The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
18 Years of Trying ...
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In my Taki’s Magazine review of Carl Zimmer’s new book on heredity, She Has Her Mother’s Laugh, I trot out my dusty old casino analogy response to Richard Lewontin’s famous 85-15 argument about why race more or less doesn’t exist genetically:

Zimmer’s better argument against the genetic reality of race relies upon 46-year-old warmed-over Lewontinism. In 1972, Lewontin argued that 85 percent of total genetic diversity exists among individuals within racial groups, while only 15 percent tracks to geographic ancestry.

This might seem surprising at first, but stop and think about how different people are just within races. Consider the current NBA finals. The Cleveland Cavaliers’ top scorer LeBron James is massive, while the Golden State Warriors’ top scorer Kevin Durant is spindly.

Durant, who scored 43 in game 3, isn’t as spindly as he used to be. But still …

Therefore, ask Lewontin and Zimmer, what possible importance could there be in that measly 15 percent?

Zimmer quotes Lewontin on p. 209: “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.”

Just ignore it. “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

Of course, both basketball stars have significant sub-Saharan ancestry, as do most of their teammates. That 15 percent of genetic diversity that is not random apparently matters in helping cause the famously unequal racial makeup of the NBA.

A thought experiment: Imagine there is an Indian reservation casino where 85 percent of the spins of the roulette wheel are random, but the other 15 percent of the spins come up red if your croupier is an American Indian or black if your croupier is an African-American. Would you like to know that fact?

Yes, you would. A 15-percentage-point edge in making predictions is huge.

I first used this casino thought experiment way back in 2000. My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?

Or is just that there’s no market for a realistic perspective that the race glass is part full and part empty?

Or is it too easy to understand so it sounds lowbrow?

Update: Commenter res calculates that even sex accounts for less than half of the variation in height:

So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III:

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

NHANES is a scientific survey the feds conduct periodically for the benefit of the clothing industry to find out what sizes American consumers are

The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.

Of course male or female is a very big deal in predicting height. But even the sex-height glass is less than half full.

Basically, making accurate predictions is hard. Therefore, every little edge helps.

So, the figure for height:sex (44%) is about 3 times as big as Lewontin’s figure for race overall (15%).

It’s important to note that while races can differ very sharply on some traits, there are often other traits where they don’t differ much at all: for example, in the US, whites and blacks tend to be quite similar in height.

Judging from the NHANES figures I looked at a decade ago for the height of blacks and whites, race only is minimally useful in predicting height: white males age 20-39 are something like 0.4 inches taller than blacks at the median, but blacks have a greater standard deviation. So there are a few more Kevin Durant sized blacks than whites on average.

But mostly knowing whether somebody is black or white doesn’t help you much in predicting his height. I’d guess that race only matters a few percentage points at most for predicting height among blacks and whites.

(Hispanic ethnicity is fairly important, though, for predicting height, although some of that is not genetic and can change over the generations.)

Also, keep in mind that just because whites and blacks in America are mostly about the same height doesn’t mean that they necessarily have the same gene variants for height. It could be that they tend to have different genes, but they just happen to come out about equal.

On the other hand, there are non-height related racial differences that also matter in the NBA. From my Taki’s Magazine review of Barack Obama’s favorite HBD book, David Epstein’s The Sports Gene:

BYU economist Joseph Price provided Epstein with some intriguing data on NBA players:

…the average white American NBA player was 6’7.5” with a wingspan of 6’10.” The average African-American NBA player was 6’5.5” with 6’11” wingspan; shorter but longer.

Epstein adds that the average African American in the NBA can jump 29.6” versus 27.3” for whites. Combined with the extra inch of reach, that helps explain the preponderance of blacks in a game where the single most important metric is how high in the air you can get your hand. One scientist told Epstein, “So maybe it’s not so much that white men can’t jump. White men just can’t reach high.”

 
Hide 146 CommentsLeave a Comment
146 Comments to "18 Years of Trying ..."
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s somewhat futile to pursue nuance in a War between Good and Evil.

  2. J.Ross says: • Website

    I have an image of a person who knows better but agrees to say the Appropriate Thing to get some perfectly understandable incentive.
    What I find mysterious is what the hell are they offering people in an age without castles? Line-cutting at Disneyland? Real estate? Spots for the kids in exclusive, all-but-guaranteed-Harvard schools? Are people conforming purely out of herd instinct? What glory did Kurt Eichenwald lay his tremellose paws upon for being such an Eichenwald?

    • Replies: @notanon
    if group A and group B are competing and group A can persuade group B to breed with a lower IQ population group C then group B's average IQ would decrease and group A wins - even if it takes a century or two.
    , @Travis
    Individuals who state the inappropriate facts will lose their job, source of income , status and be ostracized from mainstream society. Recent examples include noted actors, scientists, college administrators, computer programmers etc. While in Europe perpetrators will be incarcerated for expressing unorthodox opinions, they even jail 80 year-old grandmothers and noted historians for stating their opinions.

    Anyone who acknowledges the differences between men and women will be quickly fired from any position they hold at any Fortune 500 firm. Anyone who notices the disparity between racial groups will be swiftly labeled a "racist" and face the consequences. SJWs have millions of informants who have infiltrated most companies, churches, schools and playgrounds across America. Social media is policed by thousands of enforcers looking for any indication of non-compliance. Violators are quickly reported to the authorities and banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and their Google accounts will be shutdown.

  3. It isn’t low-brow if you use world “croupier.”

  4. OT But I didn’t order any pizza …
    https://www.wsbtv.com/www.wsbtv.com/news/local/north-fulton-county/metro-sex-trafficking-sting-rescues-nearly-160-children-authorities-say/764243882
    One hundred and sixty kids kept like pets in a nice neighborhood. Rioting, illegal immigration, gun-running, and terrorism aren’t the only crimes Obama winked at.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    pipin' hot!
    , @notanon
    mass immigration of cheap labor creates a demand for mass ultra-cheap prostitution which is generally filled by forcing children - whether it's trafficked hispanic girls to service hispanic cheap labor in the USA or clan-raped native European girls to service muslim cheap labor in Europe.
  5. Lot says:

    Letting leftists derail a discussion of race by engaging with their critique on the concept of race is wrong no matter what you say.

    The only time it should ever be used is to troll them. “Black lives matter!” “But race doesn’t exist, we share 99.9% of our DNA.”

    “You company is all white!” “Who is to say who is white? I don’t see color, I just see people.”

  6. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT The real reason we need to be constantly bothered about Russia is a lack of interest or ability in defending the country from real threats like China, in large part thanks to affirmative action.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/06/troubling-us-navy-review-finds-widespread-shortfalls-in-basic-seamanship/

    WASHINGTON — A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

    Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

    Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

    The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

    Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:

    Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
    Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
    Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017.
    In his message to the fleet, Brown said the OOD competency reviews should be a call to action for the surface community to get after its shortcomings.

    “While the OOD competency checks were a snapshot in time, we must be realistic in confronting the systemic shortfalls that they revealed in core proficiencies across the junior qualified members of the force,” Brown said in the message. “We as a community can and must tackle our deficiencies and ensure there is meaningful experience behind our qualification letters.”
    The areas of concern listed in the message conjure unsettling reminders of the 2017 accidents. In the case of McCain, confusion and indecision took hold on the bridge at the precise moment when the ship had to take immediate actions to avoid a collision, despite the presence of the commanding officer.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.
    , @Hank Archer
    The Coast Guard is not immune either. It does not have an ROTC Program. They have something called the COLLEGE STUDENT PRE-COMMISSIONING INITIATIVE.

    https://www.gocoastguard.com/active-duty-careers/officer-opportunities/programs/college-student-pre-commissioning-initiative

    It seemed like a good program and something that someone might be interested in, until it was discovered that only students from a very restricted number of colleges are eligible to participate.


    Education:
    ​​Be a sophomore or junior undergraduate student enrolled, accepted for enrollment or pending acceptance (if accepted, acceptance letter must be submitted prior to beginning CSPI) in a full-time Bachelors degree program at an accredited college or university designated as a Minority Serving Institute (MSI).

    Historically Black Colleges and Universities

    Predominantly Black Institutions

    Hispanic Serving Institutions

    Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions

    American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities

    Alaska [& Hawaii] Native Serving Institutions

    Native American Serving, Non-Tribal Institutions

    Colleges with a minority student population averaging at least 50% of the total student enrollment


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority-serving_institution

    There are about 5,300 colleges and universities in USA.

    Historically Black Colleges and Universities
    about 106
    Predominantly Black Institutions
    Unknown
    Hispanic Serving Institutions
    about 250
    Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions
    about 132
    American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
    about 32
    Alaska [& Hawaii] Native Serving Institutions
    about 4
    Native American Serving, Non-Tribal Institutions
    Unknown
    Colleges with aminority student population averaging at least 50% of the total student enrollment
    Unknown

    I don't believe that the total number of colleges from which students can participate in this CG program can be more than about 25% of all USA colleges, and almost all of these will be in the southern third of the USA.
    , @Bill Jones
    What do you expect if you call a ship McCain?
  7. About that casino analogy, people generally don’t like to think about odds, especially non-gamblers. Not intuitive and it makes their eyes glaze over. Giving it a go myself, for the fun of shooting down Lewontin…

    – Car brands are merely a social construct. Consider Ford and Mazda which have similar models up and down the product line. But consider how different subcompact sedans are from SUV’s and minivans are from muscle cars.

    – The efficacy of Human Growth Hormone is merely a social construct. Consider a study on identical twins where one sibling receives a given dosage during childhood while the other receives a placebo. The resulting average difference in height is only four inches, but the full-grown adults range in height by over 18 inches within each experimental group.

    – Beverage types are merely a social construct. For almost every alcoholic drink there’s a corresponding type of soda pop. But consider the massive variety within each category.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

  8. @Quai Smyrna
    About that casino analogy, people generally don't like to think about odds, especially non-gamblers. Not intuitive and it makes their eyes glaze over. Giving it a go myself, for the fun of shooting down Lewontin...

    - Car brands are merely a social construct. Consider Ford and Mazda which have similar models up and down the product line. But consider how different subcompact sedans are from SUV's and minivans are from muscle cars.

    - The efficacy of Human Growth Hormone is merely a social construct. Consider a study on identical twins where one sibling receives a given dosage during childhood while the other receives a placebo. The resulting average difference in height is only four inches, but the full-grown adults range in height by over 18 inches within each experimental group.

    - Beverage types are merely a social construct. For almost every alcoholic drink there's a corresponding type of soda pop. But consider the massive variety within each category.

    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don’t have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I’m willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    I’ve drunk a few bottles of expensive wine in my day, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I’m pretty sure though, if you swapped the liquid in the ‘82 Mouton with a $10 table wine I wouldn’t notice.
    , @Anonymous
    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.

    Similarly, in double blind listening tests, people prefer the sound of simple two way small box speakers over very expensive audiophile ones, whether the subject listeners are audiophiles, recording engineers or musicians, so long as material without deep bass content is used. When it is, small two way box speakers with external actively powered subwoofers and wide range big systems like Altec VOTTs or Klipschorns are equally preferred.

    And of course, modestly priced (by comparison, e.g, $10 to 50K) new violins are indistinguishable from seven or eight figure Old Cremona violins by violinists and classical music listeners.

    None of which matters in the least to purveyors or customers in the carriage trades.
    , @Zippy
    @Steve Sailer

    On the $12.00 versus $120 wine issue, I don't think it's a pure social construct, or at least it's not made up. I do think there is some element of social conditioning -- people who drink expensive wine may be more inclined to like it because of the reputation of the wine. But they do blind tastings on a regular basis, and the expensive wines tend to win them.

    I've found this to be true when I do it. Mrs. Zippy and I do spend between $50 and $250 on wine on a regular basis, and we often hold dinner parties where we will serve foods and sample multiple wines. (We use the Coravin device, which allows one to "open" wine without opening it, assuming it uses a natural cork.)

    We put the wines in opaque bags, so they are unknown to the diners. When dinner is over, we will ask for opinions and unveil the wines. I will often include a range of wines -- I recently did it with a $180 bottle, a $60 bottle, and Charles Shaw from Trader Joe's, often known as "Two Buck Chuck," though I think it's closer to $3 or $4 these days.

    The result is uniformly that my guests like the more expensive wines more. I've done this with cheapo wines and some nice wines at least 30 times, and the cheapo wine has never, ever won. By cheapo I mean $20 or under. And I've had other people put the wines in the bags, so I am the one who is blind-tasting. And I've never picked the sub $20 stuff.

    Now, sometimes the $50 bottle will beat the $100 plus bottle. As you go up the quality scale, diminishing returns sets in, and the differences become more subtle and individual tastes come into play. So I might genuinely like an $80 bottle more than a $200 bottle, but I'm very unlikely to just love Barefoot or Two Buck Chuck as much as either. I have had some very expensive wines -- more than $500 a bottle, or even four figures. They were great! But the difference between the $500 bottle that I love and the $150 bottle that I also love is so subtle and the marginal cost is so much higher that it's not worth the additional $350 to me. But the difference between the $10 or $20 and the $50 - $250 bottles I now buy is so significant that the marginal cost is worth it.

    There are additional complexities added by grape variety and aging.

    In my experience, at least, when looking for low-priced red wines or when scanning an inferior wine list, California Zinfandel is a pretty good bet. For whatever reason cheap Zins are, well, pretty good.

    Italian Chianti wines can be a bit rough and coarse, particularly on the cheapo side, but served with a spicy tomato-based recipe, they really work. The stuff about pairing wine and food really is true. (For people who want to see this principle illustrated in a crude way, have a sip of orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth. What you are eating really does affect how you taste wine.)

    With expensive wines, I genuinely think the Judgment of Paris got it right, and that California Cabernet Sauvignon will usually outshine a Bordeaux of equivalent price.

    I never, ever buy cheap pinot noir. Pinot noir is really delicate and very hard to grow. Because it requires very careful handling, cheapo pinot noir is just bad. Also, in the United States, a wine label that specifies a single variety only means that at least 75% of the wine is that variety -- it might be blended. Pinot noir should never be blended, unless it's being used to make sparkling wine. As opposed to cabernet sauvignon, which is usually better blended. For cheap American pinot noir, it's a darn good bet there there is something else thrown into the bottle, because that something else will almost certainly be cheaper and easier to grow than pinot noir.

    A red Burgundy, by contrast, can legally only be pinot noir. My personal snobbish opinion is that, while Oregon and even California produce some good pinot noir, nothing beats a good Burgundy. Lots of people agree with me, which is why Burgundy wine is so expensive.

    Also, some people just plain don't like certain wines. If you don't like Port, for example, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between an awesome Port aged fifty years and a terrible one. It all tastes like cough syrup!

    Aging creates another complexity. Some wines do not improve with aging, and some get worse. Even the wines most amenable to aging will spoil at some point. Those 19th century bottles that get auctioned off for hundreds of thousands of dollars would probably be terrible if somebody were stupid enough to open one and drink it.

    But it really is true that some wines are better after sitting on a shelf for a decade in a climate controlled room. Some are so tannic when young that they will taste terrible unless you age them for a decade or decant it for several hours before drinking. (Decanting is just accelerated aging.)

    I do think there is some element of social conditioning, just as the same food served in cardboard box may not be as appealing as it would be when elegantly plated in a white tablecloth restaurant. But I think most people can tell the difference between a really good piece of steak and a really bad one, even without those social cues.

    So maybe it's, well, some of both?
    , @Alec Leamas

    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don’t have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I’m willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

     

    I think the blind studies on sommeliers demonstrate an inability to discern quality by predicting cost (where cost is a proxy for quality) at around $20.00 per bottle. It's also interesting that the same tasters will rate the same wine from the same vintage differently in different blind tastings.

    Which might be a model to explain things like the racial composition of the NBA - lots of rarefied things like the NBA have tiers below them that act like sieves. Clearly there are more elite white High School Basketball Players than Elite white College Basketball players, and more elite white Collegiate players than elite white NBA players. Small differences in physical makeup and ability disqualify more white players at every successive level of Basketball. So when you arrive at the top few hundred Basketball players, they're overwhelmingly black, while the top 10,000 or so basketball players in the world would be much less so. That small genetic variation is most pronounced at the far edge of the outliers.
    , @Sniffer
    Interestingly, most people have an inability to smell one or more compounds. From (http://www.worldoffinewine.com/news/subjectivity-in-wine-4999933):

    Back in 2008, Avery Gilbert noted that more than 20 specific anosmias were known at the time, each one affecting up to 75 percent of the population, and these anosmias accounted for merely a fraction of the total variation in aroma perception.
     
    Avery Gilbert, What the Nose Knows: The Science of Scent in Everyday Life (Crown, New York; 2008), pp.233–34.

    There have been studies showing the label affects critics' rating of a wine; on the other hand, there is the infamous equation predicting a wine's quality from it's growing conditions.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    I've had the cheap stuff, and I've had the expensive stuff. I can't tell the difference, so I go with Two Buck Chuck. (Actually up to $2.99 now).

    Some tests have shown that most wine snobs can't tell the difference between the expensive stuff and the cheap stuff. So if you have an empty bottle of the expensive stuff, and can find an approximate cheap wine, serve that at dinner and nobody will tell the difference.
    , @Olorin
    Winemakers, like fine art collectors, pay mainly for provenance.
    , @Anon87
    Not sure about wine, but you can tell with Scotch. Drink a decent single malt, then try something like J&B. To some they might both taste like gasoline, but you can tell a quality difference. Now maybe an $80 bottle and $125, not so much? Not a bourbon fan, but compare your commodity Jack with one of the endless small batch local distilleries popping up across the counrry. Confirms Jack is junk, at least to me.
  9. Lot says:

    “people generally don’t like to think about odds, especially non-gamblers.”

    People who never gamble have had at least one worthwhile thought about odds.

    Relatedly, the Supreme Court overturned the law that said additional states could not legalize online sports betting. Congress so rarely passes anything, much less a law that is socially beneficial. Really bad move.

    This message was sponsored by my fourth cousin Sheldon Adelson.

    • LOL: reiner Tor
  10. white males age 20-39 are something like 0.4 inches taller than blacks at the median

    Not on television.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    That's because so many of the white males you see on television are Jewish, and because many of the other white types now favored by media are "ethnic" and do not come from Northwestern European lineage.

    Across the broad span of America, there are still a lot of tall, fair men. If you happen to be one of those men and you relocate to the media-centric NYC region, you find yourself sticking out above a sea of little, swarthy bastards from Ellis Island.

  11. This might seem surprising at first, but stop and think about how different people are just within races. Consider the current NBA finals. The Cleveland Cavaliers’ top scorer LeBron James is massive, while the Golden State Warriors’ top scorer Kevin Durant is spindly.

    Lebron James went on a “diet” during the summer of 2014 and became spindly. This was a year before the NBA was going to test HGH use starting in the 2015-2016 season. Lebron’s play was less than stellar in the first half of 2014-2015 and he wound up taking a two-week midseason hiatus coming back “revitalized”. The proposed punishment for testing positive for HGH was supposed to be a 20-game suspension for a first-time violation and a 45-game ban for a second violation, although I cannot find any indication that testing was ever implemented.

    • Replies: @Rod1963

    Lebron James went on a “diet” during the summer of 2014 and became spindly. This was a year before the NBA was going to test HGH use starting in the 2015-2016 season. Lebron’s play was less than stellar in the first half of 2014-2015 and he wound up taking a two-week midseason hiatus coming back “revitalized”.
     
    I've seen "juicers" who go off their meds shrink like a popped balloon. They lose so much muscle mass so fast it's amazing. What it is, is their own body's testosterone production flatlined during their doping and when they went off the "juice" their system crashed.

    As for coming back "revitalized" PED's will do that.
  12. Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations (“races”) were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.

    Edwards argued that while Lewontin’s statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.

    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his “race is not real” argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    • Replies: @utu

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his “race is not real” argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.
     
    Because of the first sentence it is obvious he knew it from the day one or even before he started to work on his paper. In the paper he considers two measures of diversity and he picks the one that is less convex (he calls it incorrectly concave in the paper) which yields smaller fixation index than the other measure would.
    , @utu

    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.
     
    Lewontin's calculations of fixation index assumes that genes or alleles are not correlated. Then the probability of two genes in population is equal to the product of frequencies of these two genes in population. But this is not true. The definition of race must take into account that groups of genes are correlated with each other and the structure of these correlations (covariance matrix) are different for different races. For this reason the principal components which are linear combinations of many genes work so well to define a race. If all genes were uncorrelated with each other single genes would be principal components.
    , @jb
    Jack, your link for Lewontin's Fallacy is broken -- correct link is here.
    , @MEH 0910

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man.
     
    I have my doubts that the Marxist Lewontin was/is a well-intentioned man.
    , @bomag

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man.
     
    You are too kind. He is abrasively arrogant and known to make technical errors in service to a political agenda.
    , @C. Van Carter
    "Well-intentioned"? He was a lying communist:

    http://www.unz.com/article/vignettes-of-famous-evolutionary-biologists-large-and-small/#p_4_9:1-43
  13. OT
    Arrests for illegal border crossings top 50,000 in May for a third month running despite Trump’s much vaunted immigration crackdown
    Border Patrol agents made 51,912 arrests in May for illegal crossings – more than triple the number of arrests made in April 2017
    It’s the third month in a row that illegal crossing arrests topped 50,000
    Arrests come amid Trump’s new ‘zero tolerance’ policy on immigration which includes the controversial move to allow agents to separate families

    UK Daily Mail this morning

    • Replies: @Forbes
    I'd think a rise in arrests would indicate a crackdown, i.e. stricter enforcement policy, is working. A result of stricter enforcement usually means higher arrests. A number of factors effect the number of crossings. If those crossing illegally are merely put back across the border, there's no disincentive to trying again. They're buying what are effectively lottery tickets...

    The NYT's Fox Butterfield was regularly mocked for annually writing articles about the apparent conflict between a declining crime rate and higher levels of incarceration, unable to grasp the circularity present.
  14. Nice that we can come here to unz.com and leave comments on your Takimag contributions, Steve.

    • Agree: jim jones, fitzGetty
    • Replies: @fitzGetty
    ... yes indeed ... Taki lost much of its zing when its management decided to stop all immediate comments rather than moderate them ... still a first rate read though ...
  15. @J.Ross
    OT But I didn't order any pizza ...
    https://www.wsbtv.com/www.wsbtv.com/news/local/north-fulton-county/metro-sex-trafficking-sting-rescues-nearly-160-children-authorities-say/764243882
    One hundred and sixty kids kept like pets in a nice neighborhood. Rioting, illegal immigration, gun-running, and terrorism aren't the only crimes Obama winked at.

    pipin’ hot!

  16. utu says:

    (1) By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin’s terms. He defined the rules of the game. While the Lewontinites will be driving the point that 15% is very little and thus races are not meaningful, you will be trying to come up with metaphors (not genetic examples because you do not have any) that 15% is significant which justify the concept of race. You are conducting your argument on their terms.

    Instead Lewontin’s methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger. In fact it is possible to make this number almost anything between 0% and 100% by selecting appropriate genes. (b) What is the point of using genes that are common between populations to argue the case that races do not exist? One could follow Lewontin’s approach and show that genetic distance between apes and men is lower than 15% by selecting appropriate genes. (c). This is more complex objection. Lewontin treats frequencies of various genes as independent probabilities. Race as a trait is essentially polygenic where probability of occurring of genes A and B is not equal to the product of their frequencies: f(A)F(B)≠P(A and B). Let’s suppose that we have four genes A,B,C,D and one race is defined by individuals who have genes [(A and B) or (C and D)] and the other race is defined by individuals having genes [(A and C) or (B and D)]. (Note that ‘or’ is exclusive in both cases.) These two races are two disjoint sets in terms of combinations of gene pairs. If the frequencies of genes are treated as independent probabilities these two races can be close in terms of genetic distance. Actually frequencies of genes in in both races could be the same and Lewontin would find zero genetic distance between them.

    (2) I do not think that the metaphor of casino is good. It does not map on the structure of what was calculated by Lewontine. One has to get deeper to Lewontin’s methodology to see it. Lewontin calculates relative distance between populations by means of the fixation index (F-statistics) where he defines population diversity as a function that has properties of variance but is not exactly variance. And from the difference between diversities he gets the distance between populations. The distance is implied not defined.

    In case of two sets we can use variance to illustrate it. Let’s A and B are two sets of numbers. Let’s. Va, Vb and Ma, Mb are variances and means and V(A ‘or’ B) is a variance of composite sum of the two sets. Now let assume (Lewontin’s also makes this assumption that all populations are the same size) A and B are of the same size. Then

    V(A ‘or’ B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4

    The number 0.15 of Lewontin in this scenario is

    0.15= 1-[(Va+Vb)/2]/V(A ‘or’ B)=(1/4)*[(Ma-Mb)^2)/V(A ‘or’ B)

    This number allows us to express difference between means (without calculating them) as fraction of standard deviation SD=sqrt[V(A ‘or’ B)] of combined sum of two sets.

    Difference between means without calculating it explicitly is the whole point of this methodology using the fixation index. Lewontin gets distance between populations without explicitly calculating it or even defining it. The fixation index is the distance and thus its definition.

    The value of 15% or 0.15 means that Ma-Mb is 77% of the standard deviation SD.

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)

    This seems a lot, so let’s construct an example.

    We have two herds of dairy cows A and B. We calculate the fixation index for the yields of milk which comes to 15%. How much the average yield of milk of the herd A differ from the herd B. The answer is 77% of standard deviation of the milk yield of the combined herd A and B.

    Would the example with cows sway anybody? Perhaps we could replace it with incomes of Jews and gentiles. The fixation index of 15% implies 77% difference between means. Jews would prefer to talk about only 15% but anti-semites would talk about 77%.

    (3). So how the case could be argued?

    Lewontin calculated the value of fixation index using few selected genes. Fixation is something that we do not need to know but it suppose to measure a distance between different statistical sets in terms of variance. For these genes his fixation index is 15%. If he used different genes the fixation index would be lower or significantly higher. Why Lewontin used these genes? This is what he had in 1972 but he did not use any genes responsible for external racial traits. If he used genes responsible for the color of the skin the fixation index would be much larger. Now the question whether 15% is a lot or not. He says it is very small and thus negligible. But we beg to differ. Let’s see what fixation index of 15% means for the two herds of dairy cows. Go to the example in (2).

    • Replies: @res

    By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin’s terms. He defined the rules of the game.
     
    In my opinion the most devastating arguments are those which allow your opponent to frame the question and then refute him on his own terms. Ideally using his exact words.

    You might want to look up "steel-manning": https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

    Refusing to admit when your opponent has a valid point is just being childish.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    Let's try this reasoning.

    Basketball aptitude has an underlying metric called "b" that follows from analysis finding a common mathematical factor underlying various tests of how well an individual plays the game . The distribution of "b" in any population follows a bell curve.

    85 percent of the variation in "b" occurs within any so-called racial group but 15 percent is between these groups. That means that the bell curves for different groups overlap by quite a bit, and that people in the middle from almost any of the groups of concern can play against each other without it being lopsided.

    But small shifts between bell curves for any pair of groups results in large changes in the number of persons in "the tails" of the bell curve. NBA players are the result of a long winnowing process from the cement outdoor hoops to high school to college to the pros skimming the cream of the cream, so they represent the extreme right tail of "b" where there are very large group differences.
    , @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    , @reiner Tor
    Great comments.
  17. If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?

    Intelligence is positively correlated with conformism. (Only stupid people would go against cultural norms without a clear benefit for doing so to themselves.)

    Thus, intelligent people will support even the dumbest cultural norms. In fact, being able to hold two or three contradictory concepts in your head is a sign of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    In fact, being able to hold two or three contradictory concepts in your head is a sign of intelligence.

    Maybe so, but a lot of stupid people are also able to hold a number of contradictory concepts in your head. They're just simpler concepts.
  18. utu says:
    @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his “race is not real” argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    Because of the first sentence it is obvious he knew it from the day one or even before he started to work on his paper. In the paper he considers two measures of diversity and he picks the one that is less convex (he calls it incorrectly concave in the paper) which yields smaller fixation index than the other measure would.

  19. Speaking of the NBA finals I knew back when the season started itbqould be GSW vs C. Cavs….and then I knew GSW QOULD WIN Simply put because the Cavs are a 1 man team with a bunch ofnbenchers backing him up….

    It’s funny here at work because all the black guys sit around watching the playoffs pretending thisnteamn or that 1 will win….

    The GSW are the equivalent of what would have happened had Shaq and say Shawn Kemp joined the Jordan Bulls team. It would have been a super team and most broad based fans wouldve abansones the sport because wtf is the point of watching what is essentially Team USA at the Olympics beating some shit talking = college punks……whats the point watching the NBA when you already know who’s going to win

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    Because watching Kevin Durant sink turn around jumpers with 60%+ accuracy is a sight to behold.

    Lebron James muscling through the lane for layups isn't exciting to me. Stephen Curry jacking up prayers from half court is only fun when they go in. But Durant is unbelievably good at hitting whatever shot he wants whenever his team needs it, game after game. And he's been that way his entire career.
  20. utu says:
    @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    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.

    Lewontin’s calculations of fixation index assumes that genes or alleles are not correlated. Then the probability of two genes in population is equal to the product of frequencies of these two genes in population. But this is not true. The definition of race must take into account that groups of genes are correlated with each other and the structure of these correlations (covariance matrix) are different for different races. For this reason the principal components which are linear combinations of many genes work so well to define a race. If all genes were uncorrelated with each other single genes would be principal components.

  21. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    I’ve drunk a few bottles of expensive wine in my day, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I’m pretty sure though, if you swapped the liquid in the ‘82 Mouton with a $10 table wine I wouldn’t notice.

  22. When we say that differences within races are greater than differences between races, are we really comparing like with like?

    I understand there’s a lot of variation within the set of all black people: Africa is a huge continent, there were very few genetic bottlenecks, and most black people in the U.S. have some white ancestry too. But European nations had tight genetic bottlenecks relatively recently, so I would imagine they have far less intra-group genetic diversity.

    This doesn’t work if you lump all whites together (e.g. Finland and Portugal would have had different bottlenecks); but on a local level it seems plausible. At the very least, your 85/15% split might be closer to 60/40.

  23. @J.Ross
    OT But I didn't order any pizza ...
    https://www.wsbtv.com/www.wsbtv.com/news/local/north-fulton-county/metro-sex-trafficking-sting-rescues-nearly-160-children-authorities-say/764243882
    One hundred and sixty kids kept like pets in a nice neighborhood. Rioting, illegal immigration, gun-running, and terrorism aren't the only crimes Obama winked at.

    mass immigration of cheap labor creates a demand for mass ultra-cheap prostitution which is generally filled by forcing children – whether it’s trafficked hispanic girls to service hispanic cheap labor in the USA or clan-raped native European girls to service muslim cheap labor in Europe.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It creates that demand (as well as a normality of domestic abuse) but it also meets a separate, already-existing demand.
    It really is the worse devils of our nature given free reign and disguised as compassion.
  24. @J.Ross
    I have an image of a person who knows better but agrees to say the Appropriate Thing to get some perfectly understandable incentive.
    What I find mysterious is what the hell are they offering people in an age without castles? Line-cutting at Disneyland? Real estate? Spots for the kids in exclusive, all-but-guaranteed-Harvard schools? Are people conforming purely out of herd instinct? What glory did Kurt Eichenwald lay his tremellose paws upon for being such an Eichenwald?

    if group A and group B are competing and group A can persuade group B to breed with a lower IQ population group C then group B’s average IQ would decrease and group A wins – even if it takes a century or two.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Okay, that's big picture what they're doing to us. What are they doing for the idiots churning out thought-leading columns?
  25. OT:

    Controversy in Brazil over whether it is racist to try to stop indigenous peoples from engaging in their traditional pastime of killing disabled infants and twins.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/

  26. OT – a sort of sad-but-don’t-they-deserve it story of the English adjunct professoriate underclass.

    https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239148

    “To talk about adjuncts is to talk about the centerpiece of higher education. Tenured faculty represent only 17 percent of college instructors. Part-time adjuncts are now the majority of the professoriate and its fastest-growing segment. From 1975 to 2011, the number of part-time adjuncts quadrupled. And the so-called part-time designation is misleading because most of them are piecing together teaching jobs at multiple institutions simultaneously. A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays. In 2013, The Chronicle began collecting data on salary and benefits from adjuncts across the country. An English-department adjunct at Berkeley, for example, received $6,500 to teach a full-semester course. It’s easy to lose sight of all the people struggling beneath the data points. $7,000 at Duke. $6,000 at Columbia. $5,950 at the University of Iowa.

    These are the high numbers. According to the 2014 congressional report, adjuncts’ median pay per course is $2,700. An annual report by the American Association of University Professors indicated that last year “the average part-time faculty member earned $16,718” from a single employer. Other studies have similar findings. Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter’s day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000. She wrote, “I am currently pregnant with my first child. … I will receive NO time off for the birth or recovery. It is necessary I continue until the end of the semester in May in order to get paid, something I drastically need. The only recourse I have is to revert to an online classroom […] and do work while in the hospital and upon my return home.” Sixty-one percent of adjunct faculty are women.”

    Why so the awful terms and conditions?

    “From 2008 to 2014, tenure-track English-department jobs declined 43 percent. This year there are, by my count, only 173 entry-level tenure-track job openings — fewer than half of the opportunities just two years ago. If history is any guide, there will be about nine times as many new Ph.D.s this year as there are jobs. One might think that the years-long plunge in employment would compel doctoral programs to reduce their numbers of candidates, but the opposite is happening. From the Great Recession to 2014, U.S. universities awarded 10 percent more English Ph.D.s. In the humanities as a whole, doctorates are up 12 percent … the prospect of intellectual freedom, job security, and a life devoted to literature, combined with the urge to recoup a doctoral degree’s investment of time, gives young scholars a strong incentive to continue pursuing tenure-track jobs while selling their plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    This incentive generates a labor surplus that depresses wages.”

    Isn’t that ‘strong incentive’ similar to the ‘strong incentive’ which produced the California and Klondyke gold rushes?

    The author, Kevin Birmingham (who gave up tenure to write a book) lambasts US English departments for accepting more PhD students than can possibly be appointed to tenured positions.

    “the humanities almost unilaterally controls its own labor market. New faculty come from a pool of candidates that the academy itself creates, and that pool is overflowing”

    I’m just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market? I’ve not seen many adjunct English profs clamouring ‘build the wall!“.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    If we could have adjunct deans of diversity and inclusion who would have to take 6 jobs a semester to survive, we would solve a sizable percentage of what ails the universities.
    , @Barnard

    I’m just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market?
     
    Most of them never have and wouldn't even consider doing it. There isn't a strong relationship between being an English professor and being logical. I thought going after higher education would be low hanging fruit for Trump, but he has barely touched it. We all know Congressional Republicans won't do anything punitive to this class of people who regularly call them Nazis.
    , @Alden
    They call themselves freeway flyers Considering the hatred they spew out against Whites I hope everyone of them ends up homeless without even a car to live in.

    I remember an article a long time ago about the job prospects for sociology PHDs. 760 sociology PHDs that year. Only 3 tenure positions offered in the entire country.
  27. @J.Ross
    I have an image of a person who knows better but agrees to say the Appropriate Thing to get some perfectly understandable incentive.
    What I find mysterious is what the hell are they offering people in an age without castles? Line-cutting at Disneyland? Real estate? Spots for the kids in exclusive, all-but-guaranteed-Harvard schools? Are people conforming purely out of herd instinct? What glory did Kurt Eichenwald lay his tremellose paws upon for being such an Eichenwald?

    Individuals who state the inappropriate facts will lose their job, source of income , status and be ostracized from mainstream society. Recent examples include noted actors, scientists, college administrators, computer programmers etc. While in Europe perpetrators will be incarcerated for expressing unorthodox opinions, they even jail 80 year-old grandmothers and noted historians for stating their opinions.

    Anyone who acknowledges the differences between men and women will be quickly fired from any position they hold at any Fortune 500 firm. Anyone who notices the disparity between racial groups will be swiftly labeled a “racist” and face the consequences. SJWs have millions of informants who have infiltrated most companies, churches, schools and playgrounds across America. Social media is policed by thousands of enforcers looking for any indication of non-compliance. Violators are quickly reported to the authorities and banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and their Google accounts will be shutdown.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That's Europe, where for the most part they've never had any concept of rights or freedom (Europeans think that rights are privileges dispensed under license from a God-state), and everything you're describing falls short of motivation. It'd keep my mouth shut but it wouldn't bring the sewer overflow of propaganda that less and less people read in the legacy media.
    , @bomag

    SJWs have millions of informants...
     
    It's been said that communism didn't work because the practitioners weren't earnest enough.

    But now...
  28. Anonymous[186] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.

    Similarly, in double blind listening tests, people prefer the sound of simple two way small box speakers over very expensive audiophile ones, whether the subject listeners are audiophiles, recording engineers or musicians, so long as material without deep bass content is used. When it is, small two way box speakers with external actively powered subwoofers and wide range big systems like Altec VOTTs or Klipschorns are equally preferred.

    And of course, modestly priced (by comparison, e.g, $10 to 50K) new violins are indistinguishable from seven or eight figure Old Cremona violins by violinists and classical music listeners.

    None of which matters in the least to purveyors or customers in the carriage trades.

    • Replies: @dieter kief
    Interesting. Didn't know that it's true for speakers, too.

    A friend of mine once developed engines at Mecedes and found that the 2 liter VW engine was considerably better than the Mecedes one. In many aspects. They made a wide range of tests.

    , @EdwardM

    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.
     
    Do you have a citation for this? I find it hard to believe. My own opinion, based on enjoyment of wine but not expertise, is that the average $100 bottle is better than the average $15 bottle. Of course there are some $15 bottles better than some $100 bottles.

    Hype, marketing, and snobbery create some distortions, but over time doesn't the market adjust the valuation on different wines?
  29. I’d say the best argument is this: Yeah, but we share 96% of our DNA with chimps and 60% (or whatever the figure is–I made that number up) with platyhelminthes. So whatever goes on at the margin must be pretty important, no?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Of course you are right. This is all so ridiculous.

    Hey, take some hydrogen and combine it with 50% oxygen and what do you have? It won't even be a gas anymore.

    Add one particle to some solutions and you can cause crystallization to grow from that one point and fill the whole space.

    Change the fuel mixture in your car's engine by 15% and it might not even run.

    This whole 15% argument is for the proles, to keep them believing the religion. No one else can possibly believe it.

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Your argument is very good, and I will make an addendum to my other reply:

    We are talking about variations within 15% vs. variations within the other 85%. Let's use the Derbyshire analogy of salt in stew. Salt is a tiny percentage of stew, hardly 1% even, but replace it with habanero pepper and see how you like the stew. Replace it with epoxy resin and see what happens. Replace it with arsenic...

    Take the other 85% and change the beef into pork. Still stew and probably tasty. Replace the onions with carrots; still good. Change the potatoes into turnips; could be pretty good.

    You could have a stew wherein the whole 85% of it is not beef, not onions, not potatoes, and it would still be a good stew. But change that tiny portion of salt into something sinister and you will not have anything you would want to eat.

    BTW when I refer to "proles," I do not mean to insult "the working class." We are all working class now -- employees of the global empire. A prole to me is just some abstract dimwit who is constantly deceived by the powers that be. No thinking person who bothers to think about it could possibly be fooled by this 85%/15% nonsense. Nobody. It exists solely to keep the masses believing in the religion. The priests cannot possibly believe it.

  30. jb says:

    Instead Lewontin’s methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger.

    Not an expert myself, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it stated (by who? — Greg Cochran maybe?) that 15% is in fact typical for most genes, and that genes like those for skin color, with much larger values, are unusual. Lewontin’s argument is still a fallacy of course, but not because Lewontin cherry picked genes to give him the results he wanted.

  31. @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    Jack, your link for Lewontin’s Fallacy is broken — correct link is here.

  32. @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man.

    I have my doubts that the Marxist Lewontin was/is a well-intentioned man.

  33. “My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?”

    Steve’s question assumes that smart people are all logical and reasonable and happy to drive to the truth. A little time with Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, focusing on Original Sin, should help reveal the answer – assuming, of course, that Steve in that regard is not like the ‘there is no such thing as race crowd’ is in its pet denial realm.

  34. On the 85-15, David Reich’s recent book acknowledged its limitations. That’s probably one thing that contributed to its pushback on the left.

  35. @Gordo

    white males age 20-39 are something like 0.4 inches taller than blacks at the median
     
    Not on television.

    That’s because so many of the white males you see on television are Jewish, and because many of the other white types now favored by media are “ethnic” and do not come from Northwestern European lineage.

    Across the broad span of America, there are still a lot of tall, fair men. If you happen to be one of those men and you relocate to the media-centric NYC region, you find yourself sticking out above a sea of little, swarthy bastards from Ellis Island.

    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Buzz--I'm tall in NYC. I can see over the crowd, but I'm only the third tallest out of the four boys in my family. And you be amazed at how tall many people guess me to be--if only because most average height (5'9") guys claim to be two inches taller than actual.
  36. The morphological variation among breeds of dogs is far greater than the average variation between dogs and coyotes.
    “How do the kids like their new pet coyote, Prof. Lewontin?”

  37. @slumber_j
    I'd say the best argument is this: Yeah, but we share 96% of our DNA with chimps and 60% (or whatever the figure is--I made that number up) with platyhelminthes. So whatever goes on at the margin must be pretty important, no?

    Of course you are right. This is all so ridiculous.

    Hey, take some hydrogen and combine it with 50% oxygen and what do you have? It won’t even be a gas anymore.

    Add one particle to some solutions and you can cause crystallization to grow from that one point and fill the whole space.

    Change the fuel mixture in your car’s engine by 15% and it might not even run.

    This whole 15% argument is for the proles, to keep them believing the religion. No one else can possibly believe it.

  38. @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man.

    You are too kind. He is abrasively arrogant and known to make technical errors in service to a political agenda.

  39. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    On the $12.00 versus $120 wine issue, I don’t think it’s a pure social construct, or at least it’s not made up. I do think there is some element of social conditioning — people who drink expensive wine may be more inclined to like it because of the reputation of the wine. But they do blind tastings on a regular basis, and the expensive wines tend to win them.

    I’ve found this to be true when I do it. Mrs. Zippy and I do spend between $50 and $250 on wine on a regular basis, and we often hold dinner parties where we will serve foods and sample multiple wines. (We use the Coravin device, which allows one to “open” wine without opening it, assuming it uses a natural cork.)

    We put the wines in opaque bags, so they are unknown to the diners. When dinner is over, we will ask for opinions and unveil the wines. I will often include a range of wines — I recently did it with a $180 bottle, a $60 bottle, and Charles Shaw from Trader Joe’s, often known as “Two Buck Chuck,” though I think it’s closer to $3 or $4 these days.

    The result is uniformly that my guests like the more expensive wines more. I’ve done this with cheapo wines and some nice wines at least 30 times, and the cheapo wine has never, ever won. By cheapo I mean $20 or under. And I’ve had other people put the wines in the bags, so I am the one who is blind-tasting. And I’ve never picked the sub $20 stuff.

    Now, sometimes the $50 bottle will beat the $100 plus bottle. As you go up the quality scale, diminishing returns sets in, and the differences become more subtle and individual tastes come into play. So I might genuinely like an $80 bottle more than a $200 bottle, but I’m very unlikely to just love Barefoot or Two Buck Chuck as much as either. I have had some very expensive wines — more than $500 a bottle, or even four figures. They were great! But the difference between the $500 bottle that I love and the $150 bottle that I also love is so subtle and the marginal cost is so much higher that it’s not worth the additional $350 to me. But the difference between the $10 or $20 and the $50 – $250 bottles I now buy is so significant that the marginal cost is worth it.

    [MORE]

    There are additional complexities added by grape variety and aging.

    In my experience, at least, when looking for low-priced red wines or when scanning an inferior wine list, California Zinfandel is a pretty good bet. For whatever reason cheap Zins are, well, pretty good.

    Italian Chianti wines can be a bit rough and coarse, particularly on the cheapo side, but served with a spicy tomato-based recipe, they really work. The stuff about pairing wine and food really is true. (For people who want to see this principle illustrated in a crude way, have a sip of orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth. What you are eating really does affect how you taste wine.)

    With expensive wines, I genuinely think the Judgment of Paris got it right, and that California Cabernet Sauvignon will usually outshine a Bordeaux of equivalent price.

    I never, ever buy cheap pinot noir. Pinot noir is really delicate and very hard to grow. Because it requires very careful handling, cheapo pinot noir is just bad. Also, in the United States, a wine label that specifies a single variety only means that at least 75% of the wine is that variety — it might be blended. Pinot noir should never be blended, unless it’s being used to make sparkling wine. As opposed to cabernet sauvignon, which is usually better blended. For cheap American pinot noir, it’s a darn good bet there there is something else thrown into the bottle, because that something else will almost certainly be cheaper and easier to grow than pinot noir.

    A red Burgundy, by contrast, can legally only be pinot noir. My personal snobbish opinion is that, while Oregon and even California produce some good pinot noir, nothing beats a good Burgundy. Lots of people agree with me, which is why Burgundy wine is so expensive.

    Also, some people just plain don’t like certain wines. If you don’t like Port, for example, you probably won’t be able to tell the difference between an awesome Port aged fifty years and a terrible one. It all tastes like cough syrup!

    Aging creates another complexity. Some wines do not improve with aging, and some get worse. Even the wines most amenable to aging will spoil at some point. Those 19th century bottles that get auctioned off for hundreds of thousands of dollars would probably be terrible if somebody were stupid enough to open one and drink it.

    But it really is true that some wines are better after sitting on a shelf for a decade in a climate controlled room. Some are so tannic when young that they will taste terrible unless you age them for a decade or decant it for several hours before drinking. (Decanting is just accelerated aging.)

    I do think there is some element of social conditioning, just as the same food served in cardboard box may not be as appealing as it would be when elegantly plated in a white tablecloth restaurant. But I think most people can tell the difference between a really good piece of steak and a really bad one, even without those social cues.

    So maybe it’s, well, some of both?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    I don’t care.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    When's dinner? I will bring some homemade mead.
  40. @slumber_j
    I'd say the best argument is this: Yeah, but we share 96% of our DNA with chimps and 60% (or whatever the figure is--I made that number up) with platyhelminthes. So whatever goes on at the margin must be pretty important, no?

    Your argument is very good, and I will make an addendum to my other reply:

    We are talking about variations within 15% vs. variations within the other 85%. Let’s use the Derbyshire analogy of salt in stew. Salt is a tiny percentage of stew, hardly 1% even, but replace it with habanero pepper and see how you like the stew. Replace it with epoxy resin and see what happens. Replace it with arsenic…

    Take the other 85% and change the beef into pork. Still stew and probably tasty. Replace the onions with carrots; still good. Change the potatoes into turnips; could be pretty good.

    You could have a stew wherein the whole 85% of it is not beef, not onions, not potatoes, and it would still be a good stew. But change that tiny portion of salt into something sinister and you will not have anything you would want to eat.

    BTW when I refer to “proles,” I do not mean to insult “the working class.” We are all working class now — employees of the global empire. A prole to me is just some abstract dimwit who is constantly deceived by the powers that be. No thinking person who bothers to think about it could possibly be fooled by this 85%/15% nonsense. Nobody. It exists solely to keep the masses believing in the religion. The priests cannot possibly believe it.

    • Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    Nobody , especially the proles , believes the dogma. The leftists keep spewing the same misleading Lewontin propaganda , not to convince people , but as a tenant of the current mainstream religion of equality. those who question the current narrative will be brought to justice. In much of the world you will be jailed for expressing contrary ideas.
  41. Very off-topic, but Long Island’s version of Jackie Coakley has, as part of a plea deal, gotten prison time for making a false rape accusation:

    A former college student from Long Island who claimed two Sacred Heart University football players raped her admitted to a courtroom Tuesday that she made it all up.

    Nikki Yovino, 19, agreed to plead guilty to one count of falsely reporting an incident and one count of interfering with police for fabricating her rape claims, the Connecticut Post reported.

    As part of the plea deal, the former student agreed to serve a reduced sentence of one year behind bars. Yovino had been facing up to six years in prison before the plea deal.

    She reportedly agreed to the deal as the court prepared to select a jury for her false rape trial.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    This needs to happen a lot more often.
  42. OT: Affirmative Action for Air Traffic Controllers

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/affirmative_action_in_the_control_tower.html

    Because that’s who we are.

  43. Is it correct to say that the argument that “race is a social construct” applies with equal validity to dog breeds? If you think a mastiff is not a suitable purse dog for Paris Hilton, you’re engaging in invidious stereotyping? This, I think is the most accessible argument to convince the public that they’re the victims of perhaps the most colossal scientific hoax of all time. This spurious theory is, after all, the basis for all affirmative action, disparate impact, and implicit bias ideology. What other quack pseudo-scientific concept has been as consequential as this one? If the public could only have it explained to them in terms they can understand, the upheaval of institutions would be enormous.

  44. As to the last bit of the post:

    Black Men also have more than a few inches than white boys in another area (oh yeah-you know what I mean)

    No wonder white girls crave Black Men

    • Replies: @Logan
    Some facts about penis size by race.

    https://medium.com/globalnewsasia/does-race-affect-penis-size-28a1e47e0748
    , @Anonymous Jew
    You are nothing if not persistent. I hate to feed to the troll, but there's something I must know: do you have any real experience with the Black masses? No, not the top 5-10% that graduate from respectable colleges, but the other 90% of the bell curve.

    I'm somewhat unique here and in the professional middle class in that I actually spent much of my childhood living on the border of a Black neighborhood and going to >50% Black schools. Unlike you, and even many posters here, I actually have over a decade of personal experience with the whole of the Black population/bell curve.

    It was this extensive experience with Blacks that made me a scientific racist. Good social/behavioral science just confirms common sense. They really are quite different. Lower intelligence is the most cited difference but there are many others, from how they smell to average personality profile, et al.

    You must be:
    1) a Black/Amerid minority yourself;
    2) a leftist that knows Blacks like me but are so religious in your ideology that you are incapable of seeing the reality that smacks you in the face daily;
    3) have never had any significant interaction with regular Blacks; or
    4) are somewhere on the autistic/Aspergers spectrum.

    I'd really like to know. I'm betting a mix of 3&4.
    , @Alfa158
    Well, for once I can’t argue with one of your claims, after all you’re the one with the personal experience.
    , @Anonymous
    Usually, I like to comment on items that I have some personal experience with. This isn't one of them.

    I am a heterosexual White male.

    I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen a black man's penis in an erect state in the flesh. I have seen a few films of such things, but such movies are not representative of reality, because male porn stars are selected for having large and therefore visually prominent penises.

    And I don't generally talk about such things with women, black or white. In fact any white woman with experience with black men sexually is pretty much off my radar completely, by choice. And out of respect for the black man, I don't mess with his women, just as Muhammad Ali didn't mess with mine. Plus which, they have no appeal for me.

    That said, I have had discussions on this subject with a few people who did know a lot about it. Two of them were retired high class escort type call girls and a couple of others were homosexual males who admitted they were bottoms and not tops and made it obvious they were really, really knowledgeable about penises. Unlike the women, they knew all the scientific terms and the little details only someone with a penis themselves would think of, but which most of us don't, because other guys' equipment does not particularly interest us.

    It interests me from an evolutionary and racial standpoint, as an example of being just one more example of how we are not all the same besides skin pigmentation. So I asked.

    The call girls (then both in their late fifties, or about my own age now, in roughly the mid to late 1980s: I know that both of them are now deceased, one in her sixties, one made it to about 83 or 84) were in complete agreement amongst themselves and with the male homosexuals for the most part. The male homosexuals were both much younger and had experience mostly with American men, mostly black or white, whereas the CGs had worked in the US but had many European, Asian, and Middle Eastern clients as well as American corporate and showbiz types as well as other affluent Americans.

    The bottom lines appeared to be:

    1) Blacks tended to be "showers and not growers", that is, their erect length and thickness was much closer to the flaccid size than whites on average.

    2) When fully erect, black penises tended to be less rigid and more compressible than white or Asian ones.

    3) The women reported that blacks tended to be circumcised much less often then whites, particularly uncircumcised American whites were pretty rare. The gays didn't comment. I did not ask. My guess is that more white boys escape the snip today than in the years the men the women had experience with were born but that is speculation.

    4) On average, white penises had the most variability in size when erect. Blacks had a variety of sizes too, and were on average slightly but not very much bigger than white ones. Being more flexible they were less painful to deal with if very large than huge white ones, the women said.

    Koreans and Chinese were uniformly about the same as average white penises or a little bit, but not greatly smaller, but very small or very large ones were uncommon. Japanese men had smaller than average white ones, nearly universally, and did range in size from very small to slightly smaller than average. Asian penises were quite hard when erect.

    5) Black men had ejaculate that was thicker, more copious, and a brighter white than others and it had a generally bitterer taste. Black men tended to have a more dramatic reaction to orgasm than others.

    6) When encountering men with really large ones, such that sex became impossible or really challenging, they usually fell into two groups: blacks or mulattoes from island nations such as Haitians, Dominicans, Jamaicans and the like, or white men from Scandinvian countries. Arabs often had big ones but never of that extreme size. The girls reported that the escort agencies they worked for usually had one or two girls on staff who were able to deal with these customers more easily than the others and they'd get those dates.
  45. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don’t have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I’m willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    I think the blind studies on sommeliers demonstrate an inability to discern quality by predicting cost (where cost is a proxy for quality) at around $20.00 per bottle. It’s also interesting that the same tasters will rate the same wine from the same vintage differently in different blind tastings.

    Which might be a model to explain things like the racial composition of the NBA – lots of rarefied things like the NBA have tiers below them that act like sieves. Clearly there are more elite white High School Basketball Players than Elite white College Basketball players, and more elite white Collegiate players than elite white NBA players. Small differences in physical makeup and ability disqualify more white players at every successive level of Basketball. So when you arrive at the top few hundred Basketball players, they’re overwhelmingly black, while the top 10,000 or so basketball players in the world would be much less so. That small genetic variation is most pronounced at the far edge of the outliers.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    I’m a little surprised that the cutoff was that low at $20. I’m no sommelier, but even from my own inexpert experience it is possible to distinguish a box wine from a $10 wine, from a $40 wine. Above that, you can’t make any further distinctions, and the $200 ones might actually taste worse. A $1,000 Rothschild Bordeaux is for people who want signal that they can buy a $1,000 wine.
    Most of the tasting notes are also unreliable. “Peppery and bright with hints of cherry, chocolate and cinnamon, a smooth nose redolent of lavender and coffee, and a lingering smoky finish”. If you blind test oenophiles, no two of them will come up with the same similes, or even repeat them after a second test of the same wine. Whenever an oenophile asks me to sample their latest wine discovery, I always fall back on the old gag line: “A naive little wine, but I think you’ll be amused by its pretension”.
    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top. In that case where the product is supposed to be basically straight alcohol and water, it was tough to beat a brand which is industrially mass produced. The tightly controlled ingredients and low variance processes resulted in a very high purity, consistent product.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    You are right about the wine. There is the BS aspect, including connoisseurs who can't pass a blind test, plus diminishing returns.

    This is not just confined to wines. Enthusiasts get all excited about minute improvements that add magnitudes to the cost of whatever it is they love. Unfortunately with things like wine that are perceived by Americans to be "cultural and classy," this gets passed on inaccurately to the general public as a linear relationship between what goes into something and what comes out.

    If you can't be happy with a $25 bottle of wine, then you are full of sh*t.

  46. Both sides in this debate are making same the mistake, viz. they appeal to the genetic data as if it were authoritative (an approach which then devolves into arguing about the meaning of the data). What should be strikingly obvious is that the appeal is both improper and unnecessary. Ignore genes, race remains; that should be the focus here. Far from being scientific, the genetic arguments advanced by both sides are simply obscurantist.

  47. res says:
    @utu
    (1) By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin's terms. He defined the rules of the game. While the Lewontinites will be driving the point that 15% is very little and thus races are not meaningful, you will be trying to come up with metaphors (not genetic examples because you do not have any) that 15% is significant which justify the concept of race. You are conducting your argument on their terms.

    Instead Lewontin's methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger. In fact it is possible to make this number almost anything between 0% and 100% by selecting appropriate genes. (b) What is the point of using genes that are common between populations to argue the case that races do not exist? One could follow Lewontin's approach and show that genetic distance between apes and men is lower than 15% by selecting appropriate genes. (c). This is more complex objection. Lewontin treats frequencies of various genes as independent probabilities. Race as a trait is essentially polygenic where probability of occurring of genes A and B is not equal to the product of their frequencies: f(A)F(B)≠P(A and B). Let's suppose that we have four genes A,B,C,D and one race is defined by individuals who have genes [(A and B) or (C and D)] and the other race is defined by individuals having genes [(A and C) or (B and D)]. (Note that 'or' is exclusive in both cases.) These two races are two disjoint sets in terms of combinations of gene pairs. If the frequencies of genes are treated as independent probabilities these two races can be close in terms of genetic distance. Actually frequencies of genes in in both races could be the same and Lewontin would find zero genetic distance between them.

    (2) I do not think that the metaphor of casino is good. It does not map on the structure of what was calculated by Lewontine. One has to get deeper to Lewontin's methodology to see it. Lewontin calculates relative distance between populations by means of the fixation index (F-statistics) where he defines population diversity as a function that has properties of variance but is not exactly variance. And from the difference between diversities he gets the distance between populations. The distance is implied not defined.

    In case of two sets we can use variance to illustrate it. Let's A and B are two sets of numbers. Let's. Va, Vb and Ma, Mb are variances and means and V(A 'or' B) is a variance of composite sum of the two sets. Now let assume (Lewontin's also makes this assumption that all populations are the same size) A and B are of the same size. Then


    V(A 'or' B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    The number 0.15 of Lewontin in this scenario is

    0.15= 1-[(Va+Vb)/2]/V(A 'or' B)=(1/4)*[(Ma-Mb)^2)/V(A 'or' B)
     
    This number allows us to express difference between means (without calculating them) as fraction of standard deviation SD=sqrt[V(A 'or' B)] of combined sum of two sets.

    Difference between means without calculating it explicitly is the whole point of this methodology using the fixation index. Lewontin gets distance between populations without explicitly calculating it or even defining it. The fixation index is the distance and thus its definition.
     
    The value of 15% or 0.15 means that Ma-Mb is 77% of the standard deviation SD.

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    This seems a lot, so let's construct an example.

    We have two herds of dairy cows A and B. We calculate the fixation index for the yields of milk which comes to 15%. How much the average yield of milk of the herd A differ from the herd B. The answer is 77% of standard deviation of the milk yield of the combined herd A and B.

    Would the example with cows sway anybody? Perhaps we could replace it with incomes of Jews and gentiles. The fixation index of 15% implies 77% difference between means. Jews would prefer to talk about only 15% but anti-semites would talk about 77%.

    (3). So how the case could be argued?

    Lewontin calculated the value of fixation index using few selected genes. Fixation is something that we do not need to know but it suppose to measure a distance between different statistical sets in terms of variance. For these genes his fixation index is 15%. If he used different genes the fixation index would be lower or significantly higher. Why Lewontin used these genes? This is what he had in 1972 but he did not use any genes responsible for external racial traits. If he used genes responsible for the color of the skin the fixation index would be much larger. Now the question whether 15% is a lot or not. He says it is very small and thus negligible. But we beg to differ. Let's see what fixation index of 15% means for the two herds of dairy cows. Go to the example in (2).

    By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin’s terms. He defined the rules of the game.

    In my opinion the most devastating arguments are those which allow your opponent to frame the question and then refute him on his own terms. Ideally using his exact words.

    You might want to look up “steel-manning”: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

    Refusing to admit when your opponent has a valid point is just being childish.

    • Replies: @utu
    My long comment was in earnest. I thought it would help to answer questions that Steve Sailer's asked:

    My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?
     
    Your reaction to my comment and your earlier inept steel-manning of Steve Sailer argument by taking the square root of 0.15 made me realize that I must be the only one who tries in earnest to destroy the Lewontin's meme.

    Did Steve Sailer really believe that his casino example could impact those 'intelligent people'? The casino example is inadequate; it does not deserve to be called an analogy. There is no discernible relation to the fixation index that Lewontin calculated. But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept. Did Steve Sailer thought that racists 'analogy' will influence those 'intelligent people'? Apparently Steve Sailer is not interested in influencing them. He is just playing to the chap seats bought by obsequious sycophants like yourself. He will be happy to keep 'trying' for another 18 years in front of so demanding audience.
    , @candid_observer
    I left a comment to utu directly above which may interest you.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/18-years-of-trying/#comment-2365551

  48. @Neoconned
    Speaking of the NBA finals I knew back when the season started itbqould be GSW vs C. Cavs....and then I knew GSW QOULD WIN Simply put because the Cavs are a 1 man team with a bunch ofnbenchers backing him up....

    It's funny here at work because all the black guys sit around watching the playoffs pretending thisnteamn or that 1 will win....

    The GSW are the equivalent of what would have happened had Shaq and say Shawn Kemp joined the Jordan Bulls team. It would have been a super team and most broad based fans wouldve abansones the sport because wtf is the point of watching what is essentially Team USA at the Olympics beating some shit talking = college punks......whats the point watching the NBA when you already know who's going to win

    Because watching Kevin Durant sink turn around jumpers with 60%+ accuracy is a sight to behold.

    Lebron James muscling through the lane for layups isn’t exciting to me. Stephen Curry jacking up prayers from half court is only fun when they go in. But Durant is unbelievably good at hitting whatever shot he wants whenever his team needs it, game after game. And he’s been that way his entire career.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Durant only joined the GSW because he wanted a ring or two before he aged out and he realized his team up with Westbrook wasn't doing shit in OKC.

    he also smartly knew Silver and the other Jewish NBA bigwigs wouldn't allow BOTH HE AND LEBRON to join the GSW as it literally would destroy the NBA brand and figured once LEBRON gave Cleveland a title or 2 he's try out with GSW to get 1 to 3 more rings before he goes off into retirement at 40.....
  49. It is hard to understand why Lewontin’s argument got so much traction given he seems to be a self-acknowledged Marxist. Maybe, no one knew back then?

  50. Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March.

    I wonder what the scores would have been if the British Royal Navy had run the tests, or the US sub fleet. And there’s no word on testing the enlisted sailors.

  51. @Alec Leamas

    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don’t have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I’m willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

     

    I think the blind studies on sommeliers demonstrate an inability to discern quality by predicting cost (where cost is a proxy for quality) at around $20.00 per bottle. It's also interesting that the same tasters will rate the same wine from the same vintage differently in different blind tastings.

    Which might be a model to explain things like the racial composition of the NBA - lots of rarefied things like the NBA have tiers below them that act like sieves. Clearly there are more elite white High School Basketball Players than Elite white College Basketball players, and more elite white Collegiate players than elite white NBA players. Small differences in physical makeup and ability disqualify more white players at every successive level of Basketball. So when you arrive at the top few hundred Basketball players, they're overwhelmingly black, while the top 10,000 or so basketball players in the world would be much less so. That small genetic variation is most pronounced at the far edge of the outliers.

    I’m a little surprised that the cutoff was that low at $20. I’m no sommelier, but even from my own inexpert experience it is possible to distinguish a box wine from a $10 wine, from a $40 wine. Above that, you can’t make any further distinctions, and the $200 ones might actually taste worse. A $1,000 Rothschild Bordeaux is for people who want signal that they can buy a $1,000 wine.
    Most of the tasting notes are also unreliable. “Peppery and bright with hints of cherry, chocolate and cinnamon, a smooth nose redolent of lavender and coffee, and a lingering smoky finish”. If you blind test oenophiles, no two of them will come up with the same similes, or even repeat them after a second test of the same wine. Whenever an oenophile asks me to sample their latest wine discovery, I always fall back on the old gag line: “A naive little wine, but I think you’ll be amused by its pretension”.
    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top. In that case where the product is supposed to be basically straight alcohol and water, it was tough to beat a brand which is industrially mass produced. The tightly controlled ingredients and low variance processes resulted in a very high purity, consistent product.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top.
     
    I have to point out here that they actually tested this one on the Mythbusters show. They enlisted the services of a professional vodka taster to do the comparison. The specific myth under consideration was "Can you make a premium vodka by running the cheap stuff through a charcoal water filter?" There were eight vodka samples for the taster to judge: one was a bottle of the rotgut, another was the high-end premium, and the other six were prepared by running the rotgut through the water filter from one to six times. Not only did the taster identify the premium and the cheap booze, but he also ranked the filtered vodkas exactly according to the number of times they were filtered. He didn't misjudge a single sample---he nailed every last one.

    This reminds me of a tangentially related topic that I've been meaning to bring up for a while, viz. the very different smell of gasoline now compared with 30 years ago. I remember when I was a kid in '80s, I used to love the smell of gasoline. I would inhale ecstatically whenever we stopped at a gas station, and on cold winter mornings when the car was preheating, my parents would have to entreat me to stop standing in the exhaust stream breathing the fumes (yes, I've already anticipated the obvious jokes about my brain damage, so don't even bother making them).

    The point is that back then gas had a deliciously rich and aromatic smell like ambergris. But nowadays when you stand next to a car with the engine running, more often than not it smells like a cabbage fart. That's a result of our "fracking miracle." The light, tight oil that gets blasted out of the shale beds is chemically very different from the older crude and functions more as a petroleum diluent than an actual petroleum source. It has to be blended with the premium stocks derived from conventional crude in order to produce usable gasoline. Most of this gets sold to supermarket fuel stations and other discount fuel retailers. I would advise against filling up there. You're better off paying for a name brand gasoline.
  52. Judging from the NHANES figures I looked at a decade ago for the height of blacks and whites, race only is minimally useful in predicting height: white males age 20-39 are something like 0.4 inches taller than blacks at the median, but blacks have a greater standard deviation. So there are a few more Kevin Durant sized blacks than whites on average.

    I believe you once mentioned that this holds true for Africans for a variety of common human traits. That is, they have fatter tails on either end. So, given a similar size population sample of the three continental-scale races (Africans, Asians, Europeans), the African group would tend to have a higher number of, say, short/tall, thin/fat people on the extreme ends than the other two population groups.

    Or maybe I read that on another blog that you referenced. Either way, is that accurate?

  53. Anonymous[219] • Disclaimer says:

    “So maybe it’s not so much that white men can’t jump. White men just can’t reach high.”

    Interesting. If memory serves, Jerry West had an enormous wingspan for a guy who was a tad short of 6’3″. This accounted for his defensive prowess (he was one of the greatest defensive guards of all time). He could dunk anytime he wanted to but chose not to do so (ditto for Oscar Robertson).

  54. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    Interestingly, most people have an inability to smell one or more compounds. From (http://www.worldoffinewine.com/news/subjectivity-in-wine-4999933):

    Back in 2008, Avery Gilbert noted that more than 20 specific anosmias were known at the time, each one affecting up to 75 percent of the population, and these anosmias accounted for merely a fraction of the total variation in aroma perception.

    Avery Gilbert, What the Nose Knows: The Science of Scent in Everyday Life (Crown, New York; 2008), pp.233–34.

    There have been studies showing the label affects critics’ rating of a wine; on the other hand, there is the infamous equation predicting a wine’s quality from it’s growing conditions.

  55. Wait, are you implying something re the average black player in the NBA being a bit shorter than the average white playrt, but having a longer wing span? Like longer arms mean what? I remember racist jokes about blacks wearing platform shoes so as not to drag their knuckles on the ground. Please do not go there. That would be racist. Or something… I am surprised that Al Sharpton or Tiny Duck have not drug you through the mud yet.

  56. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    I’ve had the cheap stuff, and I’ve had the expensive stuff. I can’t tell the difference, so I go with Two Buck Chuck. (Actually up to $2.99 now).

    Some tests have shown that most wine snobs can’t tell the difference between the expensive stuff and the cheap stuff. So if you have an empty bottle of the expensive stuff, and can find an approximate cheap wine, serve that at dinner and nobody will tell the difference.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, "middle class" California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.

    At $20, you can serve your most perceptive guests anything from a wonderful variety of makers.

    Save the really cheap stuff for beach parties where nobody cares, and for yourself out in the backyard this summer. Avoid boxes at all costs. There IS a bottom to all this.

    PS: You can buy Trump wines between those two price points, if you want to have some fun serving the label to see the reactions. They are fine, especially for wines coming from the dreadful East Coast. I gave them as gifts last Christmas to, shall we say, like-minded people.

    , @Anonymouse
    Someone brought a bottle of Two-buck Chuck over to our house one time. It was raw and sour, barely fit to cook with.
  57. @Alec Leamas

    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don’t have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I’m willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

     

    I think the blind studies on sommeliers demonstrate an inability to discern quality by predicting cost (where cost is a proxy for quality) at around $20.00 per bottle. It's also interesting that the same tasters will rate the same wine from the same vintage differently in different blind tastings.

    Which might be a model to explain things like the racial composition of the NBA - lots of rarefied things like the NBA have tiers below them that act like sieves. Clearly there are more elite white High School Basketball Players than Elite white College Basketball players, and more elite white Collegiate players than elite white NBA players. Small differences in physical makeup and ability disqualify more white players at every successive level of Basketball. So when you arrive at the top few hundred Basketball players, they're overwhelmingly black, while the top 10,000 or so basketball players in the world would be much less so. That small genetic variation is most pronounced at the far edge of the outliers.

    You are right about the wine. There is the BS aspect, including connoisseurs who can’t pass a blind test, plus diminishing returns.

    This is not just confined to wines. Enthusiasts get all excited about minute improvements that add magnitudes to the cost of whatever it is they love. Unfortunately with things like wine that are perceived by Americans to be “cultural and classy,” this gets passed on inaccurately to the general public as a linear relationship between what goes into something and what comes out.

    If you can’t be happy with a $25 bottle of wine, then you are full of sh*t.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    As a commenter at this site observed awhile back, rich people enjoy overpaying for everything except labor. I think that's a good insight. To enjoy great wealth, there must be a difference between the things you can afford and the things that those who work for you can. Wouldn't it irritate a Bezos or a Zuckerberg to encounter one of his employees at an exclusive resort where he is vacationing? No, he wants to feel they can afford only lesser rewards. There must be a stark contrast.

    In 1984, O'Brien asks Winston, "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

    Winston replies, "By making him suffer."

    O'Brien says, "Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation."

    Similarly, unless other people are barely scraping by, how can you be sure that your great wealth is meaningful? The joy of wealth is in rubbing other people's noses in their relative poverty. And that's why we need open borders, so America can be more like Mexico.
  58. OT: feminists and presstitutes triggered that elderly billionaire uses colorful language to satirize a retarded feminist question

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/07/news/companies/sam-zell-women/index.html

  59. @Buzz Mohawk
    Your argument is very good, and I will make an addendum to my other reply:

    We are talking about variations within 15% vs. variations within the other 85%. Let's use the Derbyshire analogy of salt in stew. Salt is a tiny percentage of stew, hardly 1% even, but replace it with habanero pepper and see how you like the stew. Replace it with epoxy resin and see what happens. Replace it with arsenic...

    Take the other 85% and change the beef into pork. Still stew and probably tasty. Replace the onions with carrots; still good. Change the potatoes into turnips; could be pretty good.

    You could have a stew wherein the whole 85% of it is not beef, not onions, not potatoes, and it would still be a good stew. But change that tiny portion of salt into something sinister and you will not have anything you would want to eat.

    BTW when I refer to "proles," I do not mean to insult "the working class." We are all working class now -- employees of the global empire. A prole to me is just some abstract dimwit who is constantly deceived by the powers that be. No thinking person who bothers to think about it could possibly be fooled by this 85%/15% nonsense. Nobody. It exists solely to keep the masses believing in the religion. The priests cannot possibly believe it.

    Nobody , especially the proles , believes the dogma. The leftists keep spewing the same misleading Lewontin propaganda , not to convince people , but as a tenant of the current mainstream religion of equality. those who question the current narrative will be brought to justice. In much of the world you will be jailed for expressing contrary ideas.

  60. @Paleo Liberal
    I've had the cheap stuff, and I've had the expensive stuff. I can't tell the difference, so I go with Two Buck Chuck. (Actually up to $2.99 now).

    Some tests have shown that most wine snobs can't tell the difference between the expensive stuff and the cheap stuff. So if you have an empty bottle of the expensive stuff, and can find an approximate cheap wine, serve that at dinner and nobody will tell the difference.

    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, “middle class” California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.

    At $20, you can serve your most perceptive guests anything from a wonderful variety of makers.

    Save the really cheap stuff for beach parties where nobody cares, and for yourself out in the backyard this summer. Avoid boxes at all costs. There IS a bottom to all this.

    PS: You can buy Trump wines between those two price points, if you want to have some fun serving the label to see the reactions. They are fine, especially for wines coming from the dreadful East Coast. I gave them as gifts last Christmas to, shall we say, like-minded people.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, “middle class” California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.
     
    Everybody's wine palette is different and evolves, but for quite some time I've found California Reds far too sweet/fruity/one note. There's not much finesse or complexity in many of these $10-$12 California Reds and they compete with most food.

    I'm tending towards Spanish Reds for value now - more balance between the fruit and tannins with some oak which is better for drinking with a nice steak or lamb chops, etc.
    , @Anonymouse
    Buying and drinking California wines is an expensive hobby. I recommend you try the Louis Jadot label. Their Beaujolais-Village (red) and Macon-Village (white), $9 and $11 respectively, will beat the socks off any California wine under $20. Louis Jadot is available all over the country - you can buy it from Amazon. Louis Jadot is consistent year to year. They sell a Pouilly-Fuisse for $16 which my wife and I mean to try now that we've come into some money.
  61. @Jack Strocchi
    Lewontins Fallacy was refuted in a 2003 journal arucle by Edwards, based on a paper he and Scafall-Forzi had presented a mere 40 years earler in 1963. Edwards is another one of those WASP statistical biologists, so admired by our host. He pioneered the application of Principal Components Analysis to genetic data, but what would he know?

    He concluded that although Lewontins factual assumption about the
    overall absolute similarity in the distribution of human genetic variation was true, his conclusion that race was a statistical artifcat, and thus a social construction, was a fallacy. This is because the relative differences berween ancestral collocated populations ("races") were systematically clustered. Thus if you knew that one sample of the population had a specific cluster of genes you could with greater certainty predict that it would also present with other clusters. The more clusters you identified the more confidence in predicting the racial identity of thr jndividual or sample that you were studying, Rising to 100% if you could analyse a good quality sample of the whole genome. Hence forensic medicine.


    Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different (variants of a particular gene) at an individual (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 percent 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.
     


    Of course this argument about genotypic quantities says nothing about the phenotypic qualities, ie the adaptative advantage that genotypic differences give to different races. We know that quite small genetic variation can give rise to profound phenotypic differences. Thus chimps, our closest species relative, are 98.5% hominid. But that 1.5% difference makes a big difference in morphology and behabiour, as Ronald Reagan proved in Bedtime for Bozo.

    Lewontin was a brillant technical biologist and no doubt a well-intentioned man. But his "race is not real" argument was false. He must have known that, at some stage of his life.
  62. (Hispanic ethnicity is fairly important, though, for predicting height, although some of that is not genetic and can change over the generations.)

    Despite good nutrition, I don’t recall seeing many (if any) US born Latin-Americans of impressive height. Probably they are taller than their parents but still short.

    Neither of their component populations (Iberian/Native American) is particularly tall so the hybrids aren’t tall either. Recently I visited Portugal and I was surprised to see that there was a subgroup of Portuguese men who had very very slight builds – they were built like Vietnamese guys (adult Vietnamese men in America sometimes have to shop in the boys dept. because they are too small for adult sizes) – they were of normal proportions but miniaturized so that they were maybe 5′-2″ and 110 lbs. Some of these guys were young men so I don’t think that it related to their own malnutrition growing up. I think you find this type of build in populations where food was not plentiful for a long time so that there was a survival advantage in being miniaturized so that you could get by on say a 1,000 calorie/day diet instead of 1,200. The average Portuguese (unlike the average Vietnamese) didn’t look like this but there were enough of these guys around to be a noticeable sub-type. There were also some extremely small women (and I noticed that a lot of the women wore platform shoes).

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Despite good nutrition, I don’t recall seeing many (if any) US born Latin-Americans of impressive height. Probably they are taller than their parents but still short.
     
    Tony Gonzalez is 6'5" and Anthony Munoz is 6'6" but I admit that's a rarity.

    On the whole Mesoamericans seem to grow round with a surfeit of nutrition rather than tall or particularly broad. That probably means that they have some "thrifty gene" for fat storage, which is more advantageous to long term survival than growing large on excess calories as a child and then having a baseline of high caloric needs in an environment with rudimentary agricultural development. So you could take advantage of a bumper crop of corn and pack on a some extra fat in your belly and rear end, and then in a few months rely upon that when food is scarce for an extended period of time.
  63. @Jack D
    (Hispanic ethnicity is fairly important, though, for predicting height, although some of that is not genetic and can change over the generations.)

    Despite good nutrition, I don't recall seeing many (if any) US born Latin-Americans of impressive height. Probably they are taller than their parents but still short.

    Neither of their component populations (Iberian/Native American) is particularly tall so the hybrids aren't tall either. Recently I visited Portugal and I was surprised to see that there was a subgroup of Portuguese men who had very very slight builds - they were built like Vietnamese guys (adult Vietnamese men in America sometimes have to shop in the boys dept. because they are too small for adult sizes) - they were of normal proportions but miniaturized so that they were maybe 5'-2" and 110 lbs. Some of these guys were young men so I don't think that it related to their own malnutrition growing up. I think you find this type of build in populations where food was not plentiful for a long time so that there was a survival advantage in being miniaturized so that you could get by on say a 1,000 calorie/day diet instead of 1,200. The average Portuguese (unlike the average Vietnamese) didn't look like this but there were enough of these guys around to be a noticeable sub-type. There were also some extremely small women (and I noticed that a lot of the women wore platform shoes).

    Despite good nutrition, I don’t recall seeing many (if any) US born Latin-Americans of impressive height. Probably they are taller than their parents but still short.

    Tony Gonzalez is 6’5″ and Anthony Munoz is 6’6″ but I admit that’s a rarity.

    On the whole Mesoamericans seem to grow round with a surfeit of nutrition rather than tall or particularly broad. That probably means that they have some “thrifty gene” for fat storage, which is more advantageous to long term survival than growing large on excess calories as a child and then having a baseline of high caloric needs in an environment with rudimentary agricultural development. So you could take advantage of a bumper crop of corn and pack on a some extra fat in your belly and rear end, and then in a few months rely upon that when food is scarce for an extended period of time.

    • Replies: @Logan
    This is all based on the notion that "natives" have an infinitely more recent history of starvation than "white people."

    But that just isn't true. Food shortages and even starvation were quite common in Europe well into the 19th century. Half a dozen generations is simply not enough to make an evolutionary difference.

  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, "middle class" California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.

    At $20, you can serve your most perceptive guests anything from a wonderful variety of makers.

    Save the really cheap stuff for beach parties where nobody cares, and for yourself out in the backyard this summer. Avoid boxes at all costs. There IS a bottom to all this.

    PS: You can buy Trump wines between those two price points, if you want to have some fun serving the label to see the reactions. They are fine, especially for wines coming from the dreadful East Coast. I gave them as gifts last Christmas to, shall we say, like-minded people.

    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, “middle class” California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.

    Everybody’s wine palette is different and evolves, but for quite some time I’ve found California Reds far too sweet/fruity/one note. There’s not much finesse or complexity in many of these $10-$12 California Reds and they compete with most food.

    I’m tending towards Spanish Reds for value now – more balance between the fruit and tannins with some oak which is better for drinking with a nice steak or lamb chops, etc.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Agree on your assessment of California Reds. Although, living in the mid-Atlantic Region, I've found the emerging DelMarVa viticulture can produce some decent Reds as well, so I tend to go local when I find one. Although, they are somewhat coarser than the smoother Californias, as this local viticulture is still growing/improving. That said, a close friend turned me on to Italian Tuscan Reds about two decades ago, and I'll spring a decent amount for a rich, velvety-smooth Brunello di Montalcino when I really want to indulge my taste for a superb Red. Although, I understand that over the paste decade, the Brunellos that are maturing lately are less smooth and creamy than vintages produced in the mid-90's to the mid-00's.
  65. @J.Ross
    OT The real reason we need to be constantly bothered about Russia is a lack of interest or ability in defending the country from real threats like China, in large part thanks to affirmative action.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/06/troubling-us-navy-review-finds-widespread-shortfalls-in-basic-seamanship/

    WASHINGTON — A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

    Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

    Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

    The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

    Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:

    Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
    Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
    Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017.
    In his message to the fleet, Brown said the OOD competency reviews should be a call to action for the surface community to get after its shortcomings.

    “While the OOD competency checks were a snapshot in time, we must be realistic in confronting the systemic shortfalls that they revealed in core proficiencies across the junior qualified members of the force,” Brown said in the message. “We as a community can and must tackle our deficiencies and ensure there is meaningful experience behind our qualification letters.”
    The areas of concern listed in the message conjure unsettling reminders of the 2017 accidents. In the case of McCain, confusion and indecision took hold on the bridge at the precise moment when the ship had to take immediate actions to avoid a collision, despite the presence of the commanding officer.

    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    You are wrong. "Left and right" depend on which way you personally are facing. On a ship, you could be facing the stern (the rear end) and then your left and right would be opposite the ship's. Port and starboard are specific to the ship, which has a bow and stern, you see.

    This is similar to actors' "stage right" and "stage left," which are specific to performing on that ship of stage. Stage right is the right side of the stage as it faces the audience, to the actor's right when he is facing the audience, etc... It is not the audience's right. Starboard on a ship is the ship's right of the bow, not the sailor's.

    Starboard then, is "ship right," and port is "ship left." You could use those cumbersome constructions if you wanted to, but why not just use the simple, nautical words that have been in the English language for a long time?

    These things matter when a director or a captain is giving directions or commands.

    , @J.Ross
    Our military is trying to be a welfare system, a social experiment lab, and sometimes a military. The answer is to resolve to be a military and reset all policies accordingly.
    , @njguy73

    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.
     
    "Izquierda" y "Derecho"
  66. @Buzz Mohawk
    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, "middle class" California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.

    At $20, you can serve your most perceptive guests anything from a wonderful variety of makers.

    Save the really cheap stuff for beach parties where nobody cares, and for yourself out in the backyard this summer. Avoid boxes at all costs. There IS a bottom to all this.

    PS: You can buy Trump wines between those two price points, if you want to have some fun serving the label to see the reactions. They are fine, especially for wines coming from the dreadful East Coast. I gave them as gifts last Christmas to, shall we say, like-minded people.

    Buying and drinking California wines is an expensive hobby. I recommend you try the Louis Jadot label. Their Beaujolais-Village (red) and Macon-Village (white), $9 and $11 respectively, will beat the socks off any California wine under $20. Louis Jadot is available all over the country – you can buy it from Amazon. Louis Jadot is consistent year to year. They sell a Pouilly-Fuisse for $16 which my wife and I mean to try now that we’ve come into some money.

  67. @Paleo Liberal
    I've had the cheap stuff, and I've had the expensive stuff. I can't tell the difference, so I go with Two Buck Chuck. (Actually up to $2.99 now).

    Some tests have shown that most wine snobs can't tell the difference between the expensive stuff and the cheap stuff. So if you have an empty bottle of the expensive stuff, and can find an approximate cheap wine, serve that at dinner and nobody will tell the difference.

    Someone brought a bottle of Two-buck Chuck over to our house one time. It was raw and sour, barely fit to cook with.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    It tastes really good if you drink it straight from the bottle, wrapped in a paper bag, while sitting on a log down by the river. Every swig will delight you even more than the last.
  68. Lewontin argued that 85 percent of total genetic diversity exists among individuals within racial groups, while only 15 percent tracks to geographic ancestry.

    That does not mean what they seem to think it means. Or they Lewontin is engaged in a mathematical slight of hand. Innumerate or deceptive, the problem remains.

    A more accurate (though still oversimplified) interpretation is that 85% of the variation is random but 15% is systematic by geographic region (race). That the random is a bigger number than the systematic is irrelevant. What is important is that 15% of the variation has has what process control would call a “special cause”, an identifiable source. That is a very clear signal of a controllable parameter.

    The roulette wheel metaphor is close, but doesn’t quite work. Try recasting it as a manufacturing difference. Company A and B both make roulette wheels for which the sizes of each number slot on the wheel vary a somewhat, but randomly. For company A, the Red numbers tend to have more large slots than the black, company B, the black have more large sized slots than the red. Are all wheels the same because 85% of the variation is random while only 15% is systematic? Or is that 15% enough to tell you no only the origin, but how the wheels will play?

    Does it matter which company you buy the wheels from? Does it matter if your customers know? What difference does knowing that small difference make in the long run?

  69. @Tiny Duck
    As to the last bit of the post:

    Black Men also have more than a few inches than white boys in another area (oh yeah-you know what I mean)

    No wonder white girls crave Black Men
  70. The flaw in your argument is that you equate the 85% to random spins on a wheel.

    But as you yourself have pointed out ,for example, in ‘Albion’s Seed’, there can be large differences within even close racial groups.

    How racially different were the violent Borderlands English compared to the pacifist Midland Quakers? Not much.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Very few of th midlanders became Quakers.
  71. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    Despite good nutrition, I don’t recall seeing many (if any) US born Latin-Americans of impressive height. Probably they are taller than their parents but still short.
     
    Tony Gonzalez is 6'5" and Anthony Munoz is 6'6" but I admit that's a rarity.

    On the whole Mesoamericans seem to grow round with a surfeit of nutrition rather than tall or particularly broad. That probably means that they have some "thrifty gene" for fat storage, which is more advantageous to long term survival than growing large on excess calories as a child and then having a baseline of high caloric needs in an environment with rudimentary agricultural development. So you could take advantage of a bumper crop of corn and pack on a some extra fat in your belly and rear end, and then in a few months rely upon that when food is scarce for an extended period of time.

    This is all based on the notion that “natives” have an infinitely more recent history of starvation than “white people.”

    But that just isn’t true. Food shortages and even starvation were quite common in Europe well into the 19th century. Half a dozen generations is simply not enough to make an evolutionary difference.

  72. @Buzz Mohawk
    That's because so many of the white males you see on television are Jewish, and because many of the other white types now favored by media are "ethnic" and do not come from Northwestern European lineage.

    Across the broad span of America, there are still a lot of tall, fair men. If you happen to be one of those men and you relocate to the media-centric NYC region, you find yourself sticking out above a sea of little, swarthy bastards from Ellis Island.

    Buzz–I’m tall in NYC. I can see over the crowd, but I’m only the third tallest out of the four boys in my family. And you be amazed at how tall many people guess me to be–if only because most average height (5’9″) guys claim to be two inches taller than actual.

  73. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    Winemakers, like fine art collectors, pay mainly for provenance.

  74. @dr kill
    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.

    You are wrong. “Left and right” depend on which way you personally are facing. On a ship, you could be facing the stern (the rear end) and then your left and right would be opposite the ship’s. Port and starboard are specific to the ship, which has a bow and stern, you see.

    This is similar to actors’ “stage right” and “stage left,” which are specific to performing on that ship of stage. Stage right is the right side of the stage as it faces the audience, to the actor’s right when he is facing the audience, etc… It is not the audience’s right. Starboard on a ship is the ship’s right of the bow, not the sailor’s.

    Starboard then, is “ship right,” and port is “ship left.” You could use those cumbersome constructions if you wanted to, but why not just use the simple, nautical words that have been in the English language for a long time?

    These things matter when a director or a captain is giving directions or commands.

  75. @Tiny Duck
    As to the last bit of the post:

    Black Men also have more than a few inches than white boys in another area (oh yeah-you know what I mean)

    No wonder white girls crave Black Men

    You are nothing if not persistent. I hate to feed to the troll, but there’s something I must know: do you have any real experience with the Black masses? No, not the top 5-10% that graduate from respectable colleges, but the other 90% of the bell curve.

    I’m somewhat unique here and in the professional middle class in that I actually spent much of my childhood living on the border of a Black neighborhood and going to >50% Black schools. Unlike you, and even many posters here, I actually have over a decade of personal experience with the whole of the Black population/bell curve.

    It was this extensive experience with Blacks that made me a scientific racist. Good social/behavioral science just confirms common sense. They really are quite different. Lower intelligence is the most cited difference but there are many others, from how they smell to average personality profile, et al.

    You must be:
    1) a Black/Amerid minority yourself;
    2) a leftist that knows Blacks like me but are so religious in your ideology that you are incapable of seeing the reality that smacks you in the face daily;
    3) have never had any significant interaction with regular Blacks; or
    4) are somewhere on the autistic/Aspergers spectrum.

    I’d really like to know. I’m betting a mix of 3&4.

    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    I have an internet conection

    I can mae judgment based on the perfect information available to us
  76. utu says:
    @res

    By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin’s terms. He defined the rules of the game.
     
    In my opinion the most devastating arguments are those which allow your opponent to frame the question and then refute him on his own terms. Ideally using his exact words.

    You might want to look up "steel-manning": https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

    Refusing to admit when your opponent has a valid point is just being childish.

    My long comment was in earnest. I thought it would help to answer questions that Steve Sailer’s asked:

    My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?

    Your reaction to my comment and your earlier inept steel-manning of Steve Sailer argument by taking the square root of 0.15 made me realize that I must be the only one who tries in earnest to destroy the Lewontin’s meme.

    Did Steve Sailer really believe that his casino example could impact those ‘intelligent people’? The casino example is inadequate; it does not deserve to be called an analogy. There is no discernible relation to the fixation index that Lewontin calculated. But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept. Did Steve Sailer thought that racists ‘analogy’ will influence those ‘intelligent people’? Apparently Steve Sailer is not interested in influencing them. He is just playing to the chap seats bought by obsequious sycophants like yourself. He will be happy to keep ‘trying’ for another 18 years in front of so demanding audience.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept.
     
    Steve isn't implying that the croupiers are cheating or inept. The bias just happens automatically for the sake of the analogy, like loaded dice. There is no conscious effort implied. The croupier is just a black box (or red box, as the case may be) in service of the analogy.
    , @reiner Tor
    I have used the croupier argument before, and it was very effective. My interlocutor got visibly disturbed, and had no way of countering it. So i disagree that it's a totally ineffective argument. There are many intelligent liberals who honestly believe that race has been debunked.
  77. @Clyde
    OT
    Arrests for illegal border crossings top 50,000 in May for a third month running despite Trump's much vaunted immigration crackdown
    Border Patrol agents made 51,912 arrests in May for illegal crossings - more than triple the number of arrests made in April 2017
    It's the third month in a row that illegal crossing arrests topped 50,000
    Arrests come amid Trump's new 'zero tolerance' policy on immigration which includes the controversial move to allow agents to separate families

    UK Daily Mail this morning

    I’d think a rise in arrests would indicate a crackdown, i.e. stricter enforcement policy, is working. A result of stricter enforcement usually means higher arrests. A number of factors effect the number of crossings. If those crossing illegally are merely put back across the border, there’s no disincentive to trying again. They’re buying what are effectively lottery tickets…

    The NYT’s Fox Butterfield was regularly mocked for annually writing articles about the apparent conflict between a declining crime rate and higher levels of incarceration, unable to grasp the circularity present.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Mexican illegal border crossers are easy to send back by La Migra bus. Every other non- contiguous nation, it is a logistical nightmare to deport their border jumpers and visa over stayers for one simple reason. They are flown back. Think Peru, China, Bangladesh, Guatemala. So the tendency is to parole them into the US population for a court date 2 or more years in the future. 90% don't show. They also are paroled due to lack of jail space
  78. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - a sort of sad-but-don't-they-deserve it story of the English adjunct professoriate underclass.

    https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239148


    "To talk about adjuncts is to talk about the centerpiece of higher education. Tenured faculty represent only 17 percent of college instructors. Part-time adjuncts are now the majority of the professoriate and its fastest-growing segment. From 1975 to 2011, the number of part-time adjuncts quadrupled. And the so-called part-time designation is misleading because most of them are piecing together teaching jobs at multiple institutions simultaneously. A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays. In 2013, The Chronicle began collecting data on salary and benefits from adjuncts across the country. An English-department adjunct at Berkeley, for example, received $6,500 to teach a full-semester course. It’s easy to lose sight of all the people struggling beneath the data points. $7,000 at Duke. $6,000 at Columbia. $5,950 at the University of Iowa.

    These are the high numbers. According to the 2014 congressional report, adjuncts’ median pay per course is $2,700. An annual report by the American Association of University Professors indicated that last year "the average part-time faculty member earned $16,718" from a single employer. Other studies have similar findings. Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter’s day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000. She wrote, "I am currently pregnant with my first child. … I will receive NO time off for the birth or recovery. It is necessary I continue until the end of the semester in May in order to get paid, something I drastically need. The only recourse I have is to revert to an online classroom […] and do work while in the hospital and upon my return home." Sixty-one percent of adjunct faculty are women."
     

    Why so the awful terms and conditions?

    "From 2008 to 2014, tenure-track English-department jobs declined 43 percent. This year there are, by my count, only 173 entry-level tenure-track job openings — fewer than half of the opportunities just two years ago. If history is any guide, there will be about nine times as many new Ph.D.s this year as there are jobs. One might think that the years-long plunge in employment would compel doctoral programs to reduce their numbers of candidates, but the opposite is happening. From the Great Recession to 2014, U.S. universities awarded 10 percent more English Ph.D.s. In the humanities as a whole, doctorates are up 12 percent ... the prospect of intellectual freedom, job security, and a life devoted to literature, combined with the urge to recoup a doctoral degree’s investment of time, gives young scholars a strong incentive to continue pursuing tenure-track jobs while selling their plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    This incentive generates a labor surplus that depresses wages."
     

    Isn't that 'strong incentive' similar to the 'strong incentive' which produced the California and Klondyke gold rushes?

    The author, Kevin Birmingham (who gave up tenure to write a book) lambasts US English departments for accepting more PhD students than can possibly be appointed to tenured positions.


    "the humanities almost unilaterally controls its own labor market. New faculty come from a pool of candidates that the academy itself creates, and that pool is overflowing"
     
    I'm just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market? I've not seen many adjunct English profs clamouring 'build the wall!".

    If we could have adjunct deans of diversity and inclusion who would have to take 6 jobs a semester to survive, we would solve a sizable percentage of what ails the universities.

  79. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    You need to stay above $10-12 per 750ml bottle (depending on prices where you are, of course) and stick with good, “middle class” California selections from the big wineries. They have it down to a science (American) and they beat the inconsistent French, who are more old-fashioned in their methods.
     
    Everybody's wine palette is different and evolves, but for quite some time I've found California Reds far too sweet/fruity/one note. There's not much finesse or complexity in many of these $10-$12 California Reds and they compete with most food.

    I'm tending towards Spanish Reds for value now - more balance between the fruit and tannins with some oak which is better for drinking with a nice steak or lamb chops, etc.

    Agree on your assessment of California Reds. Although, living in the mid-Atlantic Region, I’ve found the emerging DelMarVa viticulture can produce some decent Reds as well, so I tend to go local when I find one. Although, they are somewhat coarser than the smoother Californias, as this local viticulture is still growing/improving. That said, a close friend turned me on to Italian Tuscan Reds about two decades ago, and I’ll spring a decent amount for a rich, velvety-smooth Brunello di Montalcino when I really want to indulge my taste for a superb Red. Although, I understand that over the paste decade, the Brunellos that are maturing lately are less smooth and creamy than vintages produced in the mid-90’s to the mid-00’s.

  80. @anonymous coward

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?
     
    Intelligence is positively correlated with conformism. (Only stupid people would go against cultural norms without a clear benefit for doing so to themselves.)

    Thus, intelligent people will support even the dumbest cultural norms. In fact, being able to hold two or three contradictory concepts in your head is a sign of intelligence.

    In fact, being able to hold two or three contradictory concepts in your head is a sign of intelligence.

    Maybe so, but a lot of stupid people are also able to hold a number of contradictory concepts in your head. They’re just simpler concepts.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Or they're unaware of the contradictions.
    To unpack the cliche a bit, I understand it to specifically mean not schizophrenia but temporarily modelling in your head an ideology you hate so that you can derive good, non-straw-man predictions. Thus "La Raza will attempt to spin this event this way" not "La Raza are stupid and ugly and they will not be able to spin this event." Necessary for discourse but not much of a standard.
    This cliche joins "the definition of insanity is expecting a different result from repeating the same action" (so in other words, all experimenting scientists are insane) as over-simplistic, currently in vogue, but also taking undeserved credibility from scientism.
  81. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - a sort of sad-but-don't-they-deserve it story of the English adjunct professoriate underclass.

    https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239148


    "To talk about adjuncts is to talk about the centerpiece of higher education. Tenured faculty represent only 17 percent of college instructors. Part-time adjuncts are now the majority of the professoriate and its fastest-growing segment. From 1975 to 2011, the number of part-time adjuncts quadrupled. And the so-called part-time designation is misleading because most of them are piecing together teaching jobs at multiple institutions simultaneously. A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays. In 2013, The Chronicle began collecting data on salary and benefits from adjuncts across the country. An English-department adjunct at Berkeley, for example, received $6,500 to teach a full-semester course. It’s easy to lose sight of all the people struggling beneath the data points. $7,000 at Duke. $6,000 at Columbia. $5,950 at the University of Iowa.

    These are the high numbers. According to the 2014 congressional report, adjuncts’ median pay per course is $2,700. An annual report by the American Association of University Professors indicated that last year "the average part-time faculty member earned $16,718" from a single employer. Other studies have similar findings. Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter’s day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000. She wrote, "I am currently pregnant with my first child. … I will receive NO time off for the birth or recovery. It is necessary I continue until the end of the semester in May in order to get paid, something I drastically need. The only recourse I have is to revert to an online classroom […] and do work while in the hospital and upon my return home." Sixty-one percent of adjunct faculty are women."
     

    Why so the awful terms and conditions?

    "From 2008 to 2014, tenure-track English-department jobs declined 43 percent. This year there are, by my count, only 173 entry-level tenure-track job openings — fewer than half of the opportunities just two years ago. If history is any guide, there will be about nine times as many new Ph.D.s this year as there are jobs. One might think that the years-long plunge in employment would compel doctoral programs to reduce their numbers of candidates, but the opposite is happening. From the Great Recession to 2014, U.S. universities awarded 10 percent more English Ph.D.s. In the humanities as a whole, doctorates are up 12 percent ... the prospect of intellectual freedom, job security, and a life devoted to literature, combined with the urge to recoup a doctoral degree’s investment of time, gives young scholars a strong incentive to continue pursuing tenure-track jobs while selling their plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    This incentive generates a labor surplus that depresses wages."
     

    Isn't that 'strong incentive' similar to the 'strong incentive' which produced the California and Klondyke gold rushes?

    The author, Kevin Birmingham (who gave up tenure to write a book) lambasts US English departments for accepting more PhD students than can possibly be appointed to tenured positions.


    "the humanities almost unilaterally controls its own labor market. New faculty come from a pool of candidates that the academy itself creates, and that pool is overflowing"
     
    I'm just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market? I've not seen many adjunct English profs clamouring 'build the wall!".

    I’m just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market?

    Most of them never have and wouldn’t even consider doing it. There isn’t a strong relationship between being an English professor and being logical. I thought going after higher education would be low hanging fruit for Trump, but he has barely touched it. We all know Congressional Republicans won’t do anything punitive to this class of people who regularly call them Nazis.

  82. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin
    In fact, being able to hold two or three contradictory concepts in your head is a sign of intelligence.

    Maybe so, but a lot of stupid people are also able to hold a number of contradictory concepts in your head. They're just simpler concepts.

    Or they’re unaware of the contradictions.
    To unpack the cliche a bit, I understand it to specifically mean not schizophrenia but temporarily modelling in your head an ideology you hate so that you can derive good, non-straw-man predictions. Thus “La Raza will attempt to spin this event this way” not “La Raza are stupid and ugly and they will not be able to spin this event.” Necessary for discourse but not much of a standard.
    This cliche joins “the definition of insanity is expecting a different result from repeating the same action” (so in other words, all experimenting scientists are insane) as over-simplistic, currently in vogue, but also taking undeserved credibility from scientism.

  83. @dr kill
    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.

    Our military is trying to be a welfare system, a social experiment lab, and sometimes a military. The answer is to resolve to be a military and reset all policies accordingly.

    • Replies: @midtown
    Agreed.
  84. @notanon
    mass immigration of cheap labor creates a demand for mass ultra-cheap prostitution which is generally filled by forcing children - whether it's trafficked hispanic girls to service hispanic cheap labor in the USA or clan-raped native European girls to service muslim cheap labor in Europe.

    It creates that demand (as well as a normality of domestic abuse) but it also meets a separate, already-existing demand.
    It really is the worse devils of our nature given free reign and disguised as compassion.

  85. @notanon
    if group A and group B are competing and group A can persuade group B to breed with a lower IQ population group C then group B's average IQ would decrease and group A wins - even if it takes a century or two.

    Okay, that’s big picture what they’re doing to us. What are they doing for the idiots churning out thought-leading columns?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't understand to whom your question is referring. What are you perplexed about?
  86. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Travis
    Individuals who state the inappropriate facts will lose their job, source of income , status and be ostracized from mainstream society. Recent examples include noted actors, scientists, college administrators, computer programmers etc. While in Europe perpetrators will be incarcerated for expressing unorthodox opinions, they even jail 80 year-old grandmothers and noted historians for stating their opinions.

    Anyone who acknowledges the differences between men and women will be quickly fired from any position they hold at any Fortune 500 firm. Anyone who notices the disparity between racial groups will be swiftly labeled a "racist" and face the consequences. SJWs have millions of informants who have infiltrated most companies, churches, schools and playgrounds across America. Social media is policed by thousands of enforcers looking for any indication of non-compliance. Violators are quickly reported to the authorities and banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and their Google accounts will be shutdown.

    That’s Europe, where for the most part they’ve never had any concept of rights or freedom (Europeans think that rights are privileges dispensed under license from a God-state), and everything you’re describing falls short of motivation. It’d keep my mouth shut but it wouldn’t bring the sewer overflow of propaganda that less and less people read in the legacy media.

  87. TWS says:

    Simple thought experiment, am I taller than my wife? Was my father taller than my mother? Grandfathers taller than grandmothers and so on. I have records and pictures going back into the 1800s. One great great great grandfather was born when Napoleon was a going concern. So it’s a fairly long string. Were their wives shorter than them?

    Some of those men were more than a foot shorter than others but were they taller than their wives? With that many people involved surely some of them were shorter than their wives. Or were they?

  88. @utu
    (1) By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin's terms. He defined the rules of the game. While the Lewontinites will be driving the point that 15% is very little and thus races are not meaningful, you will be trying to come up with metaphors (not genetic examples because you do not have any) that 15% is significant which justify the concept of race. You are conducting your argument on their terms.

    Instead Lewontin's methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger. In fact it is possible to make this number almost anything between 0% and 100% by selecting appropriate genes. (b) What is the point of using genes that are common between populations to argue the case that races do not exist? One could follow Lewontin's approach and show that genetic distance between apes and men is lower than 15% by selecting appropriate genes. (c). This is more complex objection. Lewontin treats frequencies of various genes as independent probabilities. Race as a trait is essentially polygenic where probability of occurring of genes A and B is not equal to the product of their frequencies: f(A)F(B)≠P(A and B). Let's suppose that we have four genes A,B,C,D and one race is defined by individuals who have genes [(A and B) or (C and D)] and the other race is defined by individuals having genes [(A and C) or (B and D)]. (Note that 'or' is exclusive in both cases.) These two races are two disjoint sets in terms of combinations of gene pairs. If the frequencies of genes are treated as independent probabilities these two races can be close in terms of genetic distance. Actually frequencies of genes in in both races could be the same and Lewontin would find zero genetic distance between them.

    (2) I do not think that the metaphor of casino is good. It does not map on the structure of what was calculated by Lewontine. One has to get deeper to Lewontin's methodology to see it. Lewontin calculates relative distance between populations by means of the fixation index (F-statistics) where he defines population diversity as a function that has properties of variance but is not exactly variance. And from the difference between diversities he gets the distance between populations. The distance is implied not defined.

    In case of two sets we can use variance to illustrate it. Let's A and B are two sets of numbers. Let's. Va, Vb and Ma, Mb are variances and means and V(A 'or' B) is a variance of composite sum of the two sets. Now let assume (Lewontin's also makes this assumption that all populations are the same size) A and B are of the same size. Then


    V(A 'or' B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    The number 0.15 of Lewontin in this scenario is

    0.15= 1-[(Va+Vb)/2]/V(A 'or' B)=(1/4)*[(Ma-Mb)^2)/V(A 'or' B)
     
    This number allows us to express difference between means (without calculating them) as fraction of standard deviation SD=sqrt[V(A 'or' B)] of combined sum of two sets.

    Difference between means without calculating it explicitly is the whole point of this methodology using the fixation index. Lewontin gets distance between populations without explicitly calculating it or even defining it. The fixation index is the distance and thus its definition.
     
    The value of 15% or 0.15 means that Ma-Mb is 77% of the standard deviation SD.

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    This seems a lot, so let's construct an example.

    We have two herds of dairy cows A and B. We calculate the fixation index for the yields of milk which comes to 15%. How much the average yield of milk of the herd A differ from the herd B. The answer is 77% of standard deviation of the milk yield of the combined herd A and B.

    Would the example with cows sway anybody? Perhaps we could replace it with incomes of Jews and gentiles. The fixation index of 15% implies 77% difference between means. Jews would prefer to talk about only 15% but anti-semites would talk about 77%.

    (3). So how the case could be argued?

    Lewontin calculated the value of fixation index using few selected genes. Fixation is something that we do not need to know but it suppose to measure a distance between different statistical sets in terms of variance. For these genes his fixation index is 15%. If he used different genes the fixation index would be lower or significantly higher. Why Lewontin used these genes? This is what he had in 1972 but he did not use any genes responsible for external racial traits. If he used genes responsible for the color of the skin the fixation index would be much larger. Now the question whether 15% is a lot or not. He says it is very small and thus negligible. But we beg to differ. Let's see what fixation index of 15% means for the two herds of dairy cows. Go to the example in (2).

    Let’s try this reasoning.

    Basketball aptitude has an underlying metric called “b” that follows from analysis finding a common mathematical factor underlying various tests of how well an individual plays the game . The distribution of “b” in any population follows a bell curve.

    85 percent of the variation in “b” occurs within any so-called racial group but 15 percent is between these groups. That means that the bell curves for different groups overlap by quite a bit, and that people in the middle from almost any of the groups of concern can play against each other without it being lopsided.

    But small shifts between bell curves for any pair of groups results in large changes in the number of persons in “the tails” of the bell curve. NBA players are the result of a long winnowing process from the cement outdoor hoops to high school to college to the pros skimming the cream of the cream, so they represent the extreme right tail of “b” where there are very large group differences.

    • Replies: @utu
    I think I understand your point but I do not think it is an optimal argument to be used to demolish Lewontin meme. When you start talking about the overlap of bell curves you give up on a possibility of delineation between races, i.e., definition of race. Overlapping bell curves suggest that where they overlap there is no difference. Definition of race must be effective in the sense that each individual can have race signed with high accuracy. If you use bell curves and basketball then Larry Bird would give you a false assignment.
  89. @Johann Ricke
    Very off-topic, but Long Island's version of Jackie Coakley has, as part of a plea deal, gotten prison time for making a false rape accusation:

    A former college student from Long Island who claimed two Sacred Heart University football players raped her admitted to a courtroom Tuesday that she made it all up.

    Nikki Yovino, 19, agreed to plead guilty to one count of falsely reporting an incident and one count of interfering with police for fabricating her rape claims, the Connecticut Post reported.

    As part of the plea deal, the former student agreed to serve a reduced sentence of one year behind bars. Yovino had been facing up to six years in prison before the plea deal.

    She reportedly agreed to the deal as the court prepared to select a jury for her false rape trial.
     

    This needs to happen a lot more often.

  90. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT SWEDEN NO
    Trying to find a good link now but I’m hearing that the polling firm Norwegian Sentio has placed the Sweden Democrats (the closest thing Sweden has to a serious anti-rapefugee party) at the top, and state propaganda SVT has them as number two. This is not an election but a measure of popular sentiment.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    God Bless Sweden,

    Except for that snub-nosed Swedish bastard Gretchen Carlson and all the evil Swedes who are pushing mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    Swedes in New Hampshire and New Jersey and Minnesota and Sweden are pushing mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    Pernille Vermund in Denmark and Swedish Patriots who want to protect and defend Sweden!

    https://twitter.com/Matytsyn/status/1003430150787272710
  91. @Anonymouse
    Someone brought a bottle of Two-buck Chuck over to our house one time. It was raw and sour, barely fit to cook with.

    It tastes really good if you drink it straight from the bottle, wrapped in a paper bag, while sitting on a log down by the river. Every swig will delight you even more than the last.

  92. Most readily understood refutation of Lewontin’s fallacy I’ve seen is graphic:

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @Lot
    This is really good. You could do the same thing even with a line graph showing one trait.
  93. @J.Ross
    OT SWEDEN NO
    Trying to find a good link now but I'm hearing that the polling firm Norwegian Sentio has placed the Sweden Democrats (the closest thing Sweden has to a serious anti-rapefugee party) at the top, and state propaganda SVT has them as number two. This is not an election but a measure of popular sentiment.

    God Bless Sweden,

    Except for that snub-nosed Swedish bastard Gretchen Carlson and all the evil Swedes who are pushing mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    Swedes in New Hampshire and New Jersey and Minnesota and Sweden are pushing mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    Pernille Vermund in Denmark and Swedish Patriots who want to protect and defend Sweden!

  94. @Russ
    Nice that we can come here to unz.com and leave comments on your Takimag contributions, Steve.

    … yes indeed … Taki lost much of its zing when its management decided to stop all immediate comments rather than moderate them … still a first rate read though …

  95. @Buzz Mohawk
    You are right about the wine. There is the BS aspect, including connoisseurs who can't pass a blind test, plus diminishing returns.

    This is not just confined to wines. Enthusiasts get all excited about minute improvements that add magnitudes to the cost of whatever it is they love. Unfortunately with things like wine that are perceived by Americans to be "cultural and classy," this gets passed on inaccurately to the general public as a linear relationship between what goes into something and what comes out.

    If you can't be happy with a $25 bottle of wine, then you are full of sh*t.

    As a commenter at this site observed awhile back, rich people enjoy overpaying for everything except labor. I think that’s a good insight. To enjoy great wealth, there must be a difference between the things you can afford and the things that those who work for you can. Wouldn’t it irritate a Bezos or a Zuckerberg to encounter one of his employees at an exclusive resort where he is vacationing? No, he wants to feel they can afford only lesser rewards. There must be a stark contrast.

    In 1984, O’Brien asks Winston, “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’

    Winston replies, “By making him suffer.”

    O’Brien says, “Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.”

    Similarly, unless other people are barely scraping by, how can you be sure that your great wealth is meaningful? The joy of wealth is in rubbing other people’s noses in their relative poverty. And that’s why we need open borders, so America can be more like Mexico.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    Astute post. There’s a piece in the Atlantic that goes toward this I believe and it also goes toward Murray’s points in Coming Apart. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
  96. Swedish Patriots Say No To Mass Immigration

    Swedish Patriots Say YES To Sweden For The Swedes!

    God Bless Sweden!

  97. @Triumph104

    This might seem surprising at first, but stop and think about how different people are just within races. Consider the current NBA finals. The Cleveland Cavaliers’ top scorer LeBron James is massive, while the Golden State Warriors’ top scorer Kevin Durant is spindly.
     
    Lebron James went on a "diet" during the summer of 2014 and became spindly. This was a year before the NBA was going to test HGH use starting in the 2015-2016 season. Lebron's play was less than stellar in the first half of 2014-2015 and he wound up taking a two-week midseason hiatus coming back "revitalized". The proposed punishment for testing positive for HGH was supposed to be a 20-game suspension for a first-time violation and a 45-game ban for a second violation, although I cannot find any indication that testing was ever implemented.

    https://twitter.com/WindhorstESPN/status/496418849613697026

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BuO9hiPIEAEYGfZ.jpg

    Lebron James went on a “diet” during the summer of 2014 and became spindly. This was a year before the NBA was going to test HGH use starting in the 2015-2016 season. Lebron’s play was less than stellar in the first half of 2014-2015 and he wound up taking a two-week midseason hiatus coming back “revitalized”.

    I’ve seen “juicers” who go off their meds shrink like a popped balloon. They lose so much muscle mass so fast it’s amazing. What it is, is their own body’s testosterone production flatlined during their doping and when they went off the “juice” their system crashed.

    As for coming back “revitalized” PED’s will do that.

  98. utu says:
    @Inquiring Mind
    Let's try this reasoning.

    Basketball aptitude has an underlying metric called "b" that follows from analysis finding a common mathematical factor underlying various tests of how well an individual plays the game . The distribution of "b" in any population follows a bell curve.

    85 percent of the variation in "b" occurs within any so-called racial group but 15 percent is between these groups. That means that the bell curves for different groups overlap by quite a bit, and that people in the middle from almost any of the groups of concern can play against each other without it being lopsided.

    But small shifts between bell curves for any pair of groups results in large changes in the number of persons in "the tails" of the bell curve. NBA players are the result of a long winnowing process from the cement outdoor hoops to high school to college to the pros skimming the cream of the cream, so they represent the extreme right tail of "b" where there are very large group differences.

    I think I understand your point but I do not think it is an optimal argument to be used to demolish Lewontin meme. When you start talking about the overlap of bell curves you give up on a possibility of delineation between races, i.e., definition of race. Overlapping bell curves suggest that where they overlap there is no difference. Definition of race must be effective in the sense that each individual can have race signed with high accuracy. If you use bell curves and basketball then Larry Bird would give you a false assignment.

  99. @Tiny Duck
    As to the last bit of the post:

    Black Men also have more than a few inches than white boys in another area (oh yeah-you know what I mean)

    No wonder white girls crave Black Men

    Well, for once I can’t argue with one of your claims, after all you’re the one with the personal experience.

    • LOL: Anonymous Jew
  100. @Travis
    Individuals who state the inappropriate facts will lose their job, source of income , status and be ostracized from mainstream society. Recent examples include noted actors, scientists, college administrators, computer programmers etc. While in Europe perpetrators will be incarcerated for expressing unorthodox opinions, they even jail 80 year-old grandmothers and noted historians for stating their opinions.

    Anyone who acknowledges the differences between men and women will be quickly fired from any position they hold at any Fortune 500 firm. Anyone who notices the disparity between racial groups will be swiftly labeled a "racist" and face the consequences. SJWs have millions of informants who have infiltrated most companies, churches, schools and playgrounds across America. Social media is policed by thousands of enforcers looking for any indication of non-compliance. Violators are quickly reported to the authorities and banned from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and their Google accounts will be shutdown.

    SJWs have millions of informants…

    It’s been said that communism didn’t work because the practitioners weren’t earnest enough.

    But now…

  101. @Jack Highlands
    Most readily understood refutation of Lewontin's fallacy I've seen is graphic:

    https://i.imgur.com/4SvretI.png

    This is really good. You could do the same thing even with a line graph showing one trait.

  102. @J.Ross
    OT The real reason we need to be constantly bothered about Russia is a lack of interest or ability in defending the country from real threats like China, in large part thanks to affirmative action.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/06/troubling-us-navy-review-finds-widespread-shortfalls-in-basic-seamanship/

    WASHINGTON — A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

    Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

    Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

    The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

    Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:

    Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
    Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
    Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017.
    In his message to the fleet, Brown said the OOD competency reviews should be a call to action for the surface community to get after its shortcomings.

    “While the OOD competency checks were a snapshot in time, we must be realistic in confronting the systemic shortfalls that they revealed in core proficiencies across the junior qualified members of the force,” Brown said in the message. “We as a community can and must tackle our deficiencies and ensure there is meaningful experience behind our qualification letters.”
    The areas of concern listed in the message conjure unsettling reminders of the 2017 accidents. In the case of McCain, confusion and indecision took hold on the bridge at the precise moment when the ship had to take immediate actions to avoid a collision, despite the presence of the commanding officer.

    The Coast Guard is not immune either. It does not have an ROTC Program. They have something called the COLLEGE STUDENT PRE-COMMISSIONING INITIATIVE.

    https://www.gocoastguard.com/active-duty-careers/officer-opportunities/programs/college-student-pre-commissioning-initiative

    It seemed like a good program and something that someone might be interested in, until it was discovered that only students from a very restricted number of colleges are eligible to participate.

    Education:
    ​​Be a sophomore or junior undergraduate student enrolled, accepted for enrollment or pending acceptance (if accepted, acceptance letter must be submitted prior to beginning CSPI) in a full-time Bachelors degree program at an accredited college or university designated as a Minority Serving Institute (MSI).

    Historically Black Colleges and Universities

    Predominantly Black Institutions

    Hispanic Serving Institutions

    Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions

    American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities

    Alaska [& Hawaii] Native Serving Institutions

    Native American Serving, Non-Tribal Institutions

    Colleges with a minority student population averaging at least 50% of the total student enrollment

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority-serving_institution

    There are about 5,300 colleges and universities in USA.

    Historically Black Colleges and Universities
    about 106
    Predominantly Black Institutions
    Unknown
    Hispanic Serving Institutions
    about 250
    Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions
    about 132
    American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
    about 32
    Alaska [& Hawaii] Native Serving Institutions
    about 4
    Native American Serving, Non-Tribal Institutions
    Unknown
    Colleges with aminority student population averaging at least 50% of the total student enrollment
    Unknown

    I don’t believe that the total number of colleges from which students can participate in this CG program can be more than about 25% of all USA colleges, and almost all of these will be in the southern third of the USA.

  103. @Harry Baldwin
    As a commenter at this site observed awhile back, rich people enjoy overpaying for everything except labor. I think that's a good insight. To enjoy great wealth, there must be a difference between the things you can afford and the things that those who work for you can. Wouldn't it irritate a Bezos or a Zuckerberg to encounter one of his employees at an exclusive resort where he is vacationing? No, he wants to feel they can afford only lesser rewards. There must be a stark contrast.

    In 1984, O'Brien asks Winston, "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

    Winston replies, "By making him suffer."

    O'Brien says, "Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation."

    Similarly, unless other people are barely scraping by, how can you be sure that your great wealth is meaningful? The joy of wealth is in rubbing other people's noses in their relative poverty. And that's why we need open borders, so America can be more like Mexico.

    Astute post. There’s a piece in the Atlantic that goes toward this I believe and it also goes toward Murray’s points in Coming Apart. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/

  104. anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:
    @Zippy
    @Steve Sailer

    On the $12.00 versus $120 wine issue, I don't think it's a pure social construct, or at least it's not made up. I do think there is some element of social conditioning -- people who drink expensive wine may be more inclined to like it because of the reputation of the wine. But they do blind tastings on a regular basis, and the expensive wines tend to win them.

    I've found this to be true when I do it. Mrs. Zippy and I do spend between $50 and $250 on wine on a regular basis, and we often hold dinner parties where we will serve foods and sample multiple wines. (We use the Coravin device, which allows one to "open" wine without opening it, assuming it uses a natural cork.)

    We put the wines in opaque bags, so they are unknown to the diners. When dinner is over, we will ask for opinions and unveil the wines. I will often include a range of wines -- I recently did it with a $180 bottle, a $60 bottle, and Charles Shaw from Trader Joe's, often known as "Two Buck Chuck," though I think it's closer to $3 or $4 these days.

    The result is uniformly that my guests like the more expensive wines more. I've done this with cheapo wines and some nice wines at least 30 times, and the cheapo wine has never, ever won. By cheapo I mean $20 or under. And I've had other people put the wines in the bags, so I am the one who is blind-tasting. And I've never picked the sub $20 stuff.

    Now, sometimes the $50 bottle will beat the $100 plus bottle. As you go up the quality scale, diminishing returns sets in, and the differences become more subtle and individual tastes come into play. So I might genuinely like an $80 bottle more than a $200 bottle, but I'm very unlikely to just love Barefoot or Two Buck Chuck as much as either. I have had some very expensive wines -- more than $500 a bottle, or even four figures. They were great! But the difference between the $500 bottle that I love and the $150 bottle that I also love is so subtle and the marginal cost is so much higher that it's not worth the additional $350 to me. But the difference between the $10 or $20 and the $50 - $250 bottles I now buy is so significant that the marginal cost is worth it.

    There are additional complexities added by grape variety and aging.

    In my experience, at least, when looking for low-priced red wines or when scanning an inferior wine list, California Zinfandel is a pretty good bet. For whatever reason cheap Zins are, well, pretty good.

    Italian Chianti wines can be a bit rough and coarse, particularly on the cheapo side, but served with a spicy tomato-based recipe, they really work. The stuff about pairing wine and food really is true. (For people who want to see this principle illustrated in a crude way, have a sip of orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth. What you are eating really does affect how you taste wine.)

    With expensive wines, I genuinely think the Judgment of Paris got it right, and that California Cabernet Sauvignon will usually outshine a Bordeaux of equivalent price.

    I never, ever buy cheap pinot noir. Pinot noir is really delicate and very hard to grow. Because it requires very careful handling, cheapo pinot noir is just bad. Also, in the United States, a wine label that specifies a single variety only means that at least 75% of the wine is that variety -- it might be blended. Pinot noir should never be blended, unless it's being used to make sparkling wine. As opposed to cabernet sauvignon, which is usually better blended. For cheap American pinot noir, it's a darn good bet there there is something else thrown into the bottle, because that something else will almost certainly be cheaper and easier to grow than pinot noir.

    A red Burgundy, by contrast, can legally only be pinot noir. My personal snobbish opinion is that, while Oregon and even California produce some good pinot noir, nothing beats a good Burgundy. Lots of people agree with me, which is why Burgundy wine is so expensive.

    Also, some people just plain don't like certain wines. If you don't like Port, for example, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between an awesome Port aged fifty years and a terrible one. It all tastes like cough syrup!

    Aging creates another complexity. Some wines do not improve with aging, and some get worse. Even the wines most amenable to aging will spoil at some point. Those 19th century bottles that get auctioned off for hundreds of thousands of dollars would probably be terrible if somebody were stupid enough to open one and drink it.

    But it really is true that some wines are better after sitting on a shelf for a decade in a climate controlled room. Some are so tannic when young that they will taste terrible unless you age them for a decade or decant it for several hours before drinking. (Decanting is just accelerated aging.)

    I do think there is some element of social conditioning, just as the same food served in cardboard box may not be as appealing as it would be when elegantly plated in a white tablecloth restaurant. But I think most people can tell the difference between a really good piece of steak and a really bad one, even without those social cues.

    So maybe it's, well, some of both?

    I don’t care.

  105. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    As to the last bit of the post:

    Black Men also have more than a few inches than white boys in another area (oh yeah-you know what I mean)

    No wonder white girls crave Black Men

    Usually, I like to comment on items that I have some personal experience with. This isn’t one of them.

    I am a heterosexual White male.

    I can honestly say I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black man’s penis in an erect state in the flesh. I have seen a few films of such things, but such movies are not representative of reality, because male porn stars are selected for having large and therefore visually prominent penises.

    And I don’t generally talk about such things with women, black or white. In fact any white woman with experience with black men sexually is pretty much off my radar completely, by choice. And out of respect for the black man, I don’t mess with his women, just as Muhammad Ali didn’t mess with mine. Plus which, they have no appeal for me.

    That said, I have had discussions on this subject with a few people who did know a lot about it. Two of them were retired high class escort type call girls and a couple of others were homosexual males who admitted they were bottoms and not tops and made it obvious they were really, really knowledgeable about penises. Unlike the women, they knew all the scientific terms and the little details only someone with a penis themselves would think of, but which most of us don’t, because other guys’ equipment does not particularly interest us.

    It interests me from an evolutionary and racial standpoint, as an example of being just one more example of how we are not all the same besides skin pigmentation. So I asked.

    The call girls (then both in their late fifties, or about my own age now, in roughly the mid to late 1980s: I know that both of them are now deceased, one in her sixties, one made it to about 83 or 84) were in complete agreement amongst themselves and with the male homosexuals for the most part. The male homosexuals were both much younger and had experience mostly with American men, mostly black or white, whereas the CGs had worked in the US but had many European, Asian, and Middle Eastern clients as well as American corporate and showbiz types as well as other affluent Americans.

    The bottom lines appeared to be:

    1) Blacks tended to be “showers and not growers”, that is, their erect length and thickness was much closer to the flaccid size than whites on average.

    2) When fully erect, black penises tended to be less rigid and more compressible than white or Asian ones.

    3) The women reported that blacks tended to be circumcised much less often then whites, particularly uncircumcised American whites were pretty rare. The gays didn’t comment. I did not ask. My guess is that more white boys escape the snip today than in the years the men the women had experience with were born but that is speculation.

    4) On average, white penises had the most variability in size when erect. Blacks had a variety of sizes too, and were on average slightly but not very much bigger than white ones. Being more flexible they were less painful to deal with if very large than huge white ones, the women said.

    Koreans and Chinese were uniformly about the same as average white penises or a little bit, but not greatly smaller, but very small or very large ones were uncommon. Japanese men had smaller than average white ones, nearly universally, and did range in size from very small to slightly smaller than average. Asian penises were quite hard when erect.

    5) Black men had ejaculate that was thicker, more copious, and a brighter white than others and it had a generally bitterer taste. Black men tended to have a more dramatic reaction to orgasm than others.

    6) When encountering men with really large ones, such that sex became impossible or really challenging, they usually fell into two groups: blacks or mulattoes from island nations such as Haitians, Dominicans, Jamaicans and the like, or white men from Scandinvian countries. Arabs often had big ones but never of that extreme size. The girls reported that the escort agencies they worked for usually had one or two girls on staff who were able to deal with these customers more easily than the others and they’d get those dates.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The things I learn by coming here . . .
  106. @stillCARealist
    Because watching Kevin Durant sink turn around jumpers with 60%+ accuracy is a sight to behold.

    Lebron James muscling through the lane for layups isn't exciting to me. Stephen Curry jacking up prayers from half court is only fun when they go in. But Durant is unbelievably good at hitting whatever shot he wants whenever his team needs it, game after game. And he's been that way his entire career.

    Durant only joined the GSW because he wanted a ring or two before he aged out and he realized his team up with Westbrook wasn’t doing shit in OKC.

    he also smartly knew Silver and the other Jewish NBA bigwigs wouldn’t allow BOTH HE AND LEBRON to join the GSW as it literally would destroy the NBA brand and figured once LEBRON gave Cleveland a title or 2 he’s try out with GSW to get 1 to 3 more rings before he goes off into retirement at 40…..

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  107. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Okay, that's big picture what they're doing to us. What are they doing for the idiots churning out thought-leading columns?

    I don’t understand to whom your question is referring. What are you perplexed about?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    If I were to pay you right now to verbosely and frequently claim that globalism isn't rife with obvious existentially threatening problems, what would that set me back? Like, set a scale from "Hitler did nothing wrong" to your current sincere opinions that you voluntarily express gratis.
    I thought I was, if anything, being too obvious, but I'll spell it out: should we happen to discover that they all love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, we could then attack General Mills stock.
  108. @Alfa158
    I’m a little surprised that the cutoff was that low at $20. I’m no sommelier, but even from my own inexpert experience it is possible to distinguish a box wine from a $10 wine, from a $40 wine. Above that, you can’t make any further distinctions, and the $200 ones might actually taste worse. A $1,000 Rothschild Bordeaux is for people who want signal that they can buy a $1,000 wine.
    Most of the tasting notes are also unreliable. “Peppery and bright with hints of cherry, chocolate and cinnamon, a smooth nose redolent of lavender and coffee, and a lingering smoky finish”. If you blind test oenophiles, no two of them will come up with the same similes, or even repeat them after a second test of the same wine. Whenever an oenophile asks me to sample their latest wine discovery, I always fall back on the old gag line: “A naive little wine, but I think you’ll be amused by its pretension”.
    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top. In that case where the product is supposed to be basically straight alcohol and water, it was tough to beat a brand which is industrially mass produced. The tightly controlled ingredients and low variance processes resulted in a very high purity, consistent product.

    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top.

    I have to point out here that they actually tested this one on the Mythbusters show. They enlisted the services of a professional vodka taster to do the comparison. The specific myth under consideration was “Can you make a premium vodka by running the cheap stuff through a charcoal water filter?” There were eight vodka samples for the taster to judge: one was a bottle of the rotgut, another was the high-end premium, and the other six were prepared by running the rotgut through the water filter from one to six times. Not only did the taster identify the premium and the cheap booze, but he also ranked the filtered vodkas exactly according to the number of times they were filtered. He didn’t misjudge a single sample—he nailed every last one.

    This reminds me of a tangentially related topic that I’ve been meaning to bring up for a while, viz. the very different smell of gasoline now compared with 30 years ago. I remember when I was a kid in ’80s, I used to love the smell of gasoline. I would inhale ecstatically whenever we stopped at a gas station, and on cold winter mornings when the car was preheating, my parents would have to entreat me to stop standing in the exhaust stream breathing the fumes (yes, I’ve already anticipated the obvious jokes about my brain damage, so don’t even bother making them).

    The point is that back then gas had a deliciously rich and aromatic smell like ambergris. But nowadays when you stand next to a car with the engine running, more often than not it smells like a cabbage fart. That’s a result of our “fracking miracle.” The light, tight oil that gets blasted out of the shale beds is chemically very different from the older crude and functions more as a petroleum diluent than an actual petroleum source. It has to be blended with the premium stocks derived from conventional crude in order to produce usable gasoline. Most of this gets sold to supermarket fuel stations and other discount fuel retailers. I would advise against filling up there. You’re better off paying for a name brand gasoline.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gasolines and kerosenes are not one chemical but complex engineered mixtures of many different petrochemicals. A 2018 car engine would not run on 1969 gasoline, at least not for long. And vice versa, without modifications.

    My Gravely lawn tractor with its T head engine will run on modern pump gas, but gets very hot, and the carb has to be rebuilt every season. On 100LL avgas it has gone since 2012 with nothing but an oil change and a new plug every year.
    , @Jack D
    Modern gas is at least 10% alcohol so that accounts for part of the smell.

    As far as name brand vs. generic gas, your local Indian gas station does not cook the stuff up in the back (they would if they could, but they can't). Gasoline is a commodity that is made only in enormous refineries. Even if you go to a (for example) Exxon station, the gas didn't necessarily come from an Exxon refinery. Gas is expensive to transport so it usually comes from the nearest refinery (the refiners trade with each other). The only difference is that at the time it is put in the tanker truck for delivery, each brand adds its own additive package. All of these packages meet minimum standards but it is worth looking for gas that is labeled "Top Tier" which is a superior additive package. It's also a good idea to put a bottle of "Techron" in your tank once in a while.

    https://www.consumerreports.org/car-maintenance/study-shows-top-tier-gasoline-worth-extra-price/

    Top Tier gas is found not only at name brand stations but places like Costco.

    BTW, unless your engine requires high octane in the owner's manual, it's a complete waste of money to buy it.
  109. @J.Ross
    OT The real reason we need to be constantly bothered about Russia is a lack of interest or ability in defending the country from real threats like China, in large part thanks to affirmative action.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/06/troubling-us-navy-review-finds-widespread-shortfalls-in-basic-seamanship/

    WASHINGTON — A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

    Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

    Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

    The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

    Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:

    Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
    Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
    Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions” — a factor that was a direct contributor to the loss of life in both the John S. McCain and Fitzgerald collisions in 2017.
    In his message to the fleet, Brown said the OOD competency reviews should be a call to action for the surface community to get after its shortcomings.

    “While the OOD competency checks were a snapshot in time, we must be realistic in confronting the systemic shortfalls that they revealed in core proficiencies across the junior qualified members of the force,” Brown said in the message. “We as a community can and must tackle our deficiencies and ensure there is meaningful experience behind our qualification letters.”
    The areas of concern listed in the message conjure unsettling reminders of the 2017 accidents. In the case of McCain, confusion and indecision took hold on the bridge at the precise moment when the ship had to take immediate actions to avoid a collision, despite the presence of the commanding officer.

    What do you expect if you call a ship McCain?

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  110. @J.Ross
    Our military is trying to be a welfare system, a social experiment lab, and sometimes a military. The answer is to resolve to be a military and reset all policies accordingly.

    Agreed.

  111. @Anonymous
    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.

    Similarly, in double blind listening tests, people prefer the sound of simple two way small box speakers over very expensive audiophile ones, whether the subject listeners are audiophiles, recording engineers or musicians, so long as material without deep bass content is used. When it is, small two way box speakers with external actively powered subwoofers and wide range big systems like Altec VOTTs or Klipschorns are equally preferred.

    And of course, modestly priced (by comparison, e.g, $10 to 50K) new violins are indistinguishable from seven or eight figure Old Cremona violins by violinists and classical music listeners.

    None of which matters in the least to purveyors or customers in the carriage trades.

    Interesting. Didn’t know that it’s true for speakers, too.

    A friend of mine once developed engines at Mecedes and found that the 2 liter VW engine was considerably better than the Mecedes one. In many aspects. They made a wide range of tests.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    That makes sense: a VW customer can't be commuting to the auto shop and the Merc customer probably has another car.
  112. @Anonymous Jew
    You are nothing if not persistent. I hate to feed to the troll, but there's something I must know: do you have any real experience with the Black masses? No, not the top 5-10% that graduate from respectable colleges, but the other 90% of the bell curve.

    I'm somewhat unique here and in the professional middle class in that I actually spent much of my childhood living on the border of a Black neighborhood and going to >50% Black schools. Unlike you, and even many posters here, I actually have over a decade of personal experience with the whole of the Black population/bell curve.

    It was this extensive experience with Blacks that made me a scientific racist. Good social/behavioral science just confirms common sense. They really are quite different. Lower intelligence is the most cited difference but there are many others, from how they smell to average personality profile, et al.

    You must be:
    1) a Black/Amerid minority yourself;
    2) a leftist that knows Blacks like me but are so religious in your ideology that you are incapable of seeing the reality that smacks you in the face daily;
    3) have never had any significant interaction with regular Blacks; or
    4) are somewhere on the autistic/Aspergers spectrum.

    I'd really like to know. I'm betting a mix of 3&4.

    I have an internet conection

    I can mae judgment based on the perfect information available to us

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    So number 3 it is!

    It's also really a shame you can't smell them through your Internet connection, but I digress...

    ---

    You must be:
    1) a Black/Amerid minority yourself;
    2) a leftist that knows Blacks like [I do] but are so religious in your ideology that you are incapable of seeing the reality that smacks you in the face daily;
    3) have never had any significant interaction with regular Blacks; or
    4) are somewhere on the autistic/Aspergers spectrum.
    , @Anonymous Jew
    Does this come through your Internet connection?

    https://www.youtube.com/user/necrom666

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blacks+behaving+badly
  113. @dr kill
    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.

    Perhaps the USN needs to just go with Left and Right instead of Port and Starboard. This is the 21st century, after all.

    “Izquierda” y “Derecho”

  114. @Tiny Duck
    I have an internet conection

    I can mae judgment based on the perfect information available to us

    So number 3 it is!

    It’s also really a shame you can’t smell them through your Internet connection, but I digress…

    You must be:
    1) a Black/Amerid minority yourself;
    2) a leftist that knows Blacks like [I do] but are so religious in your ideology that you are incapable of seeing the reality that smacks you in the face daily;
    3) have never had any significant interaction with regular Blacks; or
    4) are somewhere on the autistic/Aspergers spectrum.

  115. @Tiny Duck
    I have an internet conection

    I can mae judgment based on the perfect information available to us
  116. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top.
     
    I have to point out here that they actually tested this one on the Mythbusters show. They enlisted the services of a professional vodka taster to do the comparison. The specific myth under consideration was "Can you make a premium vodka by running the cheap stuff through a charcoal water filter?" There were eight vodka samples for the taster to judge: one was a bottle of the rotgut, another was the high-end premium, and the other six were prepared by running the rotgut through the water filter from one to six times. Not only did the taster identify the premium and the cheap booze, but he also ranked the filtered vodkas exactly according to the number of times they were filtered. He didn't misjudge a single sample---he nailed every last one.

    This reminds me of a tangentially related topic that I've been meaning to bring up for a while, viz. the very different smell of gasoline now compared with 30 years ago. I remember when I was a kid in '80s, I used to love the smell of gasoline. I would inhale ecstatically whenever we stopped at a gas station, and on cold winter mornings when the car was preheating, my parents would have to entreat me to stop standing in the exhaust stream breathing the fumes (yes, I've already anticipated the obvious jokes about my brain damage, so don't even bother making them).

    The point is that back then gas had a deliciously rich and aromatic smell like ambergris. But nowadays when you stand next to a car with the engine running, more often than not it smells like a cabbage fart. That's a result of our "fracking miracle." The light, tight oil that gets blasted out of the shale beds is chemically very different from the older crude and functions more as a petroleum diluent than an actual petroleum source. It has to be blended with the premium stocks derived from conventional crude in order to produce usable gasoline. Most of this gets sold to supermarket fuel stations and other discount fuel retailers. I would advise against filling up there. You're better off paying for a name brand gasoline.

    Gasolines and kerosenes are not one chemical but complex engineered mixtures of many different petrochemicals. A 2018 car engine would not run on 1969 gasoline, at least not for long. And vice versa, without modifications.

    My Gravely lawn tractor with its T head engine will run on modern pump gas, but gets very hot, and the carb has to be rebuilt every season. On 100LL avgas it has gone since 2012 with nothing but an oil change and a new plug every year.

    • Replies: @res
    The big issues I am aware of with different vintages of gasoline are:
    - Octane rating
    - Lead both for the octane boost and lubrication: http://www.39olds.com/lubrication.htm
    - Ethanol causing both worse shelf life (water attraction) and increased deterioration of rubber seals, hoses, etc. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/the-truth-about-ethanol-in-your-gas/

    Are you referring to something different or just a mix of those?

    It looks like current avgas is mostly low (but not very low or unleaded) lead: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754
    That's the LL in 100LL avgas, right?

    Not sure if/how any of this relates to the smell comment. Here is some discussion of the change in smell: https://community.cartalk.com/t/gasoline-doesnt-smell-good-like-it-used-to-anyone-know-why/88729/29
    Benzene sounds like a plausible explanation to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Component_of_gasoline
    There is a reason for the term "aromatic ring."
  117. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    I don't understand to whom your question is referring. What are you perplexed about?

    If I were to pay you right now to verbosely and frequently claim that globalism isn’t rife with obvious existentially threatening problems, what would that set me back? Like, set a scale from “Hitler did nothing wrong” to your current sincere opinions that you voluntarily express gratis.
    I thought I was, if anything, being too obvious, but I’ll spell it out: should we happen to discover that they all love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, we could then attack General Mills stock.

  118. @dieter kief
    Interesting. Didn't know that it's true for speakers, too.

    A friend of mine once developed engines at Mecedes and found that the 2 liter VW engine was considerably better than the Mecedes one. In many aspects. They made a wide range of tests.

    That makes sense: a VW customer can’t be commuting to the auto shop and the Merc customer probably has another car.

  119. @Anonymous
    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.

    Similarly, in double blind listening tests, people prefer the sound of simple two way small box speakers over very expensive audiophile ones, whether the subject listeners are audiophiles, recording engineers or musicians, so long as material without deep bass content is used. When it is, small two way box speakers with external actively powered subwoofers and wide range big systems like Altec VOTTs or Klipschorns are equally preferred.

    And of course, modestly priced (by comparison, e.g, $10 to 50K) new violins are indistinguishable from seven or eight figure Old Cremona violins by violinists and classical music listeners.

    None of which matters in the least to purveyors or customers in the carriage trades.

    In blind taste tests, modestly priced wines almost always beat very expensive ones both amongst the general public and wine enthusiasts.

    Do you have a citation for this? I find it hard to believe. My own opinion, based on enjoyment of wine but not expertise, is that the average $100 bottle is better than the average $15 bottle. Of course there are some $15 bottles better than some $100 bottles.

    Hype, marketing, and snobbery create some distortions, but over time doesn’t the market adjust the valuation on different wines?

  120. @utu
    (1) By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin's terms. He defined the rules of the game. While the Lewontinites will be driving the point that 15% is very little and thus races are not meaningful, you will be trying to come up with metaphors (not genetic examples because you do not have any) that 15% is significant which justify the concept of race. You are conducting your argument on their terms.

    Instead Lewontin's methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger. In fact it is possible to make this number almost anything between 0% and 100% by selecting appropriate genes. (b) What is the point of using genes that are common between populations to argue the case that races do not exist? One could follow Lewontin's approach and show that genetic distance between apes and men is lower than 15% by selecting appropriate genes. (c). This is more complex objection. Lewontin treats frequencies of various genes as independent probabilities. Race as a trait is essentially polygenic where probability of occurring of genes A and B is not equal to the product of their frequencies: f(A)F(B)≠P(A and B). Let's suppose that we have four genes A,B,C,D and one race is defined by individuals who have genes [(A and B) or (C and D)] and the other race is defined by individuals having genes [(A and C) or (B and D)]. (Note that 'or' is exclusive in both cases.) These two races are two disjoint sets in terms of combinations of gene pairs. If the frequencies of genes are treated as independent probabilities these two races can be close in terms of genetic distance. Actually frequencies of genes in in both races could be the same and Lewontin would find zero genetic distance between them.

    (2) I do not think that the metaphor of casino is good. It does not map on the structure of what was calculated by Lewontine. One has to get deeper to Lewontin's methodology to see it. Lewontin calculates relative distance between populations by means of the fixation index (F-statistics) where he defines population diversity as a function that has properties of variance but is not exactly variance. And from the difference between diversities he gets the distance between populations. The distance is implied not defined.

    In case of two sets we can use variance to illustrate it. Let's A and B are two sets of numbers. Let's. Va, Vb and Ma, Mb are variances and means and V(A 'or' B) is a variance of composite sum of the two sets. Now let assume (Lewontin's also makes this assumption that all populations are the same size) A and B are of the same size. Then


    V(A 'or' B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    The number 0.15 of Lewontin in this scenario is

    0.15= 1-[(Va+Vb)/2]/V(A 'or' B)=(1/4)*[(Ma-Mb)^2)/V(A 'or' B)
     
    This number allows us to express difference between means (without calculating them) as fraction of standard deviation SD=sqrt[V(A 'or' B)] of combined sum of two sets.

    Difference between means without calculating it explicitly is the whole point of this methodology using the fixation index. Lewontin gets distance between populations without explicitly calculating it or even defining it. The fixation index is the distance and thus its definition.
     
    The value of 15% or 0.15 means that Ma-Mb is 77% of the standard deviation SD.

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    This seems a lot, so let's construct an example.

    We have two herds of dairy cows A and B. We calculate the fixation index for the yields of milk which comes to 15%. How much the average yield of milk of the herd A differ from the herd B. The answer is 77% of standard deviation of the milk yield of the combined herd A and B.

    Would the example with cows sway anybody? Perhaps we could replace it with incomes of Jews and gentiles. The fixation index of 15% implies 77% difference between means. Jews would prefer to talk about only 15% but anti-semites would talk about 77%.

    (3). So how the case could be argued?

    Lewontin calculated the value of fixation index using few selected genes. Fixation is something that we do not need to know but it suppose to measure a distance between different statistical sets in terms of variance. For these genes his fixation index is 15%. If he used different genes the fixation index would be lower or significantly higher. Why Lewontin used these genes? This is what he had in 1972 but he did not use any genes responsible for external racial traits. If he used genes responsible for the color of the skin the fixation index would be much larger. Now the question whether 15% is a lot or not. He says it is very small and thus negligible. But we beg to differ. Let's see what fixation index of 15% means for the two herds of dairy cows. Go to the example in (2).

    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn’t correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)

    It pretty much couldn’t be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I’m pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin’s suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found

    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 — as per Lewontin — should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve’s argument that it’s a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    • Replies: @res
    Very interesting. Thanks! I was wondering if there was a good way to relate Cohen's d to the within/between proportions of variance.

    For the record, the exact (well, I think rounded by R) numbers I saw were d = 1.776 and R^2 = 0.442
    Your equation gives 0.440886 for that d.

    Your B/W IQ analysis is very interesting as well. Those numbers sound plausible all the way around.

    Armed with your comment I went looking around. Here is your equation (where B is r^2): https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Effect_size#equation_Eq._1

    And I think Lewontin's 15% is best described as an example of Eta-squared: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Effect_size#(Partial)_Eta-squared_vs._Cohen's_d

    This paper looks useful for thinking about all of this: A General Model of the Relationship between the Apportionment of Human Genetic Diversity and the Apportionment of Human Phenotypic Diversity
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6e/db3d6b53c2b92986221ed6050775b94177b9.pdf

    Abstract:

    Models that examine genetic differences between populations alongside a genotype–phenotype map can provide insight about phenotypic variation among groups. We generalize a simple model of a completely heritable, additive, selectively neutral quantitative trait to examine the relationship between single-locus genetic differentiation and phenotypic differentiation on quantitative traits. In agreement with similar efforts using different models, we show that the expected degree to which two groups differ on a neutral quantitative trait is not strongly affected by the number of genetic loci that influence the trait: neutral trait differences are expected to have a magnitude comparable to the genetic differences at a single neutral locus. We discuss this result with respect to population differences in disease phenotypes, arguing that although neutral genetic differences between populations can contribute to specific differences between populations in health outcomes, systematic patterns of difference that run in the same direction for many genetically independent health conditions are unlikely to be explained by neutral genetic differentiation.

     

    In particular, notice how they interpret Fst:

    estimates of FST, which can be interpreted as the proportion of variance in an allelic indicator variable attributable to allele-frequency differences between populations
     
    So if I interpret this correctly we can use Fst as a direct estimate of Lewontin's 15% number. So revisiting this earlier comment of mine: http://www.unz.com/isteve/scientists-to-grow-mini-brains-using-neanderthal-dna/?highlight=fst#comment-2326929
    we see a Fst matrix for 1000 Genomes populations is available in Supplementary Figure 6 of https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n9/extref/ng.3592-S1.pdf
    and I gave examples of: the YRI-GBR Fst is about 0.18. For comparison, YRI-JPT = 0.212 and JPT-GBR = 0.118. Where YRI – Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria; JPT – Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; GBR – British from England and Scotland

    Detailed discussion of the distribution of Fst for human SNPS: Empirical Distributions of FST from Large-Scale Human Polymorphism Data
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837
    , @utu
    No, what I did was correct. I applied the formula

    V(A ‘or’ B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    You can find it here:
    https://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/combined-variance.html
    It is easy to prove.

    The fixation index is defined as ratio of variance between different subpopulations (Vs) by variance of the total population (Vt): Fst=Vs/Vt

    The problem is that the variance Vs can't be directly calculated, so it must be estimated. It is estimated as the difference between Vt and the average of variances of individual subpopulations. This leads to the following formula for n subpopulations

    Fst=1-[∑V(Pi)/n]/V(∑Pi)
     
    where V(∑Pi)=Vt is variance of the total population.

    This formula was used by Lewontin.

    Fst is an index, i.e., it is uniteless as it is normalized by variance. As you can see it is normalized by variance Vt of total population.

    What you seem to be doing is assuming that normalization was not by total but by the part 0.85=1-0.15 as your formula B/(1-B) indicate. This is not correct.

    Then you talk about variance explained and predicting. You are mixing analogies and metaphors. Nothing is being predicted here or explained. This is just a partition of variances into two variances of different origins using fixation index.

    Sentences like this

    Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.
     
    got you in to trouble. First of all as I have stated this variance is not explained. Looks like regression is your thing. You like 'explaining', right? But we are not dealing with regression here. This variance Vs between groups is postulated here. We can't calculate it directly so the fixation index is used to give its value implicitly.




    This is what Levontin did.
    , @reiner Tor
    Okay, that's interesting.

    But utu does have a point that we also need to assert that each individual can easily be assigned a race (except for mixed race people or people belonging to admixed populations, though even in those cases it's easy to tell which admixed population or which races they descend from). This is actually true.
    , @utu
    My response was not yet published for whatever reason.
    , @utu
    No, what I did was correct. I applied the formula

    V(A ‘or’ B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    You can find it here:

    https://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/combined-variance.html

    It is easy to prove.

    The fixation index is defined as ratio of variance between different subpopulations (Vs) by variance of the total population (Vt): Fst=Vs/Vt

    The problem is that the variance Vs can’t be directly calculated, so it must be estimated. It is estimated as the difference between Vt and the average of variances of individual subpopulations. This leads to the following formula for n subpopulations

    Fst=1-[∑V(Pi)/n]/V(∑Pi)
     
    where V(∑Pi)=Vt is variance of the total population.

    This formula was used by Lewontin.

    Fst is an index, i.e., it is uniteless as it is normalized by variance. As you can see it is normalized by variance Vt of total population.

    What you seem to be doing is assuming that normalization was not by total but by the part 0.85=1-0.15 as your formula B/(1-B) indicate. This is not correct.

    Then you talk about variance explained and predicting. You are mixing analogies and metaphors. Nothing is being predicted here or explained. This is just a partition of variances into two variances of different origins using fixation index.

    Sentences like this

    Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.
     
    got you in to trouble. First of all as I have stated this variance is not explained. Looks like regression is your thing. You like ‘explaining’, right? But we are not dealing with regression here. This variance Vs between groups is postulated here. We can’t calculate it directly so the fixation index is used to give its value implicitly.

    This is what Levontin did.
  121. @Zippy
    @Steve Sailer

    On the $12.00 versus $120 wine issue, I don't think it's a pure social construct, or at least it's not made up. I do think there is some element of social conditioning -- people who drink expensive wine may be more inclined to like it because of the reputation of the wine. But they do blind tastings on a regular basis, and the expensive wines tend to win them.

    I've found this to be true when I do it. Mrs. Zippy and I do spend between $50 and $250 on wine on a regular basis, and we often hold dinner parties where we will serve foods and sample multiple wines. (We use the Coravin device, which allows one to "open" wine without opening it, assuming it uses a natural cork.)

    We put the wines in opaque bags, so they are unknown to the diners. When dinner is over, we will ask for opinions and unveil the wines. I will often include a range of wines -- I recently did it with a $180 bottle, a $60 bottle, and Charles Shaw from Trader Joe's, often known as "Two Buck Chuck," though I think it's closer to $3 or $4 these days.

    The result is uniformly that my guests like the more expensive wines more. I've done this with cheapo wines and some nice wines at least 30 times, and the cheapo wine has never, ever won. By cheapo I mean $20 or under. And I've had other people put the wines in the bags, so I am the one who is blind-tasting. And I've never picked the sub $20 stuff.

    Now, sometimes the $50 bottle will beat the $100 plus bottle. As you go up the quality scale, diminishing returns sets in, and the differences become more subtle and individual tastes come into play. So I might genuinely like an $80 bottle more than a $200 bottle, but I'm very unlikely to just love Barefoot or Two Buck Chuck as much as either. I have had some very expensive wines -- more than $500 a bottle, or even four figures. They were great! But the difference between the $500 bottle that I love and the $150 bottle that I also love is so subtle and the marginal cost is so much higher that it's not worth the additional $350 to me. But the difference between the $10 or $20 and the $50 - $250 bottles I now buy is so significant that the marginal cost is worth it.

    There are additional complexities added by grape variety and aging.

    In my experience, at least, when looking for low-priced red wines or when scanning an inferior wine list, California Zinfandel is a pretty good bet. For whatever reason cheap Zins are, well, pretty good.

    Italian Chianti wines can be a bit rough and coarse, particularly on the cheapo side, but served with a spicy tomato-based recipe, they really work. The stuff about pairing wine and food really is true. (For people who want to see this principle illustrated in a crude way, have a sip of orange juice immediately after brushing your teeth. What you are eating really does affect how you taste wine.)

    With expensive wines, I genuinely think the Judgment of Paris got it right, and that California Cabernet Sauvignon will usually outshine a Bordeaux of equivalent price.

    I never, ever buy cheap pinot noir. Pinot noir is really delicate and very hard to grow. Because it requires very careful handling, cheapo pinot noir is just bad. Also, in the United States, a wine label that specifies a single variety only means that at least 75% of the wine is that variety -- it might be blended. Pinot noir should never be blended, unless it's being used to make sparkling wine. As opposed to cabernet sauvignon, which is usually better blended. For cheap American pinot noir, it's a darn good bet there there is something else thrown into the bottle, because that something else will almost certainly be cheaper and easier to grow than pinot noir.

    A red Burgundy, by contrast, can legally only be pinot noir. My personal snobbish opinion is that, while Oregon and even California produce some good pinot noir, nothing beats a good Burgundy. Lots of people agree with me, which is why Burgundy wine is so expensive.

    Also, some people just plain don't like certain wines. If you don't like Port, for example, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between an awesome Port aged fifty years and a terrible one. It all tastes like cough syrup!

    Aging creates another complexity. Some wines do not improve with aging, and some get worse. Even the wines most amenable to aging will spoil at some point. Those 19th century bottles that get auctioned off for hundreds of thousands of dollars would probably be terrible if somebody were stupid enough to open one and drink it.

    But it really is true that some wines are better after sitting on a shelf for a decade in a climate controlled room. Some are so tannic when young that they will taste terrible unless you age them for a decade or decant it for several hours before drinking. (Decanting is just accelerated aging.)

    I do think there is some element of social conditioning, just as the same food served in cardboard box may not be as appealing as it would be when elegantly plated in a white tablecloth restaurant. But I think most people can tell the difference between a really good piece of steak and a really bad one, even without those social cues.

    So maybe it's, well, some of both?

    When’s dinner? I will bring some homemade mead.

  122. @res

    By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin’s terms. He defined the rules of the game.
     
    In my opinion the most devastating arguments are those which allow your opponent to frame the question and then refute him on his own terms. Ideally using his exact words.

    You might want to look up "steel-manning": https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

    Refusing to admit when your opponent has a valid point is just being childish.

    I left a comment to utu directly above which may interest you.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/18-years-of-trying/#comment-2365551

    • Replies: @res
    Indeed it did. Thanks! I wrote my preceding comment before seeing this comment of yours.
  123. @Intelligent Dasein

    During the fad for very expensive designer vodkas, I recall that blind tastings kept having cheap mass produced vodkas like Smirnoff come out on top.
     
    I have to point out here that they actually tested this one on the Mythbusters show. They enlisted the services of a professional vodka taster to do the comparison. The specific myth under consideration was "Can you make a premium vodka by running the cheap stuff through a charcoal water filter?" There were eight vodka samples for the taster to judge: one was a bottle of the rotgut, another was the high-end premium, and the other six were prepared by running the rotgut through the water filter from one to six times. Not only did the taster identify the premium and the cheap booze, but he also ranked the filtered vodkas exactly according to the number of times they were filtered. He didn't misjudge a single sample---he nailed every last one.

    This reminds me of a tangentially related topic that I've been meaning to bring up for a while, viz. the very different smell of gasoline now compared with 30 years ago. I remember when I was a kid in '80s, I used to love the smell of gasoline. I would inhale ecstatically whenever we stopped at a gas station, and on cold winter mornings when the car was preheating, my parents would have to entreat me to stop standing in the exhaust stream breathing the fumes (yes, I've already anticipated the obvious jokes about my brain damage, so don't even bother making them).

    The point is that back then gas had a deliciously rich and aromatic smell like ambergris. But nowadays when you stand next to a car with the engine running, more often than not it smells like a cabbage fart. That's a result of our "fracking miracle." The light, tight oil that gets blasted out of the shale beds is chemically very different from the older crude and functions more as a petroleum diluent than an actual petroleum source. It has to be blended with the premium stocks derived from conventional crude in order to produce usable gasoline. Most of this gets sold to supermarket fuel stations and other discount fuel retailers. I would advise against filling up there. You're better off paying for a name brand gasoline.

    Modern gas is at least 10% alcohol so that accounts for part of the smell.

    As far as name brand vs. generic gas, your local Indian gas station does not cook the stuff up in the back (they would if they could, but they can’t). Gasoline is a commodity that is made only in enormous refineries. Even if you go to a (for example) Exxon station, the gas didn’t necessarily come from an Exxon refinery. Gas is expensive to transport so it usually comes from the nearest refinery (the refiners trade with each other). The only difference is that at the time it is put in the tanker truck for delivery, each brand adds its own additive package. All of these packages meet minimum standards but it is worth looking for gas that is labeled “Top Tier” which is a superior additive package. It’s also a good idea to put a bottle of “Techron” in your tank once in a while.

    https://www.consumerreports.org/car-maintenance/study-shows-top-tier-gasoline-worth-extra-price/

    Top Tier gas is found not only at name brand stations but places like Costco.

    BTW, unless your engine requires high octane in the owner’s manual, it’s a complete waste of money to buy it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Modern gas is at least 10% alcohol so that accounts for part of the smell.
     
    As compared to gasoline-any gasoline-denatured ethanol has virtually no smell.

    BTW, unless your engine requires high octane in the owner’s manual, it’s a complete waste of money to buy it.
     
    Right, octane rating is a measure of resistance to detonation, and paying more for a higher rating than needed doesn't benefit anyone.
  124. res says:
    @Anonymous
    Gasolines and kerosenes are not one chemical but complex engineered mixtures of many different petrochemicals. A 2018 car engine would not run on 1969 gasoline, at least not for long. And vice versa, without modifications.

    My Gravely lawn tractor with its T head engine will run on modern pump gas, but gets very hot, and the carb has to be rebuilt every season. On 100LL avgas it has gone since 2012 with nothing but an oil change and a new plug every year.

    The big issues I am aware of with different vintages of gasoline are:
    – Octane rating
    – Lead both for the octane boost and lubrication: http://www.39olds.com/lubrication.htm
    – Ethanol causing both worse shelf life (water attraction) and increased deterioration of rubber seals, hoses, etc. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/the-truth-about-ethanol-in-your-gas/

    Are you referring to something different or just a mix of those?

    It looks like current avgas is mostly low (but not very low or unleaded) lead: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754
    That’s the LL in 100LL avgas, right?

    Not sure if/how any of this relates to the smell comment. Here is some discussion of the change in smell: https://community.cartalk.com/t/gasoline-doesnt-smell-good-like-it-used-to-anyone-know-why/88729/29
    Benzene sounds like a plausible explanation to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Component_of_gasoline
    There is a reason for the term “aromatic ring.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    All grades of aviation gasoline are the same except for the amount of tetraethyl lead in the fuel. This amount is much, much higher than was ever used in automobile gasoline. 100LL (blue) has less than the old green 100/130 but more than the old red 80/87. Because the volume of avgas sales have dropped and because avgas is no longer pipelineable due to TEL they mostly only supply the one grade.

    Buying avgas can be a pain in the ass. Idiot FBOs will tell you that the FAA does not allow its sale to non-aircraft-owners (bullshit) or that the EPA does not allow it to be sold to non aircraft owners (also bullshit). Out here they have a self service pump that you can park outside the fence and walk in with a jerry can. The only thing that is actually verboten is putting it in a road going vehicle. You can put it in cans or barrels and do what you want with it off premises.
  125. res says:
    @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    Very interesting. Thanks! I was wondering if there was a good way to relate Cohen’s d to the within/between proportions of variance.

    For the record, the exact (well, I think rounded by R) numbers I saw were d = 1.776 and R^2 = 0.442
    Your equation gives 0.440886 for that d.

    Your B/W IQ analysis is very interesting as well. Those numbers sound plausible all the way around.

    Armed with your comment I went looking around. Here is your equation (where B is r^2): https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Effect_size#equation_Eq._1

    And I think Lewontin’s 15% is best described as an example of Eta-squared: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Effect_size#(Partial)_Eta-squared_vs._Cohen’s_d

    This paper looks useful for thinking about all of this: A General Model of the Relationship between the Apportionment of Human Genetic Diversity and the Apportionment of Human Phenotypic Diversity
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6e/db3d6b53c2b92986221ed6050775b94177b9.pdf

    Abstract:

    Models that examine genetic differences between populations alongside a genotype–phenotype map can provide insight about phenotypic variation among groups. We generalize a simple model of a completely heritable, additive, selectively neutral quantitative trait to examine the relationship between single-locus genetic differentiation and phenotypic differentiation on quantitative traits. In agreement with similar efforts using different models, we show that the expected degree to which two groups differ on a neutral quantitative trait is not strongly affected by the number of genetic loci that influence the trait: neutral trait differences are expected to have a magnitude comparable to the genetic differences at a single neutral locus. We discuss this result with respect to population differences in disease phenotypes, arguing that although neutral genetic differences between populations can contribute to specific differences between populations in health outcomes, systematic patterns of difference that run in the same direction for many genetically independent health conditions are unlikely to be explained by neutral genetic differentiation.

    In particular, notice how they interpret Fst:

    estimates of FST, which can be interpreted as the proportion of variance in an allelic indicator variable attributable to allele-frequency differences between populations

    So if I interpret this correctly we can use Fst as a direct estimate of Lewontin’s 15% number. So revisiting this earlier comment of mine: http://www.unz.com/isteve/scientists-to-grow-mini-brains-using-neanderthal-dna/?highlight=fst#comment-2326929
    we see a Fst matrix for 1000 Genomes populations is available in Supplementary Figure 6 of https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ng/journal/v48/n9/extref/ng.3592-S1.pdf
    and I gave examples of: the YRI-GBR Fst is about 0.18. For comparison, YRI-JPT = 0.212 and JPT-GBR = 0.118. Where YRI – Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria; JPT – Japanese in Tokyo, Japan; GBR – British from England and Scotland

    Detailed discussion of the distribution of Fst for human SNPS: Empirical Distributions of FST from Large-Scale Human Polymorphism Data
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

  126. @candid_observer
    I left a comment to utu directly above which may interest you.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/18-years-of-trying/#comment-2365551

    Indeed it did. Thanks! I wrote my preceding comment before seeing this comment of yours.

  127. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - a sort of sad-but-don't-they-deserve it story of the English adjunct professoriate underclass.

    https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239148


    "To talk about adjuncts is to talk about the centerpiece of higher education. Tenured faculty represent only 17 percent of college instructors. Part-time adjuncts are now the majority of the professoriate and its fastest-growing segment. From 1975 to 2011, the number of part-time adjuncts quadrupled. And the so-called part-time designation is misleading because most of them are piecing together teaching jobs at multiple institutions simultaneously. A 2014 congressional report suggests that 89 percent of adjuncts work at more than one institution; 13 percent work at four or more. The need for several appointments becomes obvious when we realize how little any one of them pays. In 2013, The Chronicle began collecting data on salary and benefits from adjuncts across the country. An English-department adjunct at Berkeley, for example, received $6,500 to teach a full-semester course. It’s easy to lose sight of all the people struggling beneath the data points. $7,000 at Duke. $6,000 at Columbia. $5,950 at the University of Iowa.

    These are the high numbers. According to the 2014 congressional report, adjuncts’ median pay per course is $2,700. An annual report by the American Association of University Professors indicated that last year "the average part-time faculty member earned $16,718" from a single employer. Other studies have similar findings. Thirty-one percent of part-time faculty members live near or below the poverty line. Twenty-five percent receive public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps. One English-department adjunct who responded to the survey said that she sold her plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays to pay for her daughter’s day care. Another woman stated that she taught four classes a year for less than $10,000. She wrote, "I am currently pregnant with my first child. … I will receive NO time off for the birth or recovery. It is necessary I continue until the end of the semester in May in order to get paid, something I drastically need. The only recourse I have is to revert to an online classroom […] and do work while in the hospital and upon my return home." Sixty-one percent of adjunct faculty are women."
     

    Why so the awful terms and conditions?

    "From 2008 to 2014, tenure-track English-department jobs declined 43 percent. This year there are, by my count, only 173 entry-level tenure-track job openings — fewer than half of the opportunities just two years ago. If history is any guide, there will be about nine times as many new Ph.D.s this year as there are jobs. One might think that the years-long plunge in employment would compel doctoral programs to reduce their numbers of candidates, but the opposite is happening. From the Great Recession to 2014, U.S. universities awarded 10 percent more English Ph.D.s. In the humanities as a whole, doctorates are up 12 percent ... the prospect of intellectual freedom, job security, and a life devoted to literature, combined with the urge to recoup a doctoral degree’s investment of time, gives young scholars a strong incentive to continue pursuing tenure-track jobs while selling their plasma on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    This incentive generates a labor surplus that depresses wages."
     

    Isn't that 'strong incentive' similar to the 'strong incentive' which produced the California and Klondyke gold rushes?

    The author, Kevin Birmingham (who gave up tenure to write a book) lambasts US English departments for accepting more PhD students than can possibly be appointed to tenured positions.


    "the humanities almost unilaterally controls its own labor market. New faculty come from a pool of candidates that the academy itself creates, and that pool is overflowing"
     
    I'm just wondering if English professors ever apply the logic of a labour surplus that depresses wages to the whole of the United States, which also controls its own labour market? I've not seen many adjunct English profs clamouring 'build the wall!".

    They call themselves freeway flyers Considering the hatred they spew out against Whites I hope everyone of them ends up homeless without even a car to live in.

    I remember an article a long time ago about the job prospects for sociology PHDs. 760 sociology PHDs that year. Only 3 tenure positions offered in the entire country.

  128. @anony-mouse
    The flaw in your argument is that you equate the 85% to random spins on a wheel.

    But as you yourself have pointed out ,for example, in 'Albion's Seed', there can be large differences within even close racial groups.

    How racially different were the violent Borderlands English compared to the pacifist Midland Quakers? Not much.

    Very few of th midlanders became Quakers.

  129. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    The big issues I am aware of with different vintages of gasoline are:
    - Octane rating
    - Lead both for the octane boost and lubrication: http://www.39olds.com/lubrication.htm
    - Ethanol causing both worse shelf life (water attraction) and increased deterioration of rubber seals, hoses, etc. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/the-truth-about-ethanol-in-your-gas/

    Are you referring to something different or just a mix of those?

    It looks like current avgas is mostly low (but not very low or unleaded) lead: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14754
    That's the LL in 100LL avgas, right?

    Not sure if/how any of this relates to the smell comment. Here is some discussion of the change in smell: https://community.cartalk.com/t/gasoline-doesnt-smell-good-like-it-used-to-anyone-know-why/88729/29
    Benzene sounds like a plausible explanation to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Component_of_gasoline
    There is a reason for the term "aromatic ring."

    All grades of aviation gasoline are the same except for the amount of tetraethyl lead in the fuel. This amount is much, much higher than was ever used in automobile gasoline. 100LL (blue) has less than the old green 100/130 but more than the old red 80/87. Because the volume of avgas sales have dropped and because avgas is no longer pipelineable due to TEL they mostly only supply the one grade.

    Buying avgas can be a pain in the ass. Idiot FBOs will tell you that the FAA does not allow its sale to non-aircraft-owners (bullshit) or that the EPA does not allow it to be sold to non aircraft owners (also bullshit). Out here they have a self service pump that you can park outside the fence and walk in with a jerry can. The only thing that is actually verboten is putting it in a road going vehicle. You can put it in cans or barrels and do what you want with it off premises.

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks!
    , @Jack D
    If your vehicle has a catalytic converter then lead will ruin it.
  130. @Anonymous
    All grades of aviation gasoline are the same except for the amount of tetraethyl lead in the fuel. This amount is much, much higher than was ever used in automobile gasoline. 100LL (blue) has less than the old green 100/130 but more than the old red 80/87. Because the volume of avgas sales have dropped and because avgas is no longer pipelineable due to TEL they mostly only supply the one grade.

    Buying avgas can be a pain in the ass. Idiot FBOs will tell you that the FAA does not allow its sale to non-aircraft-owners (bullshit) or that the EPA does not allow it to be sold to non aircraft owners (also bullshit). Out here they have a self service pump that you can park outside the fence and walk in with a jerry can. The only thing that is actually verboten is putting it in a road going vehicle. You can put it in cans or barrels and do what you want with it off premises.

    Thanks!

  131. @Anonymous
    All grades of aviation gasoline are the same except for the amount of tetraethyl lead in the fuel. This amount is much, much higher than was ever used in automobile gasoline. 100LL (blue) has less than the old green 100/130 but more than the old red 80/87. Because the volume of avgas sales have dropped and because avgas is no longer pipelineable due to TEL they mostly only supply the one grade.

    Buying avgas can be a pain in the ass. Idiot FBOs will tell you that the FAA does not allow its sale to non-aircraft-owners (bullshit) or that the EPA does not allow it to be sold to non aircraft owners (also bullshit). Out here they have a self service pump that you can park outside the fence and walk in with a jerry can. The only thing that is actually verboten is putting it in a road going vehicle. You can put it in cans or barrels and do what you want with it off premises.

    If your vehicle has a catalytic converter then lead will ruin it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    TEL is destructive both to catalytic converters and to the oxygen sensors almost all "modern" engines use for closed loop fuel mixture control. Outside of racing and aircraft engines the only "new" engines that will burn leaded fuel in stock form are some small engines with neither catalysts nor oxygen sensors.

    People running antique cars often use avgas as a fuel supplement both for valve seat lubrication and as an octane booster. It works great for that. Running car engines on straight avgas is a bad idea not only because the lead will foul the plugs but because 100LL avgas is actually not 100 automotive octane. When tested using the R+M/2 method usually it comes in at about 92 to 94 octane. Premium unleaded car gas is usually higher than that. A lot of boat guys ran avgas because under heavy load, such as in marine use, car type engines were fine with it and the modern additives in car gas are pretty harsh on integral fuel tanks in fiberglass hulls.

    The specifications for avgas were drawn up in the era where supercharged radial engine aircraft with 100+ cubic inch cylinders were operated at high altitude. That era is mostly over. Much of the GA fleet is auto fuel compatible today, although it's said that 70% of avgas volume goes to the 25% that isn't.
  132. utu says:
    @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    No, what I did was correct. I applied the formula

    V(A ‘or’ B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4

    You can find it here:
    https://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/combined-variance.html
    It is easy to prove.

    The fixation index is defined as ratio of variance between different subpopulations (Vs) by variance of the total population (Vt): Fst=Vs/Vt

    The problem is that the variance Vs can’t be directly calculated, so it must be estimated. It is estimated as the difference between Vt and the average of variances of individual subpopulations. This leads to the following formula for n subpopulations

    Fst=1-[∑V(Pi)/n]/V(∑Pi)

    where V(∑Pi)=Vt is variance of the total population.

    This formula was used by Lewontin.

    Fst is an index, i.e., it is uniteless as it is normalized by variance. As you can see it is normalized by variance Vt of total population.

    What you seem to be doing is assuming that normalization was not by total but by the part 0.85=1-0.15 as your formula B/(1-B) indicate. This is not correct.

    Then you talk about variance explained and predicting. You are mixing analogies and metaphors. Nothing is being predicted here or explained. This is just a partition of variances into two variances of different origins using fixation index.

    Sentences like this

    Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    got you in to trouble. First of all as I have stated this variance is not explained. Looks like regression is your thing. You like ‘explaining’, right? But we are not dealing with regression here. This variance Vs between groups is postulated here. We can’t calculate it directly so the fixation index is used to give its value implicitly.

    This is what Levontin did.

  133. @Forbes
    I'd think a rise in arrests would indicate a crackdown, i.e. stricter enforcement policy, is working. A result of stricter enforcement usually means higher arrests. A number of factors effect the number of crossings. If those crossing illegally are merely put back across the border, there's no disincentive to trying again. They're buying what are effectively lottery tickets...

    The NYT's Fox Butterfield was regularly mocked for annually writing articles about the apparent conflict between a declining crime rate and higher levels of incarceration, unable to grasp the circularity present.

    Mexican illegal border crossers are easy to send back by La Migra bus. Every other non- contiguous nation, it is a logistical nightmare to deport their border jumpers and visa over stayers for one simple reason. They are flown back. Think Peru, China, Bangladesh, Guatemala. So the tendency is to parole them into the US population for a court date 2 or more years in the future. 90% don’t show. They also are paroled due to lack of jail space

  134. @utu
    My long comment was in earnest. I thought it would help to answer questions that Steve Sailer's asked:

    My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?
     
    Your reaction to my comment and your earlier inept steel-manning of Steve Sailer argument by taking the square root of 0.15 made me realize that I must be the only one who tries in earnest to destroy the Lewontin's meme.

    Did Steve Sailer really believe that his casino example could impact those 'intelligent people'? The casino example is inadequate; it does not deserve to be called an analogy. There is no discernible relation to the fixation index that Lewontin calculated. But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept. Did Steve Sailer thought that racists 'analogy' will influence those 'intelligent people'? Apparently Steve Sailer is not interested in influencing them. He is just playing to the chap seats bought by obsequious sycophants like yourself. He will be happy to keep 'trying' for another 18 years in front of so demanding audience.

    But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept.

    Steve isn’t implying that the croupiers are cheating or inept. The bias just happens automatically for the sake of the analogy, like loaded dice. There is no conscious effort implied. The croupier is just a black box (or red box, as the case may be) in service of the analogy.

  135. @Steve Sailer
    Differences between a $12 box of wine and a $120 bottle of wine are merely a social construct.

    Actually, as far as I can tell, that could be true.

    But I don't have much of a sense of taste or smell, so I'm willing to assume that people who are spending $120 know what they are talking about.

    Not sure about wine, but you can tell with Scotch. Drink a decent single malt, then try something like J&B. To some they might both taste like gasoline, but you can tell a quality difference. Now maybe an $80 bottle and $125, not so much? Not a bourbon fan, but compare your commodity Jack with one of the endless small batch local distilleries popping up across the counrry. Confirms Jack is junk, at least to me.

  136. @utu
    (1) By concentrating on the number of 15% you accept Lewontin methodology and thus you conduct arguments on Lewontin's terms. He defined the rules of the game. While the Lewontinites will be driving the point that 15% is very little and thus races are not meaningful, you will be trying to come up with metaphors (not genetic examples because you do not have any) that 15% is significant which justify the concept of race. You are conducting your argument on their terms.

    Instead Lewontin's methodology should be attacked. (a) 15% is true for the very small set of genes he selected. If he selected other genes, for instance the ones responsible for skin color the same number would be significantly larger. In fact it is possible to make this number almost anything between 0% and 100% by selecting appropriate genes. (b) What is the point of using genes that are common between populations to argue the case that races do not exist? One could follow Lewontin's approach and show that genetic distance between apes and men is lower than 15% by selecting appropriate genes. (c). This is more complex objection. Lewontin treats frequencies of various genes as independent probabilities. Race as a trait is essentially polygenic where probability of occurring of genes A and B is not equal to the product of their frequencies: f(A)F(B)≠P(A and B). Let's suppose that we have four genes A,B,C,D and one race is defined by individuals who have genes [(A and B) or (C and D)] and the other race is defined by individuals having genes [(A and C) or (B and D)]. (Note that 'or' is exclusive in both cases.) These two races are two disjoint sets in terms of combinations of gene pairs. If the frequencies of genes are treated as independent probabilities these two races can be close in terms of genetic distance. Actually frequencies of genes in in both races could be the same and Lewontin would find zero genetic distance between them.

    (2) I do not think that the metaphor of casino is good. It does not map on the structure of what was calculated by Lewontine. One has to get deeper to Lewontin's methodology to see it. Lewontin calculates relative distance between populations by means of the fixation index (F-statistics) where he defines population diversity as a function that has properties of variance but is not exactly variance. And from the difference between diversities he gets the distance between populations. The distance is implied not defined.

    In case of two sets we can use variance to illustrate it. Let's A and B are two sets of numbers. Let's. Va, Vb and Ma, Mb are variances and means and V(A 'or' B) is a variance of composite sum of the two sets. Now let assume (Lewontin's also makes this assumption that all populations are the same size) A and B are of the same size. Then


    V(A 'or' B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4
     
    The number 0.15 of Lewontin in this scenario is

    0.15= 1-[(Va+Vb)/2]/V(A 'or' B)=(1/4)*[(Ma-Mb)^2)/V(A 'or' B)
     
    This number allows us to express difference between means (without calculating them) as fraction of standard deviation SD=sqrt[V(A 'or' B)] of combined sum of two sets.

    Difference between means without calculating it explicitly is the whole point of this methodology using the fixation index. Lewontin gets distance between populations without explicitly calculating it or even defining it. The fixation index is the distance and thus its definition.
     
    The value of 15% or 0.15 means that Ma-Mb is 77% of the standard deviation SD.

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    This seems a lot, so let's construct an example.

    We have two herds of dairy cows A and B. We calculate the fixation index for the yields of milk which comes to 15%. How much the average yield of milk of the herd A differ from the herd B. The answer is 77% of standard deviation of the milk yield of the combined herd A and B.

    Would the example with cows sway anybody? Perhaps we could replace it with incomes of Jews and gentiles. The fixation index of 15% implies 77% difference between means. Jews would prefer to talk about only 15% but anti-semites would talk about 77%.

    (3). So how the case could be argued?

    Lewontin calculated the value of fixation index using few selected genes. Fixation is something that we do not need to know but it suppose to measure a distance between different statistical sets in terms of variance. For these genes his fixation index is 15%. If he used different genes the fixation index would be lower or significantly higher. Why Lewontin used these genes? This is what he had in 1972 but he did not use any genes responsible for external racial traits. If he used genes responsible for the color of the skin the fixation index would be much larger. Now the question whether 15% is a lot or not. He says it is very small and thus negligible. But we beg to differ. Let's see what fixation index of 15% means for the two herds of dairy cows. Go to the example in (2).

    Great comments.

  137. @utu
    My long comment was in earnest. I thought it would help to answer questions that Steve Sailer's asked:

    My question is: Did I get something really wrong with this? (I doubt that my arithmetic logic is all that accurate, but did I get it right within an order of magnitude?)

    If not, why are intelligent people still promoting Lewontin’s 85-15 Ratio as the Be All and End All about race?
     
    Your reaction to my comment and your earlier inept steel-manning of Steve Sailer argument by taking the square root of 0.15 made me realize that I must be the only one who tries in earnest to destroy the Lewontin's meme.

    Did Steve Sailer really believe that his casino example could impact those 'intelligent people'? The casino example is inadequate; it does not deserve to be called an analogy. There is no discernible relation to the fixation index that Lewontin calculated. But there is a connection to race in the racist insinuation that American Indian and African-American croupiers are cheating or are inept. Did Steve Sailer thought that racists 'analogy' will influence those 'intelligent people'? Apparently Steve Sailer is not interested in influencing them. He is just playing to the chap seats bought by obsequious sycophants like yourself. He will be happy to keep 'trying' for another 18 years in front of so demanding audience.

    I have used the croupier argument before, and it was very effective. My interlocutor got visibly disturbed, and had no way of countering it. So i disagree that it’s a totally ineffective argument. There are many intelligent liberals who honestly believe that race has been debunked.

  138. @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    Okay, that’s interesting.

    But utu does have a point that we also need to assert that each individual can easily be assigned a race (except for mixed race people or people belonging to admixed populations, though even in those cases it’s easy to tell which admixed population or which races they descend from). This is actually true.

  139. Every single athlete lies about their height. If they don’t their team does. If they can get away with it they lie about weight, age, etc.

    Any stats from sports except raw achievements I take with a block of salt.

  140. @Anonymous
    Usually, I like to comment on items that I have some personal experience with. This isn't one of them.

    I am a heterosexual White male.

    I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen a black man's penis in an erect state in the flesh. I have seen a few films of such things, but such movies are not representative of reality, because male porn stars are selected for having large and therefore visually prominent penises.

    And I don't generally talk about such things with women, black or white. In fact any white woman with experience with black men sexually is pretty much off my radar completely, by choice. And out of respect for the black man, I don't mess with his women, just as Muhammad Ali didn't mess with mine. Plus which, they have no appeal for me.

    That said, I have had discussions on this subject with a few people who did know a lot about it. Two of them were retired high class escort type call girls and a couple of others were homosexual males who admitted they were bottoms and not tops and made it obvious they were really, really knowledgeable about penises. Unlike the women, they knew all the scientific terms and the little details only someone with a penis themselves would think of, but which most of us don't, because other guys' equipment does not particularly interest us.

    It interests me from an evolutionary and racial standpoint, as an example of being just one more example of how we are not all the same besides skin pigmentation. So I asked.

    The call girls (then both in their late fifties, or about my own age now, in roughly the mid to late 1980s: I know that both of them are now deceased, one in her sixties, one made it to about 83 or 84) were in complete agreement amongst themselves and with the male homosexuals for the most part. The male homosexuals were both much younger and had experience mostly with American men, mostly black or white, whereas the CGs had worked in the US but had many European, Asian, and Middle Eastern clients as well as American corporate and showbiz types as well as other affluent Americans.

    The bottom lines appeared to be:

    1) Blacks tended to be "showers and not growers", that is, their erect length and thickness was much closer to the flaccid size than whites on average.

    2) When fully erect, black penises tended to be less rigid and more compressible than white or Asian ones.

    3) The women reported that blacks tended to be circumcised much less often then whites, particularly uncircumcised American whites were pretty rare. The gays didn't comment. I did not ask. My guess is that more white boys escape the snip today than in the years the men the women had experience with were born but that is speculation.

    4) On average, white penises had the most variability in size when erect. Blacks had a variety of sizes too, and were on average slightly but not very much bigger than white ones. Being more flexible they were less painful to deal with if very large than huge white ones, the women said.

    Koreans and Chinese were uniformly about the same as average white penises or a little bit, but not greatly smaller, but very small or very large ones were uncommon. Japanese men had smaller than average white ones, nearly universally, and did range in size from very small to slightly smaller than average. Asian penises were quite hard when erect.

    5) Black men had ejaculate that was thicker, more copious, and a brighter white than others and it had a generally bitterer taste. Black men tended to have a more dramatic reaction to orgasm than others.

    6) When encountering men with really large ones, such that sex became impossible or really challenging, they usually fell into two groups: blacks or mulattoes from island nations such as Haitians, Dominicans, Jamaicans and the like, or white men from Scandinvian countries. Arabs often had big ones but never of that extreme size. The girls reported that the escort agencies they worked for usually had one or two girls on staff who were able to deal with these customers more easily than the others and they'd get those dates.

    The things I learn by coming here . . .

  141. @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    My response was not yet published for whatever reason.

  142. utu says:
    @candid_observer
    The formula you use for calculating the difference in means between two groups based on proportion of variation explained by between variation isn't correct:

    77%=100*sqrt(4*0.15)
     
    It pretty much couldn't be the correct formula. The difference in the means would be only 2 SD if the variation explained by between variation was 1, instead of .15 as in your formula. Obviously the diff in means should go to infinity as the proportion of total variation explained by between variation approaches 1.

    I'm pretty sure the correct formula (making various assumptions, including that the SDs in question are of the two groups, not the combined group, and are equal) is this:

    Let D be the difference in means between the two groups, in terms of the SD of the two groups. Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    Then

    D = 2*SQRT(B/(1-B))

    and, if desired to go the other way round,

    B = D^2/(4+D^2)

    Under these assumptions, if B is .15 (as per Lewontin's suggestion), then D, the difference in the means, is .84 SD (not .77 as your formula provides).

    The formula also predicts the result res presented, in which he found


    So if anyone is interested I went ahead and ran this analysis for about 8,000 adults in NHANES III: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes3/DataFiles.aspx

    The result was a Cohen’s d of just over 1.75 for the two groups and the sex variable explained a little over 44% of the height variance.
     

    Plugging 1.75 into the second equation gives .434.

    As a sanity check, I also did some simulations at my end of various differences in the means, which worked out as they should: E.g., if D is 1, then B is .2 in the formula, and very close to that in simulation.

    The result that .15 -- as per Lewontin -- should predict a difference in means of .84 SD seems pretty remarkable. It shores up Steve's argument that it's a pretty significant amount. It may actually capture quite well the difference between blacks and whites on IQ, assuming the proportion of that 1 SD difference due to genes is about 80%, not 100%. If it were 100%, the between population proportion of variation should be .2, rather than .15.

    No, what I did was correct. I applied the formula

    V(A ‘or’ B)=(Va+Vb)/2+(Ma-Mb)^2/4

    You can find it here:

    https://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/combined-variance.html

    It is easy to prove.

    The fixation index is defined as ratio of variance between different subpopulations (Vs) by variance of the total population (Vt): Fst=Vs/Vt

    The problem is that the variance Vs can’t be directly calculated, so it must be estimated. It is estimated as the difference between Vt and the average of variances of individual subpopulations. This leads to the following formula for n subpopulations

    Fst=1-[∑V(Pi)/n]/V(∑Pi)

    where V(∑Pi)=Vt is variance of the total population.

    This formula was used by Lewontin.

    Fst is an index, i.e., it is uniteless as it is normalized by variance. As you can see it is normalized by variance Vt of total population.

    What you seem to be doing is assuming that normalization was not by total but by the part 0.85=1-0.15 as your formula B/(1-B) indicate. This is not correct.

    Then you talk about variance explained and predicting. You are mixing analogies and metaphors. Nothing is being predicted here or explained. This is just a partition of variances into two variances of different origins using fixation index.

    Sentences like this

    Let B be the proportion of the overall variation in the combined group explained by the between group variation.

    got you in to trouble. First of all as I have stated this variance is not explained. Looks like regression is your thing. You like ‘explaining’, right? But we are not dealing with regression here. This variance Vs between groups is postulated here. We can’t calculate it directly so the fixation index is used to give its value implicitly.

    This is what Levontin did.

  143. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    If your vehicle has a catalytic converter then lead will ruin it.

    TEL is destructive both to catalytic converters and to the oxygen sensors almost all “modern” engines use for closed loop fuel mixture control. Outside of racing and aircraft engines the only “new” engines that will burn leaded fuel in stock form are some small engines with neither catalysts nor oxygen sensors.

    People running antique cars often use avgas as a fuel supplement both for valve seat lubrication and as an octane booster. It works great for that. Running car engines on straight avgas is a bad idea not only because the lead will foul the plugs but because 100LL avgas is actually not 100 automotive octane. When tested using the R+M/2 method usually it comes in at about 92 to 94 octane. Premium unleaded car gas is usually higher than that. A lot of boat guys ran avgas because under heavy load, such as in marine use, car type engines were fine with it and the modern additives in car gas are pretty harsh on integral fuel tanks in fiberglass hulls.

    The specifications for avgas were drawn up in the era where supercharged radial engine aircraft with 100+ cubic inch cylinders were operated at high altitude. That era is mostly over. Much of the GA fleet is auto fuel compatible today, although it’s said that 70% of avgas volume goes to the 25% that isn’t.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Getting rid of lead in gas was a Really Good Idea.
  144. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Modern gas is at least 10% alcohol so that accounts for part of the smell.

    As far as name brand vs. generic gas, your local Indian gas station does not cook the stuff up in the back (they would if they could, but they can't). Gasoline is a commodity that is made only in enormous refineries. Even if you go to a (for example) Exxon station, the gas didn't necessarily come from an Exxon refinery. Gas is expensive to transport so it usually comes from the nearest refinery (the refiners trade with each other). The only difference is that at the time it is put in the tanker truck for delivery, each brand adds its own additive package. All of these packages meet minimum standards but it is worth looking for gas that is labeled "Top Tier" which is a superior additive package. It's also a good idea to put a bottle of "Techron" in your tank once in a while.

    https://www.consumerreports.org/car-maintenance/study-shows-top-tier-gasoline-worth-extra-price/

    Top Tier gas is found not only at name brand stations but places like Costco.

    BTW, unless your engine requires high octane in the owner's manual, it's a complete waste of money to buy it.

    Modern gas is at least 10% alcohol so that accounts for part of the smell.

    As compared to gasoline-any gasoline-denatured ethanol has virtually no smell.

    BTW, unless your engine requires high octane in the owner’s manual, it’s a complete waste of money to buy it.

    Right, octane rating is a measure of resistance to detonation, and paying more for a higher rating than needed doesn’t benefit anyone.

  145. @Anonymous
    TEL is destructive both to catalytic converters and to the oxygen sensors almost all "modern" engines use for closed loop fuel mixture control. Outside of racing and aircraft engines the only "new" engines that will burn leaded fuel in stock form are some small engines with neither catalysts nor oxygen sensors.

    People running antique cars often use avgas as a fuel supplement both for valve seat lubrication and as an octane booster. It works great for that. Running car engines on straight avgas is a bad idea not only because the lead will foul the plugs but because 100LL avgas is actually not 100 automotive octane. When tested using the R+M/2 method usually it comes in at about 92 to 94 octane. Premium unleaded car gas is usually higher than that. A lot of boat guys ran avgas because under heavy load, such as in marine use, car type engines were fine with it and the modern additives in car gas are pretty harsh on integral fuel tanks in fiberglass hulls.

    The specifications for avgas were drawn up in the era where supercharged radial engine aircraft with 100+ cubic inch cylinders were operated at high altitude. That era is mostly over. Much of the GA fleet is auto fuel compatible today, although it's said that 70% of avgas volume goes to the 25% that isn't.

    Getting rid of lead in gas was a Really Good Idea.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Getting rid of lead in gas was a Really Good Idea.
     
    From a public health standpoint yes, but not as much as people assume. TEL is still allowed in avgas and in certain racing gasolines. Getting rid of TEL in avgas will probably mean the end of the cabin class twin charter and island hopping business if turbines are not economic in these positions and the end of operating Allison and Merlin powered warbirds as well as B-29, B-24 and Connie airshow appearances.

    Most old cars can be fitted with hardened valve seats and tougher exhaust valves and will run fine on unleaded fuel. There are exceptions, like the nailhead Buick V8 and certain exotic racing engines, where that is not feasible.

    Given the miniscule number of these things, I doubt anyone really objects to people putting a gallon of avgas in with every tank to keep them going, but if the EPA gets really Nazi about it, or if the last supplies of TEL finally go away, the vehicles will have to be repowered or junked.
  146. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    Getting rid of lead in gas was a Really Good Idea.

    Getting rid of lead in gas was a Really Good Idea.

    From a public health standpoint yes, but not as much as people assume. TEL is still allowed in avgas and in certain racing gasolines. Getting rid of TEL in avgas will probably mean the end of the cabin class twin charter and island hopping business if turbines are not economic in these positions and the end of operating Allison and Merlin powered warbirds as well as B-29, B-24 and Connie airshow appearances.

    Most old cars can be fitted with hardened valve seats and tougher exhaust valves and will run fine on unleaded fuel. There are exceptions, like the nailhead Buick V8 and certain exotic racing engines, where that is not feasible.

    Given the miniscule number of these things, I doubt anyone really objects to people putting a gallon of avgas in with every tank to keep them going, but if the EPA gets really Nazi about it, or if the last supplies of TEL finally go away, the vehicles will have to be repowered or junked.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS