Here's Wade's new book.
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7a48b9a42d89294ca1ade9f76e26a63c
Back to [Archive] Other discussions
Read several parts of it some days ago. Not bad. But I think I can safely advance that the article of Fuerst and Boetel has my preference (I haven't finished it either, because there are some parts I did not fully understand; although I don't have poor knowledge of it, I can safely assure that the genetics of population is not my preferred topic of discussion).
http://humanvarieties.org/2014/03/02/the-nature-of-race/
In general, in a debate about the validity of race concept, i expect the words "cluster" and "continuum" as well as "Lewontin" and "within-group variance" to come up quite easily.
P.S. (when i say, "several parts", I think it's more honest to say that I have only read the following chapter "THE GENETICS OF RACE".)
http://humanvarieties.org/2014/03/02/the-nature-of-race/
In general, in a debate about the validity of race concept, i expect the words "cluster" and "continuum" as well as "Lewontin" and "within-group variance" to come up quite easily.
P.S. (when i say, "several parts", I think it's more honest to say that I have only read the following chapter "THE GENETICS OF RACE".)
My review is here in case anyone cares: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=4213
The TL;DR version is that if you're an expert in this area, reading this book is a waste of time.
-
The discussion about the word "race" is much like the one about "intelligence". I lean more and more to the position Jensen took in 1998 with "intelligence", that this semantic quibbling is an unproductive waste of time. Clusters, ancestral populations, geographical clusters, races, ethnicity, (breeding) populations, racial groups, extended families, etc. Most of the time is matters not at all.
The TL;DR version is that if you're an expert in this area, reading this book is a waste of time.
-
The discussion about the word "race" is much like the one about "intelligence". I lean more and more to the position Jensen took in 1998 with "intelligence", that this semantic quibbling is an unproductive waste of time. Clusters, ancestral populations, geographical clusters, races, ethnicity, (breeding) populations, racial groups, extended families, etc. Most of the time is matters not at all.
I agree with Emil about the term race.
John is losing his time debating the "undebatable" and it looks very tough. Here a couple of links he just sent me.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521482247869874
http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/comment-page-1/#comment-36042
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/on-the-biology-of-race/comment-page-1/#comment-3015
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521482247869874
http://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/comment-page-1/#comment-36042
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/on-the-biology-of-race/comment-page-1/#comment-3015
John should spend his time more productively. :) JayMan seems to take a delight in commentary wars, so perhaps let him do that.
I was planning to submit a review on this book, (not now but in the near future). However, lot of people have already commented on it. Do you think it will be worthy of submitted such a review in this journal ?
Most of the reviews in popular literature do not go into details. They are mostly we can/can't talk about the subject-level. If you have a technical commentary, that would be fine with me.
That seems to be the position of Sforza, who appears to pay lip service to the standard views when conducting his review in peace, calling the groups "populations" or whatever instead. http://openpsych.net/OBG/2014/03/l-l-cavalli-sforza-a-bird-in-a-gilded-cage/
© Copyright 2024 OpenPsych - All Rights Reserved