your view on "race"

"Race" is not a biological distinction of humans and arguably is just a social construct. That's not to say that certain races aren't genetically distinct from others but in many cases different races have the same genetics and conversely the same race can contain many different genetic groups.

Race is often classified by appearance, which is not the whole genetic story. To restate what Ryan said, people across different races can sometimes be more genetically similar than people within a race because within each race, there is plenty of genetic diversity.

So I think yes, race is a social construct the way most people use it: (where you're from and what you look like).

Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100% when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.

Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosopher Jonathan Kaplan have argued that while Edwards argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct. [11]

Similarly, Marks agree with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exists in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with "race" as that term has been though much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[12]

I think you're confusing our weak versions of Lewontin's argument with his strong version. As the first sentence points out, it really depends on how you're asking the question. Ryan and I also seem to also both concede to there being a genetic distinction (him explicitly, me by way of qualifier).

But we're really talking about how the word "race" is used by the public. I can assure you that they are not counting allele frequencies (which I would liken more to phenotype than race; the concept of race implied genotype to me the way I most often hear it used.. realize that it's not a word we use when studying birds, worms, or squirrels... it's not part of a standard classification scheme that I know of.)

And the rest of the wiki argues against. (referring to aroc's post)

continued

Regarding the general population- true. How about dog breeds? We call them different breeds instead of different races, but I feel like it's analogous (besides the much greater amount of homogeneity in humans relative to dogs).

For example, crime among black Americans in the US probably has a lot more to do with them having been shoved tightly into neglected sections of community and thus, receiving a terrible quality of education and social support then it has to do with any genetic aspect of personality/behavior.