Race Social Construct: Difference between revisions

Line 48:

* Environmental position: Gaps stem from socio-economic factors, test bias, and historical inequality [6].

* Controversy timeline:

– 1969 Jensen’s “How much can we boost IQ?” sparks debate.

– 1994 “The Bell Curve” popularises hereditarian view.

– 2003–2010 Genomics enters the discussion; Lewontin vs. Edwards exchange influences framing [10].

– 2013 Jason Richwine resigns from Heritage Foundation after writing on IQ and immigration [12].

– 2017-present Internet outlets (Quillette, Aporia) revive hereditarian arguments [1] [8]; mainstream venues warn against over-interpretation of polygenic scores [6] [7].

== Public discourse timeline (selected points) ==

1940s–50s UNESCO race statements emphasise social construction [4].

- 1940s–50s UNESCO race statements emphasise social construction [4].

1972 Lewontin publishes genetic variance study [6].

- 1972 Lewontin publishes genetic variance study [6].

2003 Edwards critiques Lewontin, coining “Lewontin’s Fallacy” [10].

- 2003 Edwards critiques Lewontin, coining “Lewontin’s Fallacy” [10].

2018 David Reich NYT op-ed argues for frank discussion of population genetics [7].

- 2018 David Reich NYT op-ed argues for frank discussion of population genetics [7].

2020 Scholars highlight political pressures limiting dissent [3].

- 2020 Scholars highlight political pressures limiting dissent [3].

2022 AI paper shows race detection in medical images, reigniting debate on biological signals [2].

- 2022 AI paper shows race detection in medical images, reigniting debate on biological signals [2].

Conflicting views: The UNESCO tradition (constructivist) [4] and some genomic scholars [6] argue race is not biologically real, whereas race-realist writers [1] [5] [10] claim observable genetic structure justifies the term. Moderate positions (e.g., Reich) accept population differences but caution against reifying folk categories [5] [7].

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *  Environmental position: Gaps stem from socio-economic factors, test bias, and historical inequality [6].
 *  Controversy timeline:
-  – 1969 Jensen’s “How much can we boost IQ?” sparks debate.
+– 1969 Jensen’s “How much can we boost IQ?” sparks debate.
-  – 1994 “The Bell Curve” popularises hereditarian view.
+– 1994 “The Bell Curve” popularises hereditarian view.
-  – 2003–2010 Genomics enters the discussion; Lewontin vs. Edwards exchange influences framing [10].
+– 2003–2010 Genomics enters the discussion; Lewontin vs. Edwards exchange influences framing [10].
-  – 2013 Jason Richwine resigns from Heritage Foundation after writing on IQ and immigration [12].
+– 2013 Jason Richwine resigns from Heritage Foundation after writing on IQ and immigration [12].
-  – 2017-present Internet outlets (Quillette, Aporia) revive hereditarian arguments [1] [8]; mainstream venues warn against over-interpretation of polygenic scores [6] [7].
+– 2017-present Internet outlets (Quillette, Aporia) revive hereditarian arguments [1] [8]; mainstream venues warn against over-interpretation of polygenic scores [6] [7].
 == Public discourse timeline (selected points) ==
-s–50s UNESCO race statements emphasise social construction [4].
+- 1940s–50s UNESCO race statements emphasise social construction [4].
- Lewontin publishes genetic variance study [6].
+- 1972 Lewontin publishes genetic variance study [6].
- Edwards critiques Lewontin, coining “Lewontin’s Fallacy” [10].
+- 2003 Edwards critiques Lewontin, coining “Lewontin’s Fallacy” [10].
- David Reich NYT op-ed argues for frank discussion of population genetics [7].
+- 2018 David Reich NYT op-ed argues for frank discussion of population genetics [7].
- Scholars highlight political pressures limiting dissent [3].
+- 2020 Scholars highlight political pressures limiting dissent [3].
- AI paper shows race detection in medical images, reigniting debate on biological signals [2].
+- 2022 AI paper shows race detection in medical images, reigniting debate on biological signals [2].
 Conflicting views: The UNESCO tradition (constructivist) [4] and some genomic scholars [6] argue race is not biologically real, whereas race-realist writers [1] [5] [10] claim observable genetic structure justifies the term.  Moderate positions (e.g., Reich) accept population differences but caution against reifying folk categories [5] [7].