Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1269007853

From: "Raymond Whritenour" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT How many races are there?
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:10:53 -0400
References: <><BLU126-DS1116FCD0C524B9A8699569922C0@phx.gbl><><><BLU126-DS78BB86EB03D28062DDCC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS12A9F670ADE3CF93C9CEC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS1277532AD79C302AA7924B922B0@phx.gbl><>
In-Reply-To: <><BLU126-DS1116FCD0C524B9A8699569922C0@phx.gbl><><><BLU126-DS78BB86EB03D28062DDCC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS12A9F670ADE3CF93C9CEC5922B0@phx.gbl><><BLU126-DS1277532AD79C302AA7924B922B0@phx.gbl><>

I think you make my point, Vincent. It's quite extraordinary that the division into races you call an arbitrary social construct appears, at k=4, exactly as we all supposedly imagined it was. And, the point is that we did NOT think there were 20 races, for a reason; and I would challenge you (or anyone) to show us where the racial boundaries occur at k=20, before peeking at a k=20 analysis! Anyone can tell you which k=4 group a non-mixed-race individual belongs to just by looking at him or her (or his or her photograph). NOBODY can tell you which k=20 group such an individual belongs to by the same method!

Ray Whritenour
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Vizachero<mailto:>
To: <mailto:>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] OT How many races are there?

That doesn't make any sense. There is nothing special about k=4,
EXCEPT that it matches what people thought the right answer should be.

If people had thought there were 20 races, then k=20 would "magically"
appear to be right.


On Mar 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Raymond Whritenour wrote:

> If the definition of race is an arbitrary social construct it would
> not have shown up at K=4!

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to <mailto:> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: