Err.... no it really is not complicated. Its only complicated to ideologues selling it. Apparently people for centuries were perfectly capable of understanding concept of race, and now you are telling me National Geographic written by some lefty brainwashed moron activist, and yes that is what she is, has monopoly on what people used to do for generations. Give me a break. I would not let that one park my car, much less buy the ideology she is selling.

@Krunoslav
Did you read it?

@BlurtReynolds I skimmed it and than I checked the author. Elizabeth Kolbert , a climate change activist, lefty brainwashed "journalist". Staff writer at The New Yorker. I mean WTF? She is ideologue, not a scientist.

Elizabeth Kolbert (born 1961) is an American journalist and author and visiting fellow at Williams College.

BTW. Williams College is a private liberal arts college in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

She is best known for her Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, and as an observer and commentator on environmentalism for The New Yorker magazine.

As of March 2017, Kolbert serves as a member of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Science and Security Board. After graduating from Mamaroneck High School, Kolbert spent four years studying literature at Yale University. In 1983, she was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to study at the Universität Hamburg, in Germany.

She knows as much about science as I know about breeding salamanders. I'll give you a hint. I don't.

"There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label - It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics."

She writes: “That race is a human construction doesn’t mean that we don’t fall into different groups or there’s no variation,” Foeman says. “But if we made racial categories up, maybe we can make new categories that function better.”

You have got to be kidding me. This comes from someone who thinks Climate Change will cause mass extinction and wrote a book about. No wonder she writes from New Yorker. Nwo she has another utopia in mind, a place where we all just get along, but off course not if you don't agree with her Climate Change story, than you must be put in another category. Give me a break.

A two year old child can tell the difference between a black or white person and see they are not the same and act differently based on this information. Its not complicated at all. pygmy peoples are not like other people, but according to Elisabeth its just a made up term. “But if we made racial categories up, maybe we can make new categories that function better.” How old is she? must be less than two years old. It does not work like that.

The child has no clue what genetics is and yet it can clearly identify and act based on what they see. Not complicated at all. Except for Elisabeth over here. And you apparently. People have been using their eyes and instincts for a long long time, enough time that because of errrr.... genetics it has been hardwired into us to act in particular ways. Try to erase that because Elisabeth thinks we should "make new categories that function better." fundamentally contradicting her own argument. But that will be our little secret.

Dumbest thing I've heard, so naturally it comes from a lefty. Actually they have even worse idea. This is the same dumbass rhetoric that feminist speak, when they talk about how men and women are not different, and that gender roles are just a social construct and we must make up new ones to err.... get along better. Yeah, how did that disaster work?

When you let these postmodernist play with language you get the kind of people who think gender is not biological destiny, but something you identify as. And race is non existent and genetic. I mean how stupid one must be to buy that.

Try harder.

@Krunoslav
Can you point to a factual claim in the article for which you can provide scientific evidence to the contrary?

@BlurtReynolds Jesus. No dude. You just don't get it, do you? Its not complicated. Its common sense. Science for racial recognition is in our genetics. The problem is ideology that is toxic to common sense. Let me put it to you this way, maybe you will get it than. Can you provide scientific evidence that this author is not a moron?

Go do you "scientific" research and prove to me that Elizabeth Kolbert is not an ideological moron?

@Krunoslav
In scientific circles it’s not about the person; it’s about the data. That’s what’s cool about science. The data don’t care who discovered them. They say the same thing to everyone.

When there is more genetic variation inside Africa than outside Africa, it has nothing to do with who discovered it or who reported it. It’s measurable by anyone.

There was a time when common sense told everyone the world was flat. The data say otherwise. Some facts are just counter-intuitive. That’s why we use science instead of our intuition when we want to know the truth. Your argument is classic ad hominem
fallacy. It’s not me who needs to try harder.

@BlurtReynolds A woman who is not a scientist but went to liberal arts collage wrote book about climate change and sixth extinction. You got to be kidding me.

"We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don’t, often it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions. " — Jessamyn West, US novelist (1903-1984)

Some people make an assumption they foolhardily want to believe in and than try to find evidence to support their assumption. Scientific approach is about looking at statistics and adjusting your assumptions according to what they reveal to you.

"Beware of people who use statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – for support rather than illumination." — Andrew Lang, British author (1844-1912)

But this is not about science, its about ideology. She is not a scientist either, she is an ideologue. And by the looks of it, so are you. Prove to me Elizabeth Kolbert is not an ideological moron? Use science if you like. But you are not allowed to use "scientist". See there is a difference.

And the flat earth idea is quite a weak argument, because weather Earth is flat or not, matters very little for most people, but being able to spot someone not like us was very important to our survival. Therefore, guess what, we evolved the tools we need. Duh!

Same as knowing the difference between male and female. Something lefties still don't get after millions of years of evolution they simply adopt ideology against their own nature. And than claim "science" Ha! What a joke. No science there, only lot of "scientists". Just like this racial nonsense ideology.

But to take full advantage of the interpreting the data correctly we often need experience.

"Information is pretty thin stuff unless mixed with experience. "
— Clarence Day, US author (1874-1935)

@Krunoslav
Would you look at the data if the right kind of person presented it?