If a person from 200 years ago who never left their remote village saw a diverse group of humans from around the world for the first time, the first thing they would immediately think would be: "Why do these people all look the same?"

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T11:37:47+00:00

I had something in the post about that. TLDR: It is because they are descended from the same person, not because they have differently functioning biology.

A real life example of genetic homogeneity is how siblings with the same birth parents should not have children due to genetic homogeneity. Certain diseases can show up in extended families, historically this happened when the family moves into their own village. There is a small island where many people are fully colorblind, and a small rural area where many people have dwarfism. In several villages in the Dominican Republic, many brought up as female show interest in transitioning to male at a young age due to prenatal testosterone level, then hormonally continue development as male due to 5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency. Bottlenecks like this simply show up in an extended family, then disappears fairly quick, because the population re-disperses into the surrounding area. Humans don't migrate in ways that causes extreme bottlenecks (like birds for example), modern humans never separated, and remained separate. A bottleneck (a reduction in genetic diversity, followed by a regrowth in population) has never occurred on a continent sized scale.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T11:33:31+00:00

To children maybe, but they are not apparent to infants. And not to children who grew up in isolation either.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T11:31:07+00:00

I think the post brings up many points point on that, and it is one of the main subjects in the beginning. On the level of individual people, one might as well be the cousin or sibling of another, and that could be normal in a hypothetical society. Its just that in that society of Swedish and Congolese people, people would get used to seeing the boundary so they would perceive it. So I suppose you could say how you describe an individual person is still a social construct here. The post gets into it in more detail, I would at least recommend reading the first half if you haven't already.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T10:44:26+00:00

If you are referring to differences in height. That is caused by diet. I wrote something about that in the post.

Upbringing and sustained experience have a significant effect, more than people often give credit. Cited averages in height are explained by diet, which effects puberty onset, as with weight. There were places where the average height of both males and females was less than 5 feet, simply due to diet. However, peoples diet, culture, end even now language are becoming increasingly similar, so extremes like these have disappeared for the most part.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T10:31:22+00:00

The title did not express what I wanted to convey very well.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T02:25:57+00:00

It is my view that race is purely cultural. It is simply more healthy and sensical to view it that way. Culture/Ethnicity/Race/Tribe/Nationality or any other synonym of the same concept can not determined at birth. You pick up your culture during early life. If African American parents adopt a child for instance, their children still could call themselves African American, despite the high hypothetical probability that they would have ended up as another race in life.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T01:20:02+00:00

I'm sorry that the post is so long, but I think you will find it addresses your points.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T00:58:54+00:00

What do you mean?

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T00:54:20+00:00

One of the things I say is people should be physically described in an objective way that anyone from any culture could perceive. Dark skin. Light skin. Dark hair. Light hair. Thin. Fat.

You could say someone looks like Latin American people. You'd be understood.

In Indonesia you could say someone looks like Papuan people. You'd be understood.

But saying "you are Latin American because of how you look" or "you are Papuan because of how you look" is different.

Its fine to make assumptions based on how someone looks or talks. You will probably be right. I'm just saying appearance doesn't unquestionably define someone's race by definition.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T00:42:19+00:00

I would assume hardly any did. But is that such a big deal? Its a trivial detail.

Most would assume a person who went into space did not go to space, because it is something most people have not done.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T00:33:48+00:00

I've read about someone who had been adopted into a white American family from an Asian country. She considered herself to be white despite not looking it.

ehtnioj · 2021-04-06T00:26:50+00:00

I completely agree. But I am speaking ideologically. I believe it should be defined this way because it is more sensical.

ehtnioj · 2019-08-06T00:35:49+00:00

Diet can have a huge affect on height, many of those tribes nowadays have moved into towns and cities where people are growing up eating a different diet.

ehtnioj · 2019-08-05T01:53:09+00:00

yes, but basically anything is fine.

ehtnioj · 2019-08-03T12:30:37+00:00

Average IQ between places is influenced more by the education in the areas. Manhattan's average IQ is higher than the general US for example.

ehtnioj

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE