There are no human subspecies || Race Realism talk with Dr. Zach & Grayson

[@Nxck2440]

I haven’t watched many videos on race realism but the few I have watched from science communicators always get swarmed with racists in the comments. It’s crazy, like they come out of nowhere. Just goes to prove there are still a LOT of these idiots left.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Hard to believe they still exist in the year of our lord 2024...and yet

[@wimsweden]

Thanks for the video, Jordan, Dr. Zach and Grayson!

[@maximilianomadrigal6661]

Im shocked so many racists left 4chan to comment here

[@ReasontoDoubt]

This has all been a nefarious plot to force them into daylight, which as we all know is their greatest weakness

[@NanakiRowan]

@@ReasontoDoubt It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a conspiracy!!!!

[@Name-ot3xw]

I also recall a Chinese study that tried really really hard to prove that the Chinese had something of an independent evolution and were forced to conclude that was not the case.

[@ianchenofficial]

Of course we evolved separately. We have dragon DNA in us

[@tenholindberg9862]

for example. im gibsy or roma from finland, we have been here for over 500 years, fought in every battle etc. we like almost all other roma from scandinavia, and western europe too, are equally white skinned, with rest of the population. and yet we ofcoz ourselves like the rest of the ppl too, see my ppl, as separated from others.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Exactly. Genetically, probably extremely similar to the surrounding population, but culturally distinct.

[@idicula1979]

But some let their greed and dark hearts, divide themselves and even good hearted people choose to be divided and conquered, to the ends of their greed and othering.

[@CreationMyths]

This is a fantastic video and I want it to have a million views.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

You know, if you make a community post that links to it which I can then share on my own community wall, that may get a million views* * will not be a million but will be non zero

[@CreationMyths]

@@ReasontoDoubt Coincidentally, I plan to do just that. seven figures, here we come

[@jamesdownard1510]

Overall IQ tests appear to measure mainly the capacity to take an IQ test. As for the mindset of the "scientific racist" there is a socioeconomic and religious cross-current there: a tendency to be hyper conservative, and open to creationist tropes (the Regnery family publishing house that fielded Lynn, and ID stuff as well)

[@kyleepratt]

100% on IQ tests. One of at least several reasons why groups like Mensa are silly at best, and frequently racist/sexist

[@biteme-rz3ws]

Qe can use thing that advance humanity in great inventions and overall academic advancements in each race and whites have the most. That's factual based on evidence. You can test the brains, the bones, the blood and the DNA and it's all different as is the outside appearance so is the inside.

[@NanakiRowan]

@@biteme-rz3ws I think you're very confused. You seem to believe that individuals (such as inventors) are an entire race. Your logic doesn't follow. Over 99.999999 percent of people alive will never invent anything, including yourself and everyone you know. This means that by your metrics, you are no more intelligent than a Bushman in Tanzania. Your comment, as absurd as it is, is proof of inherent racial equality. Also, the brains, bones, blood, and DNA of everyone on the planet, save for identical twins, is different. So, that isn't an argument against anything.

[@yurika.matsui55]

How do you address the claim of "Lowntin's fallacy" by realists?

[@jikkh2x]

The aesthetic/phenotypical differences between races are astounding considering they don’t exist.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

The phenotypic differences between the "races" are arbitrarily chosen and do not map onto any consistent measurement of genetic relatedness. People who would both be considered "black" can easily be more genetically different from one another than either are to someone else considered "white". They are made up categories based on arbitrarily chosen features that rely on ignoring other features.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

​@@ReasontoDoubta video on this specific topic would be interesting to watch.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If only we had made a video on this specific topic that someone could be commenting on right now! 😂🤣

[@evan448]

​@@ReasontoDoubt what you can do cluster analysis that groups people by proximity of genetic heritage and it will usually aligne with people racial identification I say usually as of course your always going to have people who have admixture in their past or just by chance dont present a certian way - random mutation is after all happening all the time. african are the most diverse racial group on the planet but when you do clusters they are going to be closer overall to one another that to the other races

[@NanakiRowan]

@@evan448 You very clearly didn't watch the video. I could use the algorithm of a cluster analysis to group you into Great Apes instead of humans if I wanted to.

[@NanakiRowan]

Excellent! I've briefly interacted with Dr. Zach in the past. Great guy.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Sir, this is a Wendys

[@NanakiRowan]

@@Loreweavver Differences do exist, but they're no more biologically meaningful than the differences between two individuals within the same "race". Or even within the same immediate family for that matter.

[@NanakiRowan]

@@Loreweavver Can you please present the study which gives empirical evidence that two individuals within the same "race" have less genetic variation between them than the genetic variation between "races"?

[@NanakiRowan]

@@Loreweavver It's been 22 hours and I think you've forgotten to reply to me......

[@NanakiRowan]

@@Loreweavver I asked this 23 hours ago: Can you please present the study which gives empirical evidence that two individuals within the same "race" have less genetic variation between them than the genetic variation between "races"?

[@Andre-qo5ek]

where is the line, its a phrase i often use. in all reality we need to know the parameters in most things we do. many people, and pointing this out with the Vikings, is exactly the problem. people often pick arbitrary stopping points; arbitrary meaning convenient to these group's power.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Yup, the line is "wherever it needs to be in order to maintain our power"

[@Name-ot3xw]

not only do we all go back to common ancestors, those ancestors include non homo-sapien hominids, in addition to a bunch of non homonids even further back. Clint from Clint's Reptiles would argue that humans are the hagfish of reptiles /watch?v=xb_pvKbtWd8 (pro watch if you want to hear more about how the animal kingdom is organized)

[@evan448]

what this argument about all having a common ancestor we all have a common ancestor with monkeys and bannanas that doesnt mean anything as dar as the present is concerned

[@NanakiRowan]

@@evan448 Well the thing is, racists love to claim that "races" are the result of humans having remained completely separate for tens of thousands of years. Population genetics and simple mathematics shows this to be untrue, and that the most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. This is poignant because it refutes a staple of the racist's argument.

[@evan448]

@@NanakiRowan 3000 do you wanna check that number becuase i assure you thats not even remotely close the pyramids are older than that... I think you mean at least 10 thousand. also different races have different admixture of humaniod species europeans and asians have neanderthal trace dna blacks do not. asians have denisovan whites and blacks do not. logically the common ancestor must exist at a point in time prior to ancestors of europeans and asians encountering those other hominids species

[@NanakiRowan]

@@evan448 Are you sure about that? How many ancestors does one person have if you were to go back 3,000 years? (yes, I am baiting you).

[@Name-ot3xw]

@@evan448 It matters because while we can easily define a system whereby you and the banana exist under separate classifications, there isn't a method that holds up to scientific rigor that separates you from Joe Average from Ivan Guyovich from your common Zhou. OP goes over the why for scientific rigor doesn't hold up to even try. You, Joe Average, Ivan Guyovich, and our common Zhou all exist under the same classification while chimps and bonobos (some of our closest cousins) are easily separated. E: Hot take, orange cats and black cats aren't separate species.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

It all boils down to tribalistic ideologies. Separation by traits.

[@NanakiRowan]

Not really.

[@ianchenofficial]

The top 6 highest IQ countries are all Asian countries. But even when you look at other measures such as OECD PISA scores. Those same countries also score in the top 6.

[@colim2595]

Ok. What does that have to do with race?

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

This is both the oldest and the only comment he didn't respond to ☠️☠️☠️

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Because I know Ian Chen personally and I'm pretty confident he isn't a racist.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

@@ReasontoDoubt so... You only respond to people who make a wrong point... If they are bad?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@masscreationbroadcasts In this video I'm prioritizing other comments, for obvious reasons. I don't know what the test scores for OECD PISA say and frankly I don't give a shit. It doesn't contradict anything that was said in the video, as all these tests are culturally dominated.

[@Polit_Burro]

culture is what makes us, not phenotype. (other than the enlarged brains, bipedalism, mammaries (which foster primate relations and dependency) and opposable thumbs, perhaps)

[@hardyje1915]

all 3 of these guys have large face to cranium ratios. would you call that a phenotype or a social construction?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Phenotype, definitely

[@celsus7979]

As much as i sympathize with your intentions, i do not agree with the opinion that it is proven that there are no differences between 'races'. This seems to me like a selective bias towards the data. We can't measure reliably since there are too many 'nurture' factors in play and we can't measure large populations. Am i to believe that the exceptional amount of nobel prize winners from a rather small pool of people, namely jews, is all due to nurture? There is no way to prove that. We all share the vast majority of genes with everyone else, still some are Einsteins and some are not. Did Einstein get an exceptional upbringing or can we conclude that he was generically predisposed to having a high IQ? If so, there are these huge differences between people's IQ's, how likely is it that every 'race' or group has the exact same average IQ as everyone else? It seems to me that the will to combat racism interferes with objectivity. Finally, what difference does it really make. There are so many ways someone can be valuable, and a high IQ is no guarantee that you'll be that.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It's not an opinion. It is a scientific fact. No measurement of genetic diversity has shown a step change between the socially constructed "races". There is simply no genetic basis to hang a racist's hat on. The plot of genetic difference vs geographic distance makes a straight line, exactly as one would expect if we were one continuous race spread over the surface of the Earth. Some people are more intelligent than others, that is certainly true. Race is not a predictor of that in any way. No IQ measurement has been devised that actually measures intelligence; they always, *always* measure socio-economic factors instead. Your comment is actually a great measurement of that. "Why does this group have so many Nobel winners" is RIFE with socioeconomic factors. Imagine you had a group of geniuses. Uber geniuses, each and every one smarter than Einstein...but they were all in a tiny, uncontacted tribe in the Amazon. How many Nobel Prizes would they win? Answer: Zero. Not because they are less intelligent, but because they are less educated. "Race" has no biological basis.

[@celsus7979]

I am not comparing a the jewish population to an isolated group. They compete with other ethnicities which work hard and have access to the same information and education. The idea that a difference in IQ needs a generic make up that is so distinct that it would instantly pop up in genetics research is false. The geniuses amongst us are genetically indistinguishable from the rest of us, so clearly this is not a case of a large genetics difference. We don't have an understanding of how genes express themselves to form intelligence. But clearly, since the outliers are so extreme, there are combinations of genes that work better for this than most. Otherwise intelligence is all down to nurture, but apart from pointing out a bad vs a good childhood, nobody has a recipe for how to raise a genius. Since upbringings of jewish children don't point to something they do different that would explain a statistical anomaly as large as the nobel prize one, and since genius exhibits at such a young age that the influence of nurture simply can't explain the difference, i believe claiming that it's all down to nurture is simply unscientific and probably caused by the will to fit data to dogma. The idea that an IQ test only measures socio-economic circumstances and nurture elements is to me another make believe dogmatic interpretation of reality. Are there no geniuses from poor or under priviliged families? Can nurture explain a one year old starting to read or a 7 year old taking advanced math exams? Those parents must have some magical methods, or maybe their diet is it. I'm getting sarcastic now because it bothers me that you fall in to the same dogma traps that you clearly spot in others in previous videos. And you do put dogma over data because data like the nobel prize one you brush aside with a silly comparison between 15M people with access to everything and an isolated group, while claiming that genes show no difference, therefore it's nurture while ignoring that we do not know which genes are involved in intelligence and how. The enormous differences in intelligence between some people with near identical genes and near identical upbringing and circumstances are ignored. I believe every 'race' produces geniuses, and many other talented people, and that racism and such ideologies are despicable. I do not believe any 'race' has been proven to be unintelligent, incapable or in any way unworthy. I am sure that amongst African people we will also find groups above average IQs and that they will win their share of nobel prizes once they have the same opportunities. I appreciate your videos and do not wish to offend you, or anybody else, but i think bad science should be called out, just like you feel about my position i guess.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If you are asserting that there is a genetic predictor of intelligence that corresponds with race, then it is on you to provide evidence for that. Thus far, all you've done is stomp your feet and declare that your position is true. You are saying there's some super secret, barely detectable but totally there you guys racial predictor of IQ. Your source is "Trust me bro". I'm going to need more than that. "Are there no geniuses from poor or under priviliged families?" You are confusing the *measurements* of IQ with actual intelligence. Of *course* there are geniuses in poor and under privileged families. That's the entire bloody point! IQ tests will not accurately gauge those geniuses' intelligence, because the tests are flawed. I am not at all embracing dogma. I'm following the evidence where it leads. You should start doing the same.

[@celsus7979]

IQ tests are a measurement of a form intelligence, not the only one. I agree to that. You'll still find a correlation between IQ and talent in fields like math, physics and economics. Geniuses from underprivileged families prove the point that IQ is not down to nurture alone, as do siblings with differents IQs. A 'perfect' upbringing would raise IQ and a bad one would lower it. Not to the extend that you can explain 100 point differences by nurture alone. If you can, let the world know how. I agree that there is only one race biologically speaking. That's why i say 'race' because i don't know a better terminology. Ethnicity maybe? You say i stomp my foot and say 'trust me bro' You show no data to support your nurture is all theory. You claim that science has figured out that there is no difference in intelligence between any groups because there is so little difference in genes. Again, the vast differences in intelligence between individuals with near identical genes and nurture shows that there doesn't need to be a vast difference Therefore it has to be something minute, but we simply don't know how it works. Which also means that claiming that science disproves this is nonsense since we don't know how it works. It's the absence of evidence is evidence of absence trick

[@celsus7979]

KZbin blocked my last reply, maybe it's still in your inbox. I don't think we will agree on this. So I'm ending this with a thank you for replying to me in the first place and a good night.

[@WuHongLee]

Stay away from children

[@colim2595]

"Not beloeving in pseudoscientific garbage makes you a pedophile" -WuHongLee, a retard.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

As I have four children of my own, that would be pretty challenging.

[@Polit_Burro]

You suspect "poaching"? You afraid that there won't be enough for you if too may "poachers" cull the herd? Every accusation is a confession.

[@letitflow1120]

Well the woke is just as racist as the alternative this is a problem for objectivity

[@NanakiRowan]

What is "the woke" and what is racist about it?

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Is "the woke" in the room with us now?

[@kraken4348]

Please define what you mean as "woke". Racism in this discussion is clearly defined to allow discussion

[@EBDavis111]

@@kraken4348 He thinks that all white people are racist like him, so if you're anti-racist then you're racist against white people.

[@thylacoleonkennedy7]

The genetics is as objective as it gets, and it flatly disproves the concept of race as outlined in the hour-long video you don't appear to have watched.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

Why aren't yall talking about the black American racist groups? Especially those who claim to be the real Israelites and Egyptians. It seems yall just want to talk about white or European people and racism.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Because white people are the dominant ethnic group in America, and therefore their prejudice has outsized impact because it's backed up by a system that promotes it. In other words, it does more harm, so we focus on that.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@ReasontoDoubt all racism is equal. You shouldn't only focus on the larger group. If that's even the case. Black racism is way more prevalent than you may think. Maybe you should look into that as well and get real data amongst common people.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

@dustinellerbe4125 It may possibly be equal in a moral sense, but all prejudice is clearly not equal in its impact. White people hold more money, influence, and power in the US than black people do thanks to centuries of oppression. It does more harm, so that's what we're more concerned with.

[@NanakiRowan]

@@dustinellerbe4125 I looked into the "real data" as you suggested, and whites still exceed other groups in the perpetuation of racism, by all measures. As far as black supremacist groups, they're just as absurd as white supremacist groups, but there are simply far less of them compared to white ones.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

@@dustinellerbe4125 they are a problem but they don’t hold much clout.