| o_O.Q said:
1) the fact that in group variation is higher than between group group variation is irrelevant.I f we say a range of 110 to 140 is greater than a range from 70 to 80 but then say that for our purposes we cannot exceed 100... what factors then are most important? 2) hypertension? 3) so why was there discussion about children going to school who were not vaccinated? 4) This is like saying why bother hitting on a girl since she might end up being gay... i mean really? 5) The one you presented was sufficient |
1) The issue is that between-group variation typically overlaps (which is something I said in my last post), leaving you with competing ranges of 70-120 vs 80-130. As such, the majority of the "difference" is virtually indistinguishable. And even still, other factors such as family history tend to be a better indicator of the potential presence of a particular trait than race.
2) Do you consider hypertension to be a natural social division? Were you asked whether you had hypertension when you were taking the SAT? Again, if the doctor wants to know these things, that is fine, but these aren't social divisions. These are not things that are relevant in pretty much any context but the doctor's office (and even still, their relevance there is extremely limited and most of the time irrelevant). As such, to maintain these divisions outside of the extremely limited context where they have any application is to socially construct their importance. Which is what I've been arguing. So the question becomes: do you disagree that the heavy importance and social divisions built around race are socially constructed?
3) Because that is about the potential of being contagious. High blood pressure and male pattern baldness and other diseases with a strong genetic component typically aren't contagious. To bring it up is to kind of sidestep this entire conversation.
4) How is it like that in literally any way? What is that even supposed to mean?
5) No response?
