I can't believe I'm starting a race thread...

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[Taraz]

I just don't see how race can be anything but a social construct since nobody can come up with any genetically based classification system for race.

Also, HeavilyArmed, I don't get it. You make your pit bull argument, someone calls you out for advocating a racist viewpoint, you get pissed off and take offense, but then you completely admit that you actually do hold that viewpoint.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is obvious to the point of being absurd. White flight in no way supports your argument.

The problem I see with racial profiling is analogous to issues with medical screening tests. If the risk for a woman having breast cancer is 5%, and we have a diagnostic test that is 80% effective, a positive result means she is STILL unlikely to have cancer. So, the question is: Does your screening test (black or not, for example) have a higher sensitivity for crime than 80% or does your population (all black people) have a higher incidence of criminality than 5%? I think both of those are obvious no's. So, while it may be entirely valid that a positive result for 'being black' modifies the risk of criminality, it is still overwhelmingly unlikely they are a criminal.

For this reason, most medical societies would never recommend screening tests like the above (most of the screening tests we use either have better sensitivity or the prior risk is higher) or at the very least using them cautiously. The reason I would be opposed to racial profiling is not because of its statistical inaccuracy, necessarily (after all, it has some outcome as long as its done correctly) but the ACTIONS that are then taken from that. We just don't modify the risk enough to really justify ANY sort of action that could have negative consequences (like alienating an entire group of people, trampling on liberty, etc.)

Maybe I am in the minority here, but if this test conferred something like a 98% sensitivity, I would be in favor of it. The amount of discomfort would clearly be justified IMO by the amazing efficacy of the test. We could dramatically cut crime. But this is nowhere near the case.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correlation does not equal causation. There are parts of Russia that are many times more dangerous statistically than urban American centers. Are the residents of these areas black? (Hint: no.)

Let me also ask you, would you feel more likely to be mugged by a black man who makes $100,000 a year, or a low-income white?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know if I like this argument. I mean, its obviously valid, but in a meaningless way. Yes, the low-income white is going to be far more likely to commit a crime. But HA is supposing that the only readily-available metric is their race (or skin color if you prefer, which I do). So, sure, it would be better to do something like "Complete Profiling," but that is not feasible, whereas racial profiling (barely) is. So you really have to argue RP on its own merits, not simply compare it to a better, ideal and unfeasible alternative.

To continue my analogy, wouldn't complete excisional biopsy detect breast cancer far better than mammography? Of course, but we aren't going to just start cutting everyone open, we have to decide if mammograms are worth the cost(downside).

[Taraz]

Does anybody have crime statistics for poor whites vs. poor blacks? I would be very interested in the numbers on that one.

And RDuke I'm sorry this thread has gotten away from your initial question, but that tends to happen in discussions about race.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
And RDuke I'm sorry this thread has gotten away from your initial question, but that tends to happen in discussions about race.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly does, which is why I almost didn't post the OP.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big point we're getting away from is that I'm talking genetic classifications. Also, I'm not talking about other levels of groupings (ethnicity, etc.), I'm talking about "race".
If someone wants to say american blacks score lower on standardized tests then there are a number of very good possible reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics. That's a different subject.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I interpreted your quote in roughly the following way, "I don't really care about the particulars of genetic classification--racial divisions based on skin color are useful because people with those skin colors behave in certain ways." If this isn't a fair paraphrase, please explain the subtleties I missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not too far off. I'm more than content to use all the information at hand even if it fails the PC racist test. Do you have any doubt about the correlation of American blacks and violent crime? Causation is not the issue, personal safety is. Do you doubt white flight? Can all those whites be making the same wrong assumption, that avoiding urban American blacks makes for a safer life? It's statistically sound, PC poison. I'll stick with the obvious, you are welcome to the social constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this related to whether or not race is a valid scientific classification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, to some extent, I am with him. I mean, its valid as long as it confers some properties and allows for some differentiation. Categorizing "American blacks vs. American non-blacks" definitely confers some differences and is 'valid.' Its really a question of HOW valid. Is it the most useful? I'd say there are many more useful groupings, depending on what you are trying to measure (although if its skin pigment, this is probably a pretty decent one).

I don't know if this is 'scientifically' valid, but it is defnitely statistically valid. Its just not 'very' valid for determining things like criminality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking biological/genetic classifications. Also, I'm not talking about other levels of groupings (ethnicity, etc.) I'm talking about "race".

[/ QUOTE ]

But then we are back at the beginning. Race is useful as long as you have a useful definition of race. I agree with you that we currently do not have one, and that what most people think of when they think about race is really just skin color, or some other sort of superficial characteristic that probably conveys very little information about other similarities.

Considering I have a genetics exam in like 20 hours, I am a FAR bigger fan of the 'ethnicity' characterization than I am the 'race' one. Ashkenazi Jews are the greatest thing ever to happen to genetics students, they are ALWAYS the answer.