
Denying Genetics Isn’t Shutting Down Racism, It’s Fueling It - doener
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html
======
ggm
The article feels like a corner case in social sciences. It's addressing the
race as a social construct issue in the USA not a global question. It doesn't
manage to address the issues (in my opinion) around when policy base on
genetics might be good (rarely, again in my opinion) or not (overwhelmingly
mostly, in my opinion)

It felt like the context was to discuss IQ. I find this chilling. I rarely see
a role for discussion of IQ as a determinant.

When a geneticist says detectable DNA level differences exist I fail to see
how or why that should inform anything of merit in selection criteria for
governments or governing bodies. Other tests feel like a better basis. (Btw I
refuse to do IQ tests and have no assigned score and have no interest in being
ranked or understanding my rank, I am reasonably confident I am median score.
I don't care if above or below the rough middle. I'd be as distressed as
anyone to be found significantly below average and its false to argue there is
a dichotomy here. Nobody wants to lag behind even if they espouse the norm as
a statistical thing)

It might inform health issues in as much as testing drugs on white men is bad
to decide how to treat asian women but then testing drugs on men is bad to
decide how to treat women and children. And vice versa. Is genetics the main
problem here for all drug testing? Or are basic drug test regimes possibly at
fault? This to me epitomizes the problem. What do you want to do with this
knowledge DNA can show we are sub species? Where is this going?

The article read like it was about the 'they are in denial' story and was left
bashing. I think an underlying problem remains which is that racism is a
cancer on society and feeding it with implied middle ground views ignores the
toxicity of the problem. Society is about so many poles of difference, our
racial identity feels like the least relevant. Do the police do DNA tests
before shooting young black men?

Does DNA show race exists? Maybe. Does it matter? Only if you describe a
problem in narrow ways to demand its relevance. If you take a different view
of 'what matters' the DNA component of the story is far smaller. For me, the
overwhelmingly important stories don't demand recognition of underlying
detectable DNA distinctions.

(Obviously written from a left perspective)

~~~
belorn
Heritability and genetics operate on probability and statistics in very
similar ways that we measure information in regard to race and gender. As
such, there is not very much difference between a policy based on genetics,
race, or gender. Such policy is trying to catch a problem through the
probability that a category of people will share a common trait.

In my opinion I agree that genetics is rarely a good idea to base a policy,
but would your perspective agree to the same statement in regard to race and
gender idenity?

I prefer a scientific approach. Take gender identity, genetics, race idenity,
sexual preference, religions affiliation, nationality, or any other social
identity and measure the "heritability" factor that a certain "trait" (ie data
pattern) will happen. Treat it all as prediction models and create polices if
and only if underlying detectable distinctions are meaningful and a general
policy has been tested and found ineffective.

~~~
ggm
Well.. I posted a very reactive answer. We've had some issues in Australia
with self identified indigenous and Tasmania, where the genocide removed all
but perhaps three families so the DNA evidence of first ownership might
actually be strong. This is a sore topic.

I'm more concerned about unregulated use of DNA by health and other insurance
companies, or the hiring policies of Google and like who chase the top 5% and
could argue in some dystopian HR for non intrusive DNA tests to confirm high
mathematicial ability or something.

I really don't like identity politics much either but policies to confront
gender and race bias takes you there.

I don't think I have the answer. I worry the debate is capable of being
derailed rapidly but perhaps that's what I'm doing too?

------
aurizon
The trouble is PC has inserted itself into the undeniable fact that all
mammals evolve to suit local circumstances. We were all black, when in Africa.
When we went north, the lesser sunlight caused shortages of vitamin D (which
humans can not make from their food - they use sunlight to make it) This cases
many problems.
[https://www.google.ca/search?q=shortages+of+vitamin+D&oq=sho...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=shortages+of+vitamin+D&oq=shortages+of+vitamin+D&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

African sun also cases skin cancer, so the melanin cells evolved to let the
Vitamin D wavelengths through, but attenuate the cancer causing rays. Curly
hair also acts as insulation to keep the brain cool.

As we moved North we lost those. Hair got straighter, and skin paler. When we
moved back South we evolved darker skin, as in India and Asia. But the hair
stayed straight. Apart from that, all the races are more or less the same.

