited. What does ω approach as the number of markers increases? Are you just trying to frustrate by playing dumb?

You're not even arguing from basis in the real world with this nonsense. The conclusion in the paper I cited and the statement EGarrett made aren't discussing opposing sides of the same point. That you're under the impression that they are shows how little you apparently understand what's being discussed when talking about human genetic variation.

In my opinion, however, one doesn't even need to get that granular (though it's funny watching Clippy get twitchy with contempt), since the original fallacy lies in the "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" conclusion being reached. Clippy is continuing to try to claim that the only conclusion reached is "not like me," which doesn't follow logic given the example she's/he's attributing it to that clearly has made a decision to perform an act of violence based on features. The reason Clippy is being so vehement in trying to focus on the "not like me" as the reasoning is because it's perfectly clear that "not like me, therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" is the correlation-causation fallacy at play in her/his example. I was hoping that eventually Clippy's insistence that it was simply the difference that was the reason would keep her/him boxing herself/himself in more and more, bpesta, but you've gone ahead and finished the job (of boxing him in) for her/him.

While this won't stop Clippy from digging deeper, does that make more sense bpesta?

ETA: and in case it's not clear, the correlation-causation failure is in assuming that "looks like me" equals good or desirable, which leads to the "therefore bad/undesirable/deserving assault" in Clippy's little scenario.
And, just like EGarrett, you also don't understand what a correlation/causation fallacy is.

Since your poor grasp on logic can't put together what's being explained in a manner that displays the correlation-causation fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) (also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/cumhocfa.html)), I'll help you out.

The reasoning that leads Clippy's hypothetical person (CHP) to attack an otherwise unknown black person (UBP). This reasoning would apply whether applying Clippy's "don't prefer the color" or her/his "keep them out of the neighborhood" excuses:

CHP considers self good/desirable/undeserving of abuse. This is a logical assumption of self-confidence.
CHP sees UBP and notes the physical differences.
Due to UBP's physical differences, CHP decides that a) UBP is worthy of assault and b) undesirable, and ostensibly c) not good (or bad).
Based on that conclusion, CHP assaults UBP.


For those who missed it (like Clippy), the fallacy occurs in steps two and three, which lead to the action in step four. Even if Clippy's hypothetical person (CHP) had already decided ahead of time that the unknown black person (UBP) was undesirable, not good (or bad), and worth assaulting, the fallacy still took place and simply did so prior to seeing this particular black person. You see, the decision to assault based only on the perceived ethnic differences does not provide sufficient cause to justify the conclusion that a given person-- in this case, the assault victim-- is immediately undesirable or not good (for the neighborhood, ostensibly), and as such is a logical fallacy and an irrational conclusion to reach on such weak "like / not like" correlative variables. The insistence by Clippy that the variables are sufficient to reach the conclusion without fallacy or irrationality have been and remain completely unsupported by anything even resembling a logical, empirical, and supportable argument on her/his part, and due to the lack of any argument at all from Clippy that actually supports the physical characteristic variables being the instigation justification for he assault using the reasons provided, the only available method of reaching such a conclusion using logical reasoning would be to apply the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, given the information available.

Help. I am looking for someone who knows just a little bit about genetics and who understands what a correlation/causation fallacy is. I'm sure you're out there. I would appreciate it if you could comment. Thank you.

While I'd agree that your lack of understanding of genetics has indeed contributed to your constant failures on the thread, hopefully my explanation of the fallacy within your example put into a logical progression helps you to understand the correlation-causation fallacy in general, and the irrationality of your arguments so far in particular.

Or you can just keep on digging, Clippy.

[LostAngeles]

The cause of the difference in skin color (plus afro and everted lips) is genetic in origin. No correlation/causation fallacy there. If you read Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (which, according to GrenME, is perpetrating a hoax), you will see that Japanese are part of a cluster (his euphemism for race) that is distinct from Africans (and Australian Aboriginals). I have not said that the black skin, afro, and everted lips are the cause of the genetic distance. I am saying that they allow me to identify this person as being from another race. Sorry, but that's not a correlation/causation fallacy either. And if you want to believe that it is, then let's say that the person hands me their 23andMe profile results prior to the attack.

Where is that darn fallacy hiding?

Did you know? Africa has the highest amount of genetic diversity (http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Tishkoff1-1999.htm)

And once again, I have not said that the observed differences are the cause of the genetic distance. I am saying that they allow me to classify this person as being from a different race. You really need to review the definition of correlation/causation fallacy.


Can you tell me the racial difference between a !Kung and an African-American?

[Clippy]

You're not even arguing from basis in the real world with this nonsense. The conclusion in the paper I cited and the statement EGarrett made aren't discussing opposing sides of the same point. That you're under the impression that they are shows how little you apparently understand what's being discussed when talking about human genetic variation.

EGarrett was not, as you said, 'pointing out a fallacy of supposed "genetic relatedness" because the variation in a given cluster can be just as much as between clusters (or more) without the outward appearance differences'. Such a fallacy does not exist- the paper that you yourself cited even shows this. This is just too much stupidity for one day. I can't be bothered replying to the rest of your crap.

[Clippy]

Did you know? Africa has the highest amount of genetic diversity (http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Tishkoff1-1999.htm)



Can you tell me the racial difference between a !Kung and an African-American?

I can tell you that they're not Japanese.

[GreNME]

EGarrett was not, as you said, 'pointing out a fallacy of supposed "genetic relatedness" because the variation in a given cluster can be just as much as between clusters (or more) without the outward appearance differences'. Such a fallacy does not exist- the paper that you yourself cited even shows this. This is just too much stupidity for one day. I can't be bothered replying to the rest of your crap.

Of course you can't be bothered, because I explained in clear terms why what you've been arguing-- aside from your attempts to evade with your weak grasp on genetics-- is a clear correlation-causation fallacy.

[LostAngeles]

I can tell you that they're not Japanese.

That doesn't answer the question nor does it address my response to your assertion of "genetic similarity."

[GreNME]

That's Clippy's M.O., she/he tends to have her/his own conversation separate from the one everyone else is when she/he is challenged on a point.

[LostAngeles]

That's Clippy's M.O., she/he tends to have her/his own conversation separate from the one everyone else is when she/he is challenged on a point.

I'm wondering if Clippy's off researching the genetic diversity of Africa or if s/he's got plans to make darker-skinned people feel unwelcome in his/her neighborhood.