No.1161507
File: 1708311547931.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google
The peak of scientific research, surely.
No.1161512
File: 1708316837038.png (144.48 KB, 339x367, 339:367, 34658324612.png) ImgOps Google
So uh, I assume this doesn't apply to transsexuals.
No.1161513
File: 1708317137592.jpg (45.76 KB, 658x379, 658:379, 58svat-3298519337.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>Based on existing literature, [3–4] this study divides ethnic groups into five categories: Negroids (= 1, mainly in Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Americas), Caucasoids (= 2, predominantly in Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North America, South America, and Oceania), Mongoloids (= 3, primarily in East Asia), Amerindians/Mestizos (= 4, native to the Americas), and Mixed Ethnicity (= 5).
No.1161516
>>1161512Most likely, the trend doesn't apply to those with bottom surgery. It might apply to those without bottom surgery though, at least those who didn't mess with their hormones until after puberty.
Keep in mind it is only a correlation though, and it doesn't say anything definitive about any individual.
No.1161537
File: 1708347996808.png (111.1 KB, 641x345, 641:345, 575066.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>1161513 What? That's the long-established nomenclature. It would make sense that two Chinese researchers in China wouldn't give a damn about Western political correctness.
No.1161538
File: 1708353346026.jpg (71.12 KB, 250x266, 125:133, Mr Horse=Mac, dont like.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161537These are silly categories, given all the gene flow all over both New and Old Worlds. A lot of the people in the U.S. categorized as "Negroids" have mostly European ancestry.
No.1161543
File: 1708357537854.jpg (292.29 KB, 1571x1704, 1571:1704, Octavia.(Helluva.Boss).ful….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>I should say something
>What can I say that won't sound pretentious and braggy?
>Is there anything I can say that's even productive
>Insecurity is loud. They'll think I'm lying
>Seriously, there's nothing productive to say
>You'll just sound like an insecure prick and be worse off
>Why even write any of this? Just walk away
>Maybe they'll be nice. We don't know
>What are you even expecting? We wanted to transition
>I just want to participate and stop being a wallflower
>This is going to end badly
...
That study sounds nice
No.1161544
File: 1708360368303.jpg (418.61 KB, 1388x1552, 347:388, Screenshot_20210419-161239….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161537Maybe if it were the 1800s.
And I don't think recognizing that humans don't actually form
discrete racial categories and there are no distinct borders between where one 'race' begins and another ends is just 'political correctness' or any other euphemism for liberalism. It's just acknowledging physical reality.
No.1161551
File: 1708362599068.jpg (69.43 KB, 1024x663, 1024:663, mlp___maud_pie_and_tom_by_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161538 Perhaps, but note there is a category for "Mixed Ethnicity"
>>1161544 That nomenclature was used well into the late 1900s at least. And into the present day as evidenced by this Chinese study and the papers that they themselves site. History did not begin 10 years ago.
It was and is a useful shorthand for broad categorization without delving into the countless edge and "what if" cases (especially when it comes to mixed race individuals and transplants). The notion that there are no distinct borders between, say, a sub-Saharan African and a Chinese person is just wishful thinking.
No.1161552
File: 1708362828858.jpg (113.46 KB, 450x560, 45:56, bp-range-chart.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161544>humans don't actually form discrete racial categories>there are no distinct borders between where one 'race' begins and another ends Of course that's true. But it can still sometimes be useful to categorize even if the categories are imperfect and imprecise. E.g., body weight is a continuous variable, but the medical profession still finds it useful to use categorize BMI into buckets like "normal weight", "overweight", "obese". Likewise, blood pressure is a continuous variable, but the medical profession finds it useful to categorize as "hypotension", "normal", "pre-hypertension", "stage-1 hypertension", and "stage-2 hypertension".
No.1161554
File: 1708363613642.jpg (94.3 KB, 800x800, 1:1, gallery-2019-3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Ah this explains why I'm so dumb
No.1161556
File: 1708364254913.jpg (266.01 KB, 2147x2735, 2147:2735, df94uzz-134ce57a-3218-4544….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161554I'm actually starting to think I might secretly be dumb
No.1161560
File: 1708367220425.jpg (141.2 KB, 900x900, 1:1, 1705115015193.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161554Too much blood in one organ, not enough blood for the other organ! (Probably a silly hypothesis, but a fun one!)
No.1161566
File: 1708370423343.jpg (42.83 KB, 599x565, 599:565, 1707789971014.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161551>>1161552>>1161553Even if you are taking ethnicity into account, it's a very easy thing to say just regional names like "sub Sahara african" or "east asian" or something like that. The terminology presented is very antiquated, and in itself presents more problems in the international scientific community, even if the data presented is structurally sound
But I have my doubts, and would definitely not put much merit into it
>>1161543>>1161544This definitely feels gross, not gonna lie :P
No.1161597
File: 1708379388554.jpg (332.27 KB, 1352x1235, 104:95, Screenshot_20210301-190906….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161551>That nomenclature was used well into the late 1900s at least. And into the present day as evidenced by this Chinese study and the papers that they themselves site. History did not begin 10 years ago.
>It was and is a useful shorthand for broad categorization without delving into the countless edge and "what if" cases (especially when it comes to mixed race individuals and transplants). The notion that there are no distinct borders between, say, a sub-Saharan African and a Chinese person is just wishful thinking.Spoken like a true "race realist" NPC.
Usefulness of
any categorization is not justification for such reductionism because at some point it can be oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
And of course there are no distinct borders between Sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia, there's a whole ass continent between them. Imprive your sophistry game.
Also
>History did not begin 10 years ago.And it didn't stop in the early 1900s either and the logical validity of 19th century "race science" has been challenge since looooong before 10 years ago.
>>1161552>Of course that's true. But it can still sometimes be useful to categorize even if the categories are imperfect and imprecise. E.g., body weight is a continuous variable, but the medical profession still finds it useful to use categorize BMI into buckets like "normal weight", "overweight", "obese".And like I said to the Sailboat NPC, at some point things can be oversimplified to the point of uselessness.
Plus, these categorization come with assumptions that are not necessarily logically sound and in many cases
>Likewise, blood pressure is a continuous variable, but the medical profession finds it useful to categorize as "hypotension", "normal", "pre-hypertension", "stage-1 hypertension", and "stage-2 hypertension".And as science advances, categories are changed to better reflect new discoveries. It's why there is no longer a distinction between Asperger's Syndrome and autism since we now understand that asperger's is a different external presentation of autism.
>>1161553I meant that humanity forms a
cline, a species that forms a
gradient of average genetic differences spread out geographically.
>>1161566>The terminology presented is very antiquated, and in itself presents more problems in the international scientific community, even if the data presented is structurally soundThis, plus this is coming from a study coming from China so it's not exactly representive of international scientists consensus.
No.1161610
File: 1708384298704.gif (1.83 MB, 576x324, 16:9, 576080.gif) ImgOps Google
>>1161597>Spoken like a true "race realist" NPC.Interesting, as I've said nothing about the mental characteristics of these groups. Tell me, what other positions do I hold, that you can impose upon me through your divine decree and wishful thinking?
>Usefulness of any categorization is not justification for such reductionism because at some point it can be oversimplified to the point of uselessness. ...what? Did you read that before you posted it? Usefulness of a categorization is
precisely the justification for using that particular categorization. The fact that there are outliers and edge cases does not mean the categories themselves are without merit. The fact that some people don't like the
formal names given to these categories also does not invalidate their use.
>And of course there are no distinct borders between Sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia, there's a whole ass continent between them.What does that matter? People can move after all! But let's assume there
isn't a "whole ass continent" between them... If a sub-saharan individual moves to China, does he suddenly adopt the characteristics of a typical Chinese person? Of course not. Is it fair to say that the Chinese person will be more outwardly similar to a person from, let's say, Korea, instead of Kenya? Why is that? hmmm... "because there's a whole ass continent!" I hear you shriek. And if we move one step closer from one to the other, and then another step, and then another step, all the way across those "whole ass continents", do we not see essentially a gradient? Great! And then we can specify what defines the boundaries of the categories, and apply it to the gradient. Voila!
>Imprive your sophistry game. >ImpriveDid you bother to run your ChatGPT response through a spell checker?
>And it didn't stop in the early 1900s either and the logical validity of 19th century "race science" has been challenge since looooong before 10 years ago. Great, then the results of the study should show no correlation according to this implementation of "race."
On the other hand, if there are correlations, then
*gasp in shock* it shows that there is validity to the categorization.
But rather than considering what the data shows and then basing your argument on that, your problem is with the concept itself. Which is frankly anti-science. Because no categorizations are off limits when it comes to data analysis. That doesn't mean race is the "best" necessarily, but dismissing it outright via pearl clutching frankly demonstrates a level of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Let the data show what it will. If "race" is not a useful categorization, then so be it.
>Sailboat NPCI'd appreciate it if you stop the
ad hominems, thank you very much.
No.1161611
File: 1708384525934.jpeg (92.83 KB, 678x900, 113:150, GGhsLEvbYAAxL7w.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>1161566>The terminology presented is very antiquatedThat reminds me, I've heard of people learning a foreign language from certain learning resources, and then when they tried speaking with native speakers, they were told that sounded like how people talked 50 years ago! I guess change percolates very slowly in some cases.
No.1161613
File: 1708385983113.png (593.96 KB, 1003x1252, 1003:1252, Screenshot_20240219-183458.png) ImgOps Google
>>1161597>I meant that humanity forms a cline, a species that forms a gradient of average genetic differences spread out geographically.That's true to some extent, but there are also some sharper differences between human subpopulations that are separated by geographical barriers that are hard to cross.
Perhaps relevant:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ontology-of-psychiatric-conditions No.1161621
File: 1708388862120.jpg (87.54 KB, 768x768, 1:1, f3f6c3c33d64cc7e6505579062….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Every single time, same end point.
No.1161627
File: 1708391066046.jpg (45.76 KB, 658x379, 658:379, 58svat-3298519337.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
omg lol
Am I the only one who read the fucking paper? Because I seriously feel like I'm the only one who read the paper before jumping in knives out. It's an unpublished phrenology paper, measuring PPs, from a business school, in a communist country, from someone who has never been published, using 15 year old self reported data from a gag website.
Let's pick which hills we die on people? I know we got to do the whole woke war every chance we get but I think we can let this one go. You're all getting old as shit and you gotta watch your blood pressure now.
No.1161630
File: 1708391276720.jpg (27.65 KB, 467x477, 467:477, GETX52DWIAAm-T7.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1161627in my defense, i've been busy today and i didn't want to read a pp paper to try and prove or disprove anything.
but based on what you are saying, my suspicions were more or less validated.
anywho, thank you for doing the important research :PP
No.1161636
File: 1708392814821.gif (158.58 KB, 259x285, 259:285, 5758800.gif) ImgOps Google
>>1161627 I responded to your pearl clutching regarding the nomenclature. and then I responded to the what was essentially the colossal appeal to emotion that followed. My argument stands regardless of the merits of this paper. The categories themselves are not the problem, nor is the way they are referenced.
No.1161643
File: 1708395146762.jpeg (111.77 KB, 720x960, 3:4, GGlgUKebIAAc31S.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>1161627I just thought it was a funny study that I posted for laughs. Somehow the thread got derailed into discussion of racial classifications.
No.1161677
This is high-octane embarrassing cringe writing that brings back a lot of highly specific memories for me personally as a former university employee in northern Texas (me serving both as a 'Research Assistant' / 'RA' and as a 'Teacher's Assistant' / 'TA' at times ), especially since these young people (or kids, I guess, if they're actually just kids starting out in college) clearly need a lot more academic education.
>"This is a preprint".
>"[I]t has not been peer reviewed by a journal."
>Article cannot correctly even spell the word "introduction".
>Article cannot correctly even spell the word "conclusions".
>Article ends with the horribly self-crippling commentary that the very hypothesis itself is "yet to be underpinned by extensive theoretical support, warranting further exploration."
>Article also ends with the totally devastating admission that "the standardized measurements of penile size used in the study may be influenced by various factors such as ambient temperature, arousal state, presence of others, concerns about privacy, or time elapsed since the last ejaculation" such that those factors "introduce biases in the reliability and validity of the measurements."
Seems generally to be at a level akin to the baking sketch in this American comedy program:
>
And that's not even beginning to get into the details over all of the baffling statements made on ethnicity, nationality, and race. Eh. I could say more. Yet I won't.
