>>14178500>Is this actually correct?Any infographic on 4chan attempting to convince you of something significant is likely to be wrong. Honest, intelligent people don't try to convey complex messages through propaganda, virality, and children's book-esque arrangements.
A sap will read myth #4 and go "oh, okay". Someone who actually wants to know the real answer will Google "Lewontin's fallacy" and read arguments for and against it.
It also cites the paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations". The paper concludes:
>A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.Infographic: "individuals from one population are never more similar to individuals from different populations than to individuals from their own."
Paper: "individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
They know no one will ever read the actual source.
Those like
>>14180427 may put on airs, but they're no different. Race has a biological basis, but it can't be reduced to the terms of the infographic or to visual-metaphor propaganda like "the races separate out genetically like chalk and cheese".
