(Part 3) Top products from r/HumansBeingBros

>End of the day both both sides of the argument have evidence.

No they don't. One side has one crappy study from 1972. Here's a list of sources supporting the other side:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5

96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/

With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/

Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full

For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf

Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861

Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract

With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351

An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html

>So you believe which research makes you happy, and I’ll believe the research that makes me happy.

Your "research" gets minorities killed.

Well, I guess I don't know if everyone calls it that. That's what we called it in the Anthropology department that I went through. My advisor wrote a book that was tangentially about it:

Caught in Play: How Entertainment Works on You https://www.amazon.com/dp/0804761116/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5oL3CbCE69FJZ

But, it might be easier to think of as a recurrence of the social opinions and thought that characterized the first Romantic movement. Glorification of subjectivism and of emotional expression. There has been a rise in the far right in virtually every country in the West and Middle East over the last 15 or so years. Part of that is due to the rise of the overall "emotional temperature", so-to-speak.

Pronghorns are a living Artifact in thay sense. As it sits, no predator in their natural range can catch them unless they get an ambush or the prey is wounded.

The Americas had a great diversity of large wildlife several thousand years ago. For anyone interested, I would recommend the book American Serengeti by Dan Flores.

Yeah it's pretty amazing. The doctor who discovered phantom pain wrote a book about it, if you're interested:

https://www.amazon.ca/Phantoms-Brain-Probing-Mysteries-Human/dp/0688172172/ref=nodl_

It's from 1998 so the science has probably progressed a fair amount, but I think it would still be an interesting read.

We've had a similar situation, and my wife and I found the book "Chocolate Hair Vanilla Care" very helpful. I think there is a website/blog related to it as well. https://www.amazon.com/Chocolate-Hair-Vanilla-Care-Beginning/dp/1500666041

I guess I get to be the turd in the punch bowl.

Mario Batali is being really nice to a famous celebrity, in said celebrity's moment of need. Which, good for you Mario; that's great.

But you still stole tons of money from your workers. And there are stories about your conduct elsewhere.

So, I mean, well done here but maybe apply the same attitude to everybody.

Remember the greatest gift you can give her is the boundaries and space to discover that she is enough on her own.

[Codependent No More](codependent no more: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself https://www.amazon.com/dp/0894864025/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5gXxCbVN1W5AG) . This book changed my life and my approach to relationships.

It's called Love You, Forever. https://www.amazon.com/Love-You-Forever-Robert-Munsch/dp/0920668372

The End of Alzheimer’s is a newer book that suggests a series of lifestyle choices to limit the effects of Alzheimer’s and maintain, and possibly regain, cognitive ability.

It requires fairly strict adherence to lifestyle and diet choices and monitoring several metabolic factors through blood tests to keep the metabolic factors within an optimal range.

It’s interesting stuff but I think I’d rather live a more normal life and indulge in some vices rather than prolong the inevitable outcome by some number of years.

Book recommendation for you: Disney Institute's Be Our Guest: Perfecting the Art of Customer Service

Moneyland is a new book about how the rich are living in sort of a shadow society without rules or regulations. They steal from everyone and use their wealth to keep the money and themselves out of trouble.

Deaf Peddler: Confessions of an Inside Man Book on Amazon detailing this scam.

$20. I don't know how people are taking this seriously.

It's cool that Gordon Ramsey is sending a fan a book but it's not like the guy couldn't have just found a similar recipe online.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1455525251/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_FDMeAb3FYHG79

Here you go.

https://www.amazon.com/Humans-New-York-Brandon-Stanton/dp/1250038820

Ya know... There are a few theories in that vein...

https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556276

Close enough Beasts of New York

The Puppy Who Wanted a boy https://www.amazon.com/dp/006052698X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_dBrMzbMKP9Y05

Schindler is very whitewashed in the movie. Even the list isnt his.
There is a historian who studied "him" for seven years and confronted myths about in this book :

https://www.amazon.com/Oskar-Schindler-Account-Wartime-Activities/dp/081333375X#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1537984711715

Edit: its not me saying, Mr Oscar did no good but we cant compare these two characters.

Ordered. Ty for the recommendation.

In return and in that same subject matter, I recommend Everyday Survival

It's about how our subconscious patterns of thinking that made sense for survival earlier in human history, cause us to do dumb shit in modern, low threat life.

found it randomly in a thrift store, loved it.

This is so out of sync with research on social capital theory though.... Nan Lim's book on social capital theory is a remarkable piece that discusses access to resources. You should consider reading it to inform your perspective?

He uses a pyramid to frame his approach with three tiers. Those with little social capital (poor, folks of color, etc..) on the bottom, those with some (middle class) in the middle, and those with a lot on top (usually wealthy, white). He argues that social capital never flows up from the bottom to the top (poor to rich) but can always flow down (rich to the poor).

Think about this, a rich wealthy person can enter a poor community, meet with local nonprofits, have police escort them around the community where they walk around and shake hands and such. Its also why you see all these shit youtube videos with white kids doing stuff in the ghetto because its "safe" for them from a social capital theory perspective to enter this space.

You don't see the reversal. A person from the bottom of a triangle can't go into Manhattan and demand meetings with CEOs of hedgefunds. We don't see folks from the poor communities going to the wealthy communities to make their shit youtube videos.

Now these are not absolutes (cause its sociology lol) but are generalities about society functions. Its just academically lazy to read a clickbait putnam article and be like "see diversity sucks" without thinking at the larger level. I would also argue that how people experience racism rather than everyone is racist has an impact of social capital as well...

I also think saying everyone is prejudice vs everyone is racist is a bit better as well but yeah, that gets in to how you want to define racism/prejudice as there has been general shifts in thought.