>>11729703You're trying to go from something fundamental - genes- to a catagory, this is the wrong way round.
The "proper" way round is to have a phenomenological category that is useful, which you can then explain using deeper/ more basic concepts.
We have a category called "race" it is a useful category for describing differences between groups of people at a certain "level" i.e bigger than country, smaller than planet.
There are various physical components that explain different proportions of the variance between races.
Just going "look genes" is a bad way to do this categorization because i) nature is messy ii) it does not apply to the functional use of the category of race, which is different sets of people are phenomologically different.
Genes explain part of the variance between european whites and middle easterners.
