Great discussion of a big problem. Genetic information is a much better way to classify humans than is sociological race or political nationality or language group or any other ‘phenotypic’ or subjective observation concerning an individual. So the basic problem here is one of classification. How does one objectively define what is a ‘human’ in terms of genetices,and given a particular ‘human’ organism, how does one objectively decide if they are in the ‘white’ or ‘black’ subspecies or if they are male or female, straight or gay etc, etc. To my view sociology is simply the wrong way to frame the question. Rather, given a human what genes or polymorphisms are associated with one or another score regarding ann intelligence test. The sociological race or gender becomes irrelevant
Great discussion of a big problem. Genetic information is a much better way to classify humans than is sociological race or political nationality or language group or any other ‘phenotypic’ or subjective observation concerning an individual. So the basic problem here is one of classification. How does one objectively define what is a ‘human’ in terms of genetices,and given a particular ‘human’ organism, how does one objectively decide if they are in the ‘white’ or ‘black’ subspecies or if they are male or female, straight or gay etc, etc. To my view sociology is simply the wrong way to frame the question. Rather, given a human what genes or polymorphisms are associated with one or another score regarding ann intelligence test. The sociological race or gender becomes irrelevant
Absolutely--especially given the absurdity of "one drop" classification in the United States