A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
Another NYT Review of Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance"

The New York Times sees fit to run a second review of veteran New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade’s book A Troublesome Inheritance, although it doesn’t seem much different from the first one:

SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW

The Fault in Our DNA
‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ and ‘Inheritance’
By DAVID DOBBS JULY 10, 2014

In his 2007 book “A Farewell to Alms,” the economic historian Gregory Clark argued that the English came to rule the world largely because their rich outbred their poor, and thus embedded their superior genes and values throughout the nation. In her comprehensive takedown, the historian Deirdre N. McCloskey noted that Clark’s idea was a “bold hypothesis, and was bold when first articulated by social Darwinists such as Charles Davenport and Francis Galton in the century before last.”

Thank goodness that we don’t have to listen to all these frothing, biased lunatics like Wade, Clark, Davenport, and Galton because we have the level-headed, dispassionate, disinterested Dr. McCloskey as our unquestionable ultimate authority.

Hide 60 Comments

60 Comments to "Another NYT review of Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance""

  1. Hepp says:

    What was McCloskey’s argument against Clark?

  2. green ale says:

    The phrase “just-so story” has been, for decades, doing an amazing amount of work in anti-hereditarian arguments.

    As David Barash pointed out, it’s often a derogatory phrase for “hypothesis.”

  3. Cloudcastler says:

    http://spectator.org/blog/59942/did-marxist-philosopher-slavoj-zizek-plagiarize-white-nationalist-magazine

    Shiite, Sailer ought to send Zizek a postcard of gratitude.

    I wonder… would the big media have picked up on this if Sailer had posted it in his old blog?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Ugh… These transgenders.. they’re ****s

  5. P says:

    In his “comprehensive takedown” of Clark’s thesis, McCloskey demonstrated that he does not understand what “regression toward the mean” means. Here’s Clark’s reply. An excerpt:

    Adapting one of Bowles’ points McCloskey tries to land a knockout blow. Regression to the mean would in a few generations destroy any effects of “survival of the richest” on behavior, by taking descendants back to the average characteristics of the population. Such selection could thus only influence behavior for any descendants of the economically successful for a few generations.

    This is just a misunderstanding of the concept of regression to the mean. If McCloskey was right farmyard animals would all be at their medieval sizes still, and instead of the wonderful modern extravagance of dog breeds all dogs would have the characteristics of wolves and would make bad house pets. As a further reduction as absurdum man would never have evolved from apes in the first place. Why haven’t creationists latched onto this wonderful insight, which according to McCloskey Galton, the great Social Darwinist fully appreciated (and yet clung to Social Darwinism)?

    The reason is that if we take a population that varies on some characteristic, such as height, and eliminate the bottom 10 percent of the height distribution in one generation then we will for all time change the average height of that population. This is because we have changed the average underlying average genotype of the population

  6. From the article: “[Dr. Conway and Dr. McCloskey] also wrote to the Illinois state regulators, requesting that they investigate Dr. Bailey for practicing psychology without a license. Dr. Bailey, who was not licensed to practice clinical psychology in Illinois, had provided some of those who helped him with the book with brief case evaluation letters, suggesting that they were good candidates for sex-reassignment surgery. A spokesman for the state said that regulators took no action on the complaints.”

    This was the same tactic that they pulled on Fred Leuchter when I lived in Boston. As a “holocaust denialist” he had to be discredited, shut down and imprisoned, so they went after him for “practicing engineering without a license”. Due to the fierceness and intensity of Tribal rage at Leuchter the tactic worked. He was criminally convicted.

    Be careful what you put on your business cards and letterhead, gents. If you do contract programming (for example) avoid the magic words “engineer” or “engineering”. Call yourself a “designer” or “consultant”. Once you use word “engineer” (or “clinical psychologist” in Dr. Bailey’s case) you open yourself up to a world of hurt.

    Fortunately for Dr. Bailey, it was only a couple of babe professors complaining about his consulting work. Leuchter was up against the Tribe. There was no doubt he was going down hard.

  7. Another NYT review of Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance” | Reaction Times says:Website

    […] Source: Steve Sailer […]

  8. Anonymous says:

    The reason is that if we take a population that varies on some characteristic, such as height, and eliminate the bottom 10 percent of the height distribution in one generation then we will for all time change the average height of that population. This is because we have changed the average underlying average genotype of the population.

    This is true, but how do you justify extending this logic to social (and to some extent, cognitive) characteristics? MIT and Caltech select for high-IQ, but they have their own slackers too, who do worse in life than the average students at more mediocre institutions.

  9. doombuggy says:

    Deirdre McCloskey, a professor of economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago

    A four-fer. Wow. I wonder if she can put 8mm on DVDs?

    MIT and Caltech select for high-IQ, but they have their own slackers too, who do worse in life than the average students at more mediocre institutions.

    Bell curve, my friend. Bell curve.

  10. From the review:

    The result is a deeply flawed, deceptive and dangerous book. Its most pernicious conceit is that it’s finally safe to talk of racial genetics because “opposition to racism is now well entrenched.” The daily news — a black teenager’s killer walks free in Florida . . .”

    “Wow. Just wow,” as the lefties say. Any time a white is acquitted in the shooting of a black teenager it stands as indisputable proof of the racism of our society. Black teens, the single greatest source of violence in our society, and in fact in any society on earth, must always be assumed innocent.

  11. @Anonymous

    Clark is talking about an entire population as a whole, but MIT and Caltech are only a part of the whole university population. thus, MIT and CT do not have their students interbreeding only among themselves. your analogy breaks down here.

  12. Hunsdon says:

    Nicholas Wade is wrong about genetics because WWT. #allwomen!

  13. Luke Lea says:

    @P

    I’m hardly an expert, but my reading of the history of genomics (The Eighth Day of Creation) leads me to suspect that McCloskey may be right on this particular point. I refer to Morgan’s famous experiment described in that book regarding bristle number of fruit flies. After many generations of artificial selection for high bristle number, Morgan was able to produce a population whose average number of bristles was several standard deviations above the norm for the wild type. He then let this population breed for a number of generations (can’t remember how many) with no further selection, and, low and behold, the average bristle number did indeed regress to the old mean.

    Even so , Clark’s argument would remain valid for some number of generations, although a little less so for each succeeding generation, which is all he needs to make his case. Human generations after all are measured in decades, fruit flies in days.

  14. AppSocRes says:

    @Anonymous

    You will better understand this discussion when you make yourself familiar with the concepts of distributions and means (averages) of distributions. For example, some of the the least intelligent students at MIT or CalTech may well be less intelligent than some of the brightest at, say UMass Boston, but it’s indisputable that by any reasonable measure the AVERAGE intelligence of MIT students is higher than the AVERAGE intelligence of UMass students.

    If we treated the two student bodies as breeding populations, breeding together only the brighter MIT students and breeding together only the dumber UMass students, within a few generations – considering only regression to the mean and the breeder’s equation – we could produce two human breeds with little if any overlap in their intelligence distributions. The Chinese have already started a version of this experiment.

  15. HA says:

    …how do you justify extending this logic to social (and to some extent, cognitive) characteristics? MIT and Caltech select for high-IQ, but they have their own slackers too, who do worse in life than the average students at more mediocre institutions.

    That just means that IQ tests are very imperfect filters, which should come as a surprise to no one, since the correlation between most any test score and whatever it purports to measure is less than 1. Alas, the politically correct IQ replacements have not improved matters.

    So, there will be both high-achievers who do badly on IQ tests (type II errors) and therefore wind up in more mediocre institutions, and people who do well on the tests without having the actual wherewithal to succeed (type I errors). For the latter case, there is also the matter of the Peter Principle and the complications that arise from dealing with failed expectations that need to be considered, though that also applies to those who get accepted on the basis of politically corrected IQ test replacements, only to struggle afterwards.

  16. HA says:

    @Cloudcastler

    Stein? Odd

    I’m not sure why anyone would find it odd that a former colleague (that is to say, a fellow speechwriter for Nixon) would approve of Buchanan’s effort to rehabilitate the man.

  17. LL says:

    “To begin with, the 2008 study mentions nothing about race. It merely establishes that many of the slight differences between human genomes cluster by geography at many scales, including continents, and that genomes from any given location will most likely be similar, just as two people from a particular place will most likely speak with similar accents.”

    It’s not worth the oxygen expense to try to explain logical reasoning and extrapolation to NYT reporters. Wade’s argument, which he restated many many times throughout the book was that evolution has been “recent, copious, and regional,” which, by this definition, also says nothing about “race,” which furthermore we all know is a social construct.

  18. Svigor says:

    I wonder… would the big media have picked up on this if Sailer had posted it in his old blog?

    Leaving the antiquated Blogspot does seem to have had a salutary effect.

  19. historian Deirdre N. McCloskey

    Oh, so it is a historian now.

  20. The reason is that if we take a population that varies on some characteristic, such as height, and eliminate the bottom 10 percent of the height distribution in one generation then we will for all time change the average height of that population. This is because we have changed the average underlying average genotype of the population

    How many generations before we regress to the mean?

    Unless we entirely remove at least one of the alleles that contributes to the height of the shortest 10% of the population then the combinations leading to those heights we removed will reassemble over time.

    Indeed, we will also need to continue to eliminate any mutations that give rise to those alleles.

    (Both height and IQ are polygenic.)

  21. peterike says:

    MIT and Caltech select for high-IQ, but they have their own slackers too, who do worse in life than the average students at more mediocre institutions.

    Academic institutions are not optimizing selection for “life skills.” If they did, then MIT would be filled with Jordan Bellforts.

  22. Hepp says:

    @P

    Wow, that’s actually the argument?

    So McCloskey, despite “her” condition, is hostile to genetics explaining human history?

  23. Anonymous says:

    @Hepp

    What was McCloskey’s argument against Clark?

    Laughably weak, of course. Basically, boils down to “you see, Kant was son of a saddler”: http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/alms.pdf

    “Regression to the mean alone would strictly limit the effect to a few generations … Galton was part of Darwin’s family, first notable in Erasmus, Charles’ and Francis’ grandfather. But their sons and daughters regressed.”

    Steve loves to post on Darwin’s family. As we all know, they regressed all the way back, working as postal clerks and grocery store cashiers.

    Or this gem of deep quantitative thinking: “It depends on measures of aptitudes that are, like height, influenced by more than inheritance and, unlike height, have no natural units invariant to society. What made for riches in 1600 had little to do with what made for riches in 2000.”

  24. Sean says:

    McCloskey: “As Francis Galton put it in making a similar calculation —Galton in 1901 got further than Clark—very high inherited height or intelligence or bourgeois virtue dissipates strongly in children and more in grandchildren, “owning to the combination of ancestral influences—which are generally mediocre—with the purely parental ones. Galton was part of Darwin’s family, first notable in Erasmus, Charles’ and Francis’ grandfather”

    No, Josiah Wedgwood was the first and most notable one, and as he was the grandfather of both Charles Darwin’s mother and father. It’s not surprising the (himself somewhat inbred) Charles’s descendants failed to shine.

    McCloskey says: “A rich bourgeois of London in 1400 devoted most of his effort to arranging special protection for his wool-trading monopoly. His younger sons might well have taken away the lesson, repeated again and again down to Elizabethan England and Lou Dobbs, that it’s a good idea to regulate everything you can, and quite a bad thing to let people freely make the deals they wish to make”.

    The supposedly charitable but free market Dutch annihilated the English navy with a sneaky raid on the Medway. England supplanted the Dutch by enforcing an English monopoly through the Navigation Acts, then England became interested in the free market.

    McCloskey says: “A change in rhetoric about prudence, and about the other and peculiarly human virtues, exercised in a commercial society, started the material and spiritual progress“.

    As McLuhan noted , rhetorical content has ‘about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb.’ The medium is the message, and the medium was genetic. It is odd that McCloskey does not realise this considering his own family background.

    McCloskey:”What made for riches in 1600 had little to do with what made for riches in 2000. A graceful way with sonnets and a good leg for bowing are not similar to a Harvard MBA and a knack for computers”

    Oh, so ‘a proficiency at mentally manipulating information, which undergirds learning, reasoning, and spotting and solving problems in any domain’ would be no use to a poet like Helen Stueland (McCloskey’s mother, daddy was a professor of government at Harvard University). Just shows what you can do if you apply yourself.

    McCloskey at least has some expertise in economic history. Dobbs holds that Wade is arguing for genetically distinct’ races although genetically distinct is the definition of a species. And far from claiming ‘Caucasian superiority’, Wade says Chinese IQs are superior. Claiming there were hereditary biological propensities that led to Holland and Britain being first does not imply that they would stay ahead, and indeed the alpine countries of Switzerland and Austria are far richer that NW Europe.

    McCloskey “The Big Economic Story of our own times is that the Chinese in 1978 and then the Indians in 1991 adopted liberal ideas in the economy, and came to attribute a dignity and a liberty to the bourgeoisie formerly denied. And then China and India exploded in economic growth. The important moral, therefore, is that in achieving a pretty good life for the mass of humankind,”

    China and India? China is leaving India in the dust. China is by no stretch a democracy or liberal economy, unlike India . So the Chinese superiority does not come from liberal ideas of dignity. It’s a weird one.

  25. One is tempted to imagine what a world would be like in which the NYT did not slander works such as a Troublesome Inheritance. Would the Earth still be spinning on its axis?

  26. Steve Sailer says:Website

    @Sean

    “It’s not surprising the (himself somewhat inbred) Charles’s descendants failed to shine.”

    I own several books on golf and golf architecture by Charles Darwin’s grandson Bernard Darwin, including one co-authored by Bernard and Guy Campbell, the great-grandson of Robert Hughes Sr., author of the most important evolutionary work before The Origin of Species, 1844′s “Vestiges of the Origins of Natural Creation.”

  27. I finished reading the book yesterday. While I did recommend it to a man on the Tube who saw me reading it and asked if it was worth getting, I didn’t enjoy it nearly as much as ‘Before the Dawn’. You can sense reading it that Wade feels burdened by the threat of Racism accusations, and this saps a lot of the book’s energy. Also for me there was not a lot new here, having read most of his sources (Ten Thousand Year Explosion, A Farewell to Alms, The Better Angels of Our Nature et al). I guess the thing that most struck me was the bit about the allele for aggression that’s vastly more common in blacks than whites. The overarching point seemed to be that the natures of societies are determined by the genes of their peoples, some peoples may be poorly adapted to modern living, and he thinks the rise of the West was due partly to genes – but we don’t know much about what genes those might be. I think it might have been too early for the second half of this book, not enough is known yet. I suppose if the first half of the book gets people (ie the elites) accepting that Race is Not a Social Construct then it will have been worthwhile.

  28. Sean says:

    @Steve Sailer

    Josiah Wedgwood married a distant cousin, they were the grandparents of Charles and his wife Emma Darwin. Hence their children were more inbred than you might think.
    Bas Pease.

  29. nooffensebut says:Website

    If Wade could point to genes that give races distinctive social behaviors, we might overlook such shortcomings. But he cannot.

    He tries. He tells, for instance, of specific gene variants that reputedly create less trust and more violence in ­African-Americans and, he says, explain their resistance to modern economic institutions and practices. Alas, the scientific literature he draws on is so uneven and disputed that many geneticists dismiss it outright.

    The New York Times ignores decades of research, including new meta-analyses, and sides with complete morons.

  30. P says:

    How many generations before we regress to the mean?

    Unless we entirely remove at least one of the alleles that contributes to the height of the shortest 10% of the population then the combinations leading to those heights we removed will reassemble over time.

    Selection for greater height is about making rarer or eliminating those “short” alleles in favor of the “tall” alleles. If the short alleles are made rarer by selection in a particular generation, subsequent generations will never regress to the original, lower mean, unless there’s selection for shortness.

  31. Mr. Anon says:

    “The fourth doorman of the apocalypse says:

    “”historian Deirdre N. McCloskey”"

    Oh, so it is a historian now.”

    If McCloskey can decide to cut off his d**k and walk around in pumps and “be” a woman, than I suppose that he/she/it can be anything. Why not a historian? Or a burmese elephant trainer? Or a cocker-spaniel?

  32. James Graham says:Website

    The Times frequently reviews heavily-promoted major books twice, first in the daily paper and then another in the Sunday Book Review.

    Two negative reviews of Wade’s book is what I’d expect.

  33. P says:

    “It’s not surprising the (himself somewhat inbred) Charles’s descendants failed to shine.”

    Darwin’s descendants have done fine for themselves. Greg Clark noted:

    Interestingly, with respect to social mobility rates, the twenty-seven adult great-great grandchildren of Charles Darwin, born on average nearly 150 years after Darwin, are still a surprisingly distinguished cohort. Eleven are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages, or the like, such as Times obituaries, devoted to them. They include six university professors, four authors, a painter, three medical doctors, a well-known conservationist, and a film director (now also an organic farmer).

    Cochran and Harpending explain why Darwin’s descendants have not regressed to the mean: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/163075/Oakland.roughdraft.pdf

  34. Sean says:

    CD’s sons did better, they had only one X chromosome. The daughters could have two identical X chromosomes.

    Why you can thank your mother for your IQ. I dare say McCloskey got more of his brains from his poet parent than he realises.

  35. @Simon in London

    Agree 100% with what you say!
    I’m recommending _Before the Dawn_ to my friends.

  36. @sean who quotes Why you can thank your mother for your IQ:

    A recent study found that compared to male, female identical twins vary more on measures of social behaviour and verbal ability thanks to differential X-inactivation. This has a number of important implications. One is that as medical geneticists have long suspected, you get your intelligence predominantly from your mother, not your father—especially if you are male.

    So, only Verbal IQ is important? Maybe if you are Jewish.

  37. Furthermore, this in itself could explain why some men outperform women intellectually in some respects: ironically perhaps, these high performing males are expressing a single outstandingly gifted X-chromosome that they got from their mothers.

    So, can the victims of Temujin likewise blame his mother? How about the victims of Hitler? Joseph Stalin?

  38. reiner Tor says:

    @International Jew

    I agree, Before The Dawn is better. Also The Faith Instinct is a recommended read.

  39. reiner Tor says:

    @The fourth doorman of the apocalypse

    The gene frequencies will change, and assuming there’s no drift (actually, there is, but it could go either way), and also assuming there’s no selection any more (but of course there is), the change will be forever. However, if we assume that it was selection that got us to the exact point where we are now (but that’s what we want to prove!), then of course the change won’t be permanent.

  40. Joe Smore says:

    @Luke Lea

    Um, do extra bristles on flies confer extreme fitness advantage in their environment or in mating? Because if their is no advantage, why would you expect them not to go back to the mean when they could interbreed with others at random?

    Or did I miss something?

  41. ArcGiant says:

    It seems like nobody understands what regression to the mean is. PLEASE READ THIS.

    Regression to the mean is a simple idea. The contribution to some outcome can be roughly disentangled into two components: some factor loading, and some noise. For example, consider the population of test takers on an IQ test that score +3 s.d. Lets say that randomness leads each test taker to score +-1 s.d. from their ‘true’ skill level, every time they take the test. Since there are many, many, many more people with a true skill level of + 2 s.d. than + 4 s.d., it stands to reason that the average test take who scored +3 s.d. would have had above average luck. As a result, if the test takers who scored at + 3 s.d. were to retake the test, they would score lower the second time they took it (lets say, +2.4 s.d.). However, since on their second retake, they would no longer be expected to have above average luck, their would be NO FURTHER regression to the mean in subsequent tests.

    This concept can be generalized into populations and genetics. If you select a population that has a true IQ > 115 (no luck on the IQ test), their children will perform worse, because some of the true IQ is derived from lucky (above average nurture), and only some to genetics. However, this regression to the mean will not continue forever. Rather, there will be regression to the mean, but the mean will have changed. So, perhaps the IQ in 10 generations, all else being equal, would be 107.

  42. SFG says:

    “A recent study found that compared to male, female identical twins vary more on measures of social behaviour and verbal ability thanks to differential X-inactivation. This has a number of important implications. One is that as medical geneticists have long suspected, you get your intelligence predominantly from your mother, not your father—especially if you are male.”

    Nothing to do with Judaism. Little biology: you have (usually) either two X or one X and one Y chromosome. The Y chromosome makes male genital items and that’s about it. The X chromosome codes for all kinds of stuff–color vision, brain proteins, you name it. You always get one X chromosome from Mom, but you get either an X or a Y from Dad. Problem is, that leaves women with two protein-making chromosomes to men’s one–so one of the X chromosomes is selectively inactivated in each cell (how the body decides which one in each is still unknown, but it varies from cell to cell). So the expressed genes for X-chromosome stuff on women are a mix of the X chromosomes of Mom and Dad, whereas for men they’re only from Mom.

    This could be an avenue for greater male variation–certainly there are all sorts of X-linked diseases that only affect men, because men only have one X chromosome, whereas women have one of two activated in each cell–so if you’ve got a genetic disease that results from lacking a protein, men won’t have it but women will have half the normal amount, which might be enough to get by. (Razib, you can say this better than me!)

  43. Wade and Sailer do not explain how Blacks can be successful at all in the modern world. Sure, you could say a large number have White genes. But just for argument sake, how do the last 50,000 years of evolution proponents explain the children of recent African immigrants to the US who are well socialized and rule abiding? According to Wade they did not acquire those traits from their forebears.

  44. reiner Tor says:

    @ArcGiant

    This is a good description, albeit with one (maybe not so minor) caveat:

    lucky (above average nurture)

    Luck doesn’t equal nurture. It means anything. It could mean that maybe the weather was somehow extremely beneficial (for all we know, it’s not impossible that during pregnancy or during early childhood or even in later years weather could influence brain growth), or just about literally anything. Nurture is a likely candidate when we are talking about that “non-genetic” component, but it’s not necessarily nurture. Especially since we are searching in vain for methods to raise the IQs of children – not impossible that the “luck” factor is not nurture at all, that it’s something completely different.

  45. Sean says:

    In Iceland there are no Downs syndrome births now, but people with the condition are probably cared for there as well as anywhere in the world. David Dobbs doesn’t seem surprised that those suffering from serious genetic disease have not been herded into extermination camps or lynched.

    Dobbs’s main argument seems to be an abstract consequentialist principle: average people go berserk from hearing (malevolent whites’ false claims about) any specific genetic influence on the differing attributes of populations; so the irrational masses ought never to be given any indication such information exists.

    This is similar to the age old distinction between rational beings (men and the ruling classes) and emotional-led humankind (women and the lower orders of society). The prejudice resulted in black men getting the right to own property, vote and serve on juries several decades before white women did. I suppose we can expect the NYT to start trusting the population in 50 years.

  46. “Its most pernicious conceit is that it’s finally safe to talk of racial genetics because ‘opposition to racism is now well entrenched.’ The daily news — a black teenager’s killer walks free in Florida; a former Ku Klux Klansman shoots up a Jewish community center; and tearful survivors observe the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, in which 100 days of mass murder rose from ethnic distinctions pressed on the populace by European colonists a century before — says otherwise.”

    Those are the sorts of profound insights I read the New York Times for.

  47. Skyislander says:Website

    “Its most pernicious conceit is that it’s finally safe to talk of racial genetics because ‘opposition to racism is now well entrenched.’ The daily news — a black teenager’s killer walks free in Florida; a former Ku Klux Klansman shoots up a Jewish community center; and tearful survivors observe the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, in which 100 days of mass murder rose from ethnic distinctions pressed on the populace by European colonists a century before — says otherwise.”

    The entire argument is filled with conceits.
    For one thing, it’s like saying we shouldn’t talk about class since class conflict–resentment of the rich and fear of the poor masses–still cause lots of deaths in the world.
    And maybe we shouldn’t talk about the differences in religions since there’s still a lot of religious strife in the world. So, should we lie and fool ourselves that all religions are exactly the same but for the color of their book covers?

    At any rate, it would have been better to speak honestly about race from the very beginning in the past because the real problem wasn’t with discussing racial differences but with not discussing them enough. Indeed, if true racial science had been allowed in Nazi Germany, plenty of scientists–both liberal and conservative, gentile and Jewish–would have pointed to all sorts of BS in the Nazi racial theory. The problem of Nazism was its radical racism that imposed only its theory of race as the only proper one. But had Nazi Germany allowed freedom of discussion on race, it could have been amply demonstrated that ‘Aryans’ are NOT the superior race in just about every intellectual and physical endeavor. Jews would have been shown to have higher IQ. Asians would have been shown to have comparable IQs with whites. Blacks would have been shown to be tougher and more athletic. The entire edifice of ‘Aryan superiority’ theory would have been blown out of the water.
    True race-ism would have squashed Nazi bogus radical racism, and the Holocaust would have been averted. (By the way, the history of Stalinism and Maoism should be evidence enough that enforced radical anti-racism can be just as murderous.)

    So, both the NYT writer and Wade made the wrong argument. Wade says we should NOW talk about race honestly since we are all ‘anti-racist’ and ‘racism’ isn’t such a problem anymore. I would argue we still have huge racial problems, and THAT IS WHY we should speak honestly about race since those problems are rooted, to a considerable extent, in the genes.

    And to address such problems, we need to discuss racial differences. We need to understand why Jews are so powerful–higher IQ. We need to understand why some minorities do much better than others–why Asians do better than blacks in math. We need to understand why interracial violence is overwhelmingly black-on-white or on non-black. Maybe we cannot fix the problems, but we need to at least understand the problems and come up with better solutions, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE CURRENT PROBLEMS WILL NOT GO AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THEM.

    If NYT wants to combat bad ‘racism’ based on bigotry, ignorance, and blindness, it needs to embrace good race-ism based on facts, reason, honesty, and etc. After all, what was all that Stop-and-Frisk-the-Negro all about in NY? Let’s be honest about. It was because non-black NYers are afraid of bigger and stronger Negroes. Such fears are well-founded in racial differences. Only a liar would say Stop-and-Frisk-the-Negro policy had nothing to do with race.

    Indeed, even without overt ‘racism’ and even with the media/entertainment being totally dominated by Liberals, we see racial stereotypes all around because racial differences are rooted in nature. We see the stereotype of the ‘black athlete’ who dominates sports and of the ‘black studs’ who pork subservient white homo boys in the ass in ‘gay porn’. We see Asian males as geeks and dorks who are into math and computers but Asian females as ‘me so horny’ stories of the bravery of love. We see Jews dominate as witty comedians, rich oligarchs, finance capitalists, lawyers, and etc. We see Mexicans prominent as grass mowers, dish washers, and etc. In reality and pop culture, we see mostly racial stereotypes of who is cool, who is smart, who is hot, who is fearsome, who is badass, etc. Gee, is it because Pat Buchanan runs Hollywood, NBA, Wall Street, and Cal Tech that they practice racial stereotyping?

    Indeed, true race-ism would have been better for both whites and blacks in the past when America was more ‘racist’. True race-ism based on facts, honesty, and truth would have shown that the Negro is tougher and more aggressive. Thus, it would have been established that it’s wrong to feature the Negro as some pathetic and foolish sambo. Negroes could have been filled with racial pride as tough dudes long ago if true race-ism had been allowed to speak the truth about the Negro.

    But the truth would also have alerted the white race to come up with a solution to give Negroes a separate nation since Negroes, being too strong and aggressive, would have posed a threat to the white race. So, both sides would have won. Negroes would have been filled with racial pride as badass mofos, and white race would have sought racial separation by giving a blacks a nation of their own so that both races could be free in their own worlds.

    Indeed, had true race-ism been allowed to prevail 400 yrs ago, there could have been no Atlantic slave trade. If I had been around then with my true race-ism, I would not only have told the whites that slavery is wrong and cruel but that it’s crazy to bring over so many blacks since they have bigger muscles, and if the Negroes were to be freed one day, they are gonna whup pathetic white males and conquer jungle-feverized white females. So, the entire slavery thing might have been avoided.
    But because true race-ism didn’t prevail but some nonsense from the Bible(about how the children of yam had the right to enslave the children of Ham) did, white folks bought a whole bunch of black slaves from African slave-sellers, and so, we have all this racial problem today in America. If white folks really needed some slaves back then to pick cotton, true race-ism would have advised them to bring over smaller/weaker races since if such a race were to be freed one day, they have posed no physical/sexual threat to the white race. Whites would have done better to bring over boatfuls of small geeky Vietnamese or Peruvian Indians. And the racial relations between whites and freed Vietnamese/Peruvians would have been much better than the one between whites and blacks since Viet/Peruvians wouldn’t have scared white folks half to death.

    Slavery is wrong, but if you must have slaves, true race-ism advises you to enslave a people who are physically smaller and weaker than you. That way, if they act all uppity, you can kick their ass than the other way around.

    But old ‘racism’ was filled with lies and made blacks out to be a bunch of pathetic sambos munching on watermelons. And ‘anti-racism’ spread the lie that all races are the same except for skin color; and this venal lie had led to integration and the robberies, rapes, beatings, and murders of so many white victims–and victims of other races–at the hands of bigger and stronger Negroes.
    Indeed, there has been more interracial violence resulting from ‘anti-racist’ racial integration than during the old ‘racist’ era when whites mostly remained apart from blacks.
    Similarly, there’s been far more interracial violence in the 10 yrs since the end of apartheid than during all the years of its existence. Indeed, true race-ism would have been good for both whites and blacks in South Africa. True race-ism, if embraced by South African whites in the 1950s, would have warned them that blacks are stronger, more aggressive, and meaner than whites. Therefore, the best thing would be what Israel did with the Palestinians. Jews ethnically cleansed nearly 800,000 Palestinians to create a Jewish majority land, and that is why the Jewish state is possible. Similarly, white Afrikaners should have chosen some nice chunk of South Africa and, as Jews did to Palestinians, racially cleansed most blacks off the land. That way, whites would have white land, and blacks would have black land. There would have been two separate and peaceful nations than a system of apartheid where the white minority lived in fear of the much bigger black one. True race-ism would have been a sounder basis for long-lasting peace and it would have negated the need for an unfair and unfeasible policy like the apartheid which simply couldn’t last forever.

    Also, though the NYT article mentions some Jewish center being shot up, it fails to mention how ‘anti-racist’ Jewish communists killed millions of Christian Slavs, how high-IQ Jews in Wall Street and media have swindled and robbed hundreds of millions of American goyim, and etc.
    Of course, there have been lots of positive Jewish contribution to humanity, but intelligence is a double-edged blade. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad. Just ask the Palestinians what happens to a people when smarter Jews use their intelligence to oppress and dispossess a people.
    So, in order to understand the world and to defend ourselves from bad Jews–of higher IQ–, we need to discuss the essence of the power that makes Jews so formidable.
    If I were a Palestinian, I would like to know why Jews have such power over me. I would like to know why Jews gained so much power in US and EU, indeed to the point where they can dictate Western foreign policy against people such as the Palestinians. And to understand that, we need to look at racial differences.
    But according to NYT, I, as a hypothetical Palestinian, should just shut up. I should have no right or no good reason to wonder why Jews have so much power, especially over my people.

    If NYT is really interested in knowing about issues pertaining to Zimmerman and Trayvon, as to why some people are so angry with Jews, and as to why the thing happened in Rwanda, then it should promote more honest discussion of race. Why did Martin beat up Zimmerman? Because blacks are tougher and bigger, and the ONLY way Zimmerman could defend himself was with a gun. Truth.
    Why are some Americans angry with Jews? No, we don’t have to be KKK to notice that Jews have immense wealth and power and use them especially against the interest of the white majority. We therefore need to know why Jews are so powerful, and some of the answers will be found in genetics because Jewish IQ is higher.
    And the thing that happened in Rwanda calls for a truly honest discussion of race and racial differences. If indeed Hutus are generally dumber than Tutsis, and if Tutsis are destined to rule over Hutus, then Hutus should be given their own homeland so they can rule their own affairs. Otherwise, they will forever have to live under the elite rule of Tutsis.

    The problem was never ‘racism’ but lack of sufficient discussion of the real truths about race. And ‘anti-racism’ is really no different from old bad ‘racism’ since both are predicated on falsehoods.
    A stupid old ‘racist’ and stupid ‘anti-racist’ both could not accept the truth of race. Even when blacks outperformed whites in sprints, stupid old ‘racists’ would find some excuse to say whites are better athletes. As for ‘anti-racists’, even after admitting that the likes of Jesse Owens ‘destroyed the myth of Aryan superiority’, they were too wussy to admit such athletes also established the FACT OF BLACK SUPERIORITY in athletics, which means races are not equal — and that if whites were to integrate with blacks, the nasty and aggressive blacks will beat up and terrorize a lot of whites, which is why NY came up with Stop-and-Frisk-the-Negro policy.

    Indeed, in everything NYers really do(as opposed to say), they are ‘racist’ to the hilt.
    Look at the Stuvyent school where there are so many smart yellows but so few blacks. And look at NY sports teams that are mostly black but have no Asians, Linsanity notwithstanding. So, why is NY so ‘racist’ in stereotyping people this way? Why are there so many more blacks than people of other races in prison in NY? And even if we control for income, how come poor blacks are far more prone to rob, attack, murder, and rape poor whites than the other way around? All these facts are ‘racist’, and we need to ask why things are the way they are.
    And the facts are largely in the genes that are broadly different from race to race.

  48. Skyislander says:Website

    “a former Ku Klux Klansman shoots up a Jewish community center”

    A very rare incident. And a few died, and they weren’t even Jewish.

    But consider the 100,000s of mostly gentiles who have died in the Middle East, especially since the Iraq War.
    Now, who were many of the political actors behind the Iraq War? And why did the US media, controlled by a certain people, support the war policy, indeed even to the point of aiding and abetting the lies told by the neocon Bush regime?
    As the result of such lies and the ensuring war-for-Israel, how many Iraqis died? How many Iraqi Christians got ethnically cleansed? How many American soldiers–mostly gentile–got killed or returned home maimed?

    It’s bad what happened to the Jewish community center, but aren’t the deaths of 100,000s and the destruction of an entire nation of far graver importance? Though Jews weren’t the ONLY ones behind the war, didn’t neocon Jews in the Bush administration and Liberal Zionist Jews who run the media play a very crucial role in pushing the war?

    So, doesn’t it make sense for us to wonder how and why Jews have such immense power that can affect the lives of so many gentiles? Jewish power is so extraordinary that the answer simply can’t be merely historical or cultural. Jews, especially Ashkenazi Jews, have higher IQ–and possibly a more aggressive and extreme natural personality(seen in guys like Alan Dershowitz).

    But Dobbs brings none of this up. He wants us to shut up about Jewish intelligence–and its consequences for Jewish wealth, power, and influence–, and instead fixate on some rare incident where some former-KKK nut shot up a Jewish center. He gives no thought to the worldly implications of higher Jewish intelligence that leads to concentration of elite powers in the hands of Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, George Soros, Victoria Nuland, Yellen, etc.

    Of course, Dobbs no doubt went through an academic system controlled by Jewish elites. He no doubt got most of his information about the world through media outlets controlled by Jew as it is indeed a fact that Jews do control the media.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

    Indeed, Dobbs’ servility to Jewish-promoted political correctness is all the more reason why we need to raise questions about racial differences and how higher Jewish IQ accounts for greater Jewish power over all of us.

    But whereas Dobbs only knows how to serve his masters who own and run the NYT, there are some of us who have broken out of PC programming and insist on asking the questions that have been made taboo by the Jewish elites.

    Dobbs can focus on some rare occurrence at a Jewish community center–and be a very good boy patted on the head by the SPLC and ADL–, but I would rather ponder the tragedy of 100,000s of dead gentiles in the Middle East as the result of American foreign policy that has been increasingly driven by Jewish elites who dominate the upper echelons of academia, media, government, finance, and etc.

    Dobbs can be a ‘good boy’. If we need to be ‘bad’ to ask the tough question, then we must be bad to the point of being badass.

  49. Curle says:

    @Steve Richter

    Perhaps you should first explain why you believe recent African immigrants are well socialized. The opposite appears to be the case in Britain.

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long

  50. reiner Tor says:

    @Steve Richter

    African immigrant communities (like Nigerians) indeed form elite groups. That’s because they’re mostly a self-selected group recruited from the Nigerian elite with high IQs, and not a representative cross-section of Nigerian society.

  51. reiner Tor says:

    @Curle

    In the US there are some African immigrant ethnic groups who indeed do well, like Nigerians. (Maybe untrue of Somalis, though.)

  52. Jefferson says:

    “(Maybe untrue of Somalis, though.)”

    Almost every Somali living in Minnesota is on some form of welfare.

  53. anonymous says:

    Speaking of our DNA, there’s this about the probability of you and your friends being genetically similar. No implications for public policy whatsoever or Bowling Alone, no sir.

    “Genome-wide analysis reveals genetic similarities among friends: Study finds truth to ‘friends are the family you choose’”, ScienceDaily, 14-July-2014:

    “… A study from the University of California, San Diego, and Yale University finds that friends who are not biologically related still resemble each other genetically. …

    …genome-wide analysis of nearly 1.5 million markers of gene variation…

    …relies on data from the Framingham Heart Study. The Framingham dataset is the largest the authors are aware of that contains both that level of genetic detail and information on who is friends with who…

    … The observed genetic go beyond what you would expect to find among people of shared heritage…

    On average… friends are as “related” as fourth cousins or people who share great-great-great grandparents. That translates to about 1 percent of our genes.

    …friends are most similar in genes affecting the sense of smell.

    …genes that were more similar between friends seem to be evolving faster than other genes. …may help to explain why human evolution appears to have speeded up over the last 30,000 years… “… lends support to the view of human beings as ‘metagenomic,’… our fitness depends… also on the genetic constitutions of our friends.”"

    The Framingham study, which has been ongoing since 1948, has had a big impact.

  54. Jim says:

    @P

    Regression to the mean is not a causal effect as so many people seem to believe. It is a sampling measurement effect. It doesn’t indicate the slightest real change in reality just a change in our information about reality.

    Maybe a course in statistics should be required for all college graduates. Such a course should focus on the key conceptual aspects of probability and statistics and not drown in a morass of formulas.

  55. Steve Sailer says:Website

    @Jim

    But much turns out to be sampling.

  56. Jim says:

    @Luke Lea

    Luke Lea – Regression to the mean is not a causal effect. Nothing is actually happening in reality with regression to the mean. Regression to the mean in no way reflects any causal process in objective reality. It is simply a measurement issue.

    You need to get a clear grasp of that. Any attempt to invoke regression to the mean in causal explanations is fallacious.

  57. Steve Sailer says:Website

    @Jim

    Sampling happens in reality as well as in statistics.

  58. HA says:

    @Steve Richter

    But just for argument sake, how do the last 50,000 years of evolution proponents explain the children of recent African immigrants to the US who are well socialized and rule abiding? According to Wade they did not acquire those traits from their forebears.

    What a bizarre and ludicrous statement. Where does Wade or anyone else outside of some Stormfront loony bin claim that being well socialized and “rule abiding” is a trait that is absent in Africa?

    What Wade and Sailer claim (if I read them correctly) is that some of the differences between human populations that determine whether a given individual’s likelihood of, say, committing murder is 1/1,000 as opposed to 1/20,000 (just to pick some round numbers) are partly genetic. The same goes, conceptually speaking, for the relative probability of being a PhD mathematician or a genius of some other kind.

    In both those case, the overwhelming majority of people in both populations are non-murderers (and non-geniuses). That being said, such ‘minor’ differences in absolute terms can still matter greatly in any objective analysis about which of those populations is the better one to be living within.

  59. Roundup of Book Reviews of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance | Occam's Razor says:Website

    […] David Dobbs: “The Fault in Our DNA” (Dobbs responds here and here.  Sailer responds here.) […]

  60. Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
ABC's Epic Steel-cage Smackdown
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?