The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
David Reich: "How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times an interview with geneticist David Reich (whose new book Who We Are and How We Got Here I reviewed in Taki’s Magazine.)

How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics
By David Reich

March 30, 2018

In a Sunday Review essay last weekend, David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard, argued that science is changing how we think about “race” and urged a candid discussion of the findings, whatever they may be. Hundreds of readers left comments, many expressing worry about the possibility that the results could be misinterpreted or nefariously applied. Here are Dr. Reich’s responses to some of the comments. — The Editors

… With respect to today’s study of human variation, I am optimistic — I believe that it has been socially positive. It is making every racist view of the world untenable. In my just-published book, I explain how the ancient DNA revolution — which has provided far greater power to reveal what happened in our deep past than what was available before — has done far more to undermine racist beliefs than to support them. As I wrote in the final paragraph of my book:

… But in our time, the findings from ancient DNA leave little solace for racist or nationalistic misinterpretation. In this field, the pursuit of truth for its own sake has overwhelmingly had the effect of exploding stereotypes, undercutting prejudice, and highlighting the connections among peoples not previously known to be related.

Let me quote from p. 278-279 of Reich’s book about Britain:

For example, in Britain, we know that beginning after forty-five hundred years ago … ancient Britons harbored a blend of ancestries very similar to that of present-day Britons. …

The power of this approach can already be seen in the 2015 study “The People of the British Isles,” which sampled more than two-thousand present-day individuals from the United Kingdom whose four grandparents were all born within eighty kilometers of one another. The study found that the British population was very homogeneous by conventional measures. For example, the classic measure of genetic differentiation between two British populations is about one hundred time smaller than the same measurement of population differentiation comparing Europeans to East Asians.

On the other hand, race, which is more or less about who your relatives are, turns out to be, not surprisingly, highly relativistic. Although the British nation who fought and won the World Wars were extremely homogeneous genetically compared to the genetic differences between continental scale races such as Europeans and East Asians, current genome analyses is now so sophisticated that it can distinguish seventeen different indigenous populations with the UK, such as Cornwall and the Orkneys. And in Northern Ireland, DNA can distinguish the Protestant from the Catholics (even though they famously look alike to even the trained eye — Belfast taxi drivers display in their cabs on their licenses their pictures but not their surnames to prevent drunken passengers of the opposite religion from assaulting them for stupid sectarian reasons).

… My book also gives concrete examples of how it is no longer so easy to twist science to support long-cherished stereotypes because ancient DNA is now debunking the stories that used to be made up about the nature of human variation. As I wrote there:

The Nazi ideology of a “pure” Indo-European-speaking Aryan race with deep roots in Germany, traceable through artifacts of the Corded Ware culture, has been shattered by the finding that the people who used these artifacts came from a mass migration from the Russian steppe, a place that German nationalists would have despised as a source.

Or the Nazis would have declared that Reich’s findings morally justify their invasion and conquest of the Russian steppe that is the true homeland of the Aryan race. Hitler just plain liked conquering.

My idea is, contra both Hitler and Reich: Let’s not have invasions and conquests, just like we don’t have human sacrifice or cannibalism much anymore. We aren’t nomadic barbarians anymore, we are civilized peoples who have settled down in specific places that are clearly marked on maps.

I realize that progressives these days have lost almost all interest in progress and instead obsess over the sins of the past and how to visit Bronze Age-style invasion and rapine upon those whom they assert enjoy historical privilege. In contrast, I prefer peace, protection of property, and rule of law and their extension where possible. But that makes me a reactionary in 2018.

The Hindutva ideology that there was no major contribution to Indian culture from migrants from outside South Asia is undermined by the fact that approximately half of the ancestry of Indians today is derived from multiple waves of mass migration from Iran and the Eurasian steppe within the last five thousand years.

But didn’t the Nazis believe in the Aryan invasion of India that you have genetically documented?

Similarly, the idea that the Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi have ancestry from West Eurasian farmers that Hutus do not — an idea that has been incorporated into arguments for genocide — is nonsense. We now know that nearly every group living today is the product of repeated population mixtures that have occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no one population is — or could be — pure.

Reich’s next book:

Is ‘Pure’ Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually A Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Anyway, the colonial notion that the dominant Tutsis had some Caucasian ancestry would be an example of impurity, not purity.

The Hutus in 1994 were just doing what comes naturally, according to the prehistory of humanity recounted in Reich’s book. But as Katharine Hepburn tells Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen:

Charlie Allnut: What are you being so mean for, Miss? A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it’s only human nature.

Rose Sayer: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.

Reich:

Having been immersed in the ancient DNA revolution for the past 10 years, I am confident that anyone who pays attention to what it is finding cannot come away feeling affirmed in racist beliefs. My childhood guesses about who we are and how we’re related to one another — and about the nature of differences among people — have been shown to be wrong again and again.

Okay, but Dr. Reich was raised in an arch-liberal family, which might have contributed to the empirical wrongness of so many of his earlier beliefs. From Wikipedia:

Reich grew up in Washington, D.C. His parents are novelist Tova Reich (sister of Rabbi Avi Weiss) and Walter Reich, a professor at George Washington University, who served as the first director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.[3] David Reich started out as a sociology major as an undergraduate at Harvard College …

Reich goes on:

Anyone who thinks they can guess what the nature of human variation is based on the data we had available to us before these breakthroughs is wrong.

But Reich’s data keeps validating 18th century European thinkers views, such as Edward Jones on the Indo-European language family and the Aryan invasion of India, and J.F. Blumenbach’s on the cohesiveness and boundaries of the Caucasian race. Maybe those views were not the ones he was instructed in as a teen in a cultural environment, where, I would guess, Stephen Jay Gould was considered a scientific authority.

I think the most important point in the article, that could’ve been emphasized a bit more, is that differences in individuals are far greater than that of populations.

When those who use the stats of the average I.Q. justify that for racist ideologies, they seem to fail to recognize the fact that there is massive variance from the average of all races.

That’s why those racist ideologues Herrnstein and Murray never mention the existence of bell curves in The Bell Curve … Oh, wait … It actually turns out that the Bad Guys like Herrnstein and Murray spend a lot more time talking about variance and overlap than the Good Guys like Gould, who mostly get worked up over the difference in means.

As well as the fact that institutional discrimination also has a negative impact on I.Q. of populations, which when those factors are controlled (education, economic upbringing, even being adopted and raised by parents who are of a different race), leads to even less substantial difference in even the average I.Q. of populations.

Differences in individuals vary far more widely than populations. Especially with intelligence. — Brian, Washington

Indeed, we have known for almost a half-century that for the great majority of human traits shaped by genetics, there is far greater variation among individuals than populations.

This means that when a teacher looks around a classroom of students of diverse “races,” she or he shouldn’t see them as members of fundamentally different groups of people. “Race” has trivial predictive power about an individual person’s biological capabilities. Even if there are slight average differences among groups of humans, individuals from any group are capable of excelling in any realm.

But the Obama Administration sure got worked up over black students getting suspended three times more often for bad behavior even though there is plenty of variation in misconduct among youths.

“It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings.” Fat chance. What if many stereotypes are, in fact, confirmed by genetic research? What is the likelihood that ideologues of the left and right will have the maturity to handle it? Nonexistent. — BarrowK, North Carolina

It is likely that a few stereotypes will be validated by findings from genetics — even if it is also certain that a great majority will be disproved.

Wanna bet?

Plenty of honest scientists have studied common stereotypes, such as Lee Jussim and Stephen Goldberg. Their main finding is that most common stereotypes are indeed accurate in terms of the direction of difference perceived. As you get out to trickier questions, such as the size of the difference and its causes, public accuracy falls off. But the stereotype that Reich endorses that sterereotypes are almost always wrong is a rare stereotype that’s more fallacious than accurate.

When this happens, the findings will certainly be used in sound bites by people who, for whatever reason, need to believe that racist views of the world have been correct all along.

Like that 845 page sound bite The Bell Curve, or Arthur Jensen’s 664 page soundbite The g Factor.

Well-meaning people need to prepare for this possibility, which is exactly the issue I tried to grapple with in my article.

So how should we handle the eventuality that for a few traits, average differences among populations arising from genetics will be discovered? I do not think that the right approach is to pretend that scientific research has shown there can be no meaningful average genetic differences among human populations, because that message is contradicted by scientific facts.

The key point is that whatever science finds should not affect the way we behave toward one another. Whatever small average differences across groups might exist (and genetic studies have already made it clear that average differences across populations are much less than those between individuals), we are members of a single species, all of whom must be given every opportunity to flourish in every realm.

Okay, but we have an entire body of law and policy called “disparate impact” or “adverse impact” in which simplistic differences in means between racial groups are seen as justifying suspension of the equal treatment of the laws upon individuals on the grounds that it is unthinkable that there could be differences in average between groups.

For example, the Obama Administration war on police from Ferguson onward, which coincided with a historically unprecedented 20% increase in homicides from 2014 to 2016 is based on the notion that there is something inherently suspicious about all the statistics demonstrating more violent behavior by black males.

… From my point of view, it should be possible for everyone to hold in their heads the following six truths:

1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

Everything human has a social component. On the other hand, Reich’s research shows that what the Enlightenment thinkers so hated by Gould thought of as the major pre-1492 races were indeed pretty reasonable, and that natural features, such as oceans, mountain ranges, deserts, polar ice caps, and un-farmable steppes contributed to barriers to gene flow, just as Linnaeus, Blumenbach, and so forth figured.

2. There are clear genetic contributors to many traits, including behavior.

3. Present-day human populations, which often but not always are correlated to today’s “race” categories, have in a number of instances been largely isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years. These long separations have provided adequate opportunity for the frequencies of genetic variations to change.

4. Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits, even though we know that the average genetic influences on behavior and cognition are strongly affected by upbringing and are likely to be more modest than genetic influences on bodily traits or disease.

5. The genetic variations that influence behavior in one population will almost certainly have an effect on behavior in others populations, even if the ways those genetic variations manifest in each population may be very different. Given that all genetically determined traits differ somewhat among populations, we should expect that there will be differences in the average effects, including in traits like behavior.

6. To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public. And it encourages people not to trust the honesty of scholars and instead to embrace theories that are not scientifically grounded and often racist.

In other words, calm down, people, this isn’t The End of the World, like you’ve been telling each other.

In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the difference are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).

“Small” sounds so reassuring, but it turns out that people often get very worked up over seemingly small differences. For example, the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior.

As a society, we are already committed to giving everyone a full opportunity for self-realization — regardless of the particular hand each person is dealt from the deck of life. Since we are already committed to this, accommodating any slight differences in the average genetic influences on traits that might eventually be found should only be a little extra work to handle.

Actually … all this is a huge area of nonstop controversy and anti-white male rabble-rousing, but Reich ought to be forgiven for not knowing much about all this hullabaloo because he’s been extremely busy churning out an incredible number of studies on important questions in the history and prehistory of mankind, as well as writing, presumably with his science journalist wife, a very readable new book:

David Reich is a professor of genetics at Harvard and the author of the book “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past.”

 
Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. OT
    Israel celebrates Passover by closing the Gaza border, in remembrance of Moses telling Pharoh “don’t let those people in”. Palestinians try to ‘pass over’ the fence, are struck down by the Angel of Death.

    Palestinians say 7 protesters killed by IDF during ‘March of Return’ near Gaza fence

    In the early morning hours, an IDF tank fired at two Palestinians engaging in “suspicious behavior” near the fence in the southern Gaza Strip.

    Palestinian sources have said seven protesters were killed by IDF fire since the beginning of the Hamas-led “March of Return” on Friday morning near the Gaza Strip border fence.

    The IDF confirmed the shooting, stating, “Two suspects approached the fence in the southern Gaza Strip during the night and engaged in suspicious behavior on the ground next to it. In response, an IDF force fired at them with a tank.”

    Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman tweeted … “Anyone who gets close to the fence today is putting themselves in danger.

    On Thursday, JOL reported that the IDF had instructed its troops to shoot whoever tries to cross the Gaza fence. The IDF Spokesperson announced a complete closure of the West Bank and the Gaza border crossings during Passover, with the exception of humanitarian and health-related cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Well to be fair, Passover is a holiday based on the story of mass infanticide of one of their host societies. Israel isn't really violating the spirit of the holiday here.
    , @rogue-one
    Somebody's got will to defend their borders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. We now know that nearly every group living today is the product of repeated population mixtures that have occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no one population is — or could be — pure.

    His next essay will be about chemistry: “All substances are just mixtures of a whole lot of different things. They’re so mixed and jumbled up that they’re all pretty much the same stuff.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Reich's next book: "Is 'Pure' Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually An Impure Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Faraday's Bobcat

    We now know that nearly every group living today is the product of repeated population mixtures that have occurred over thousands and tens of thousands of years. Mixing is in human nature, and no one population is — or could be — pure.
     
    His next essay will be about chemistry: "All substances are just mixtures of a whole lot of different things. They're so mixed and jumbled up that they're all pretty much the same stuff."

    Reich’s next book: “Is ‘Pure’ Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually An Impure Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen”

    Read More
    • LOL: Romanian
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Reich’s next book: “Is ‘Pure’ Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually An Impure Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen”
     
    Ha ha. Brilliant!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Arclight says:

    A casual reader of this kind of stuff can tell that the scientific evidence for significant group differences must be pretty overwhelming when a guy like Reich feels motivated to say what he does, even with all the weaselly ‘”ariation is less between populations than between individuals” caveats that try to obscure the real issue. I wonder if when the left finally comes around on this that they will then try to claim that modern differences in the US are due to negative eugenic influences during the 18th and 19th century. They sort of already do so when they blame lead from pre-1974 gasoline use, or the presence of lead-based paint in housing (which allegedly accounted for Freddie Gray’s long criminal record). I look forward to TNC coming up with some link between redlining and lower average IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    My idea is, contra both Hitler and Reich: Let’s not have invasions and conquests, just like we don’t have human sacrifice or cannibalism much anymore. We aren’t nomadic barbarians anymore, we are civilized peoples who have settled down in specific places that are clearly marked on maps.

    Well, the problem is that human nature is unlikely so easily modifiable as to conform to this.

    You have three choices: conquer, be conquered, or defend what you have by use of force of arms.

    The Swiss have decided on option three, but they have suitable terrain to do it with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The US has a couple of oceans. The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    Typo:

    Although the British nation who fought and won the World Wards

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. J.Ross says: • Website

    “Wards” for “Wars” in paragraph about British after second blockquote
    feel free to delete this

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. DPG says:

    Andrew Sullivan dresses down Ezra Klein. Kudos to NY Mag for publishing it.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for linking that. Sullivan's article seems pretty reasonable overall, but I can't get past him simultaneously arriving at the same conclusion as The Bell Curve:

    My own brilliant conclusion: Group differences in IQ are indeed explicable through both environmental and genetic factors and we don’t yet know quite what the balance is.
     
    While spending paragraphs going on about how TBC was wrong.
    , @J.Ross
    Dressing down Ezra Klein is straw dog sacrifice. Righteousness is asking how such an absolute nothing enjoys any attention in the first place.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. If you aren’t a racist you are either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

    Read More
    • Agree: schnellandine
    • LOL: NickG
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I called Reich a "pseudoscientist" in a comment that didn't make it, not because I am unaware of his excellent qualifications, but because I don't think you should be able to go back and forth on your own data for political convenience and still keep such staus. Becoming a scientist ought to mean becoming willing to look the Yellow Emperor in the eye and explain that the mandate of heaven cannot be real if heaven isn't real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    The classic drop-the-mic comment that race non-realists think absolutely destroys the racists is some variation on the observation that the difference between the means for white and black IQs is smaller than the span between, say, minus 3 sigma and plus 3 sigma.

    The graph in the post here, and better yet the version scaled to reflect population, are what puts the lie to this observation. Show that graph and then point out that to the right of here are people smart enough to go to college, to the right of here are the people smart enough to be doctors, between here and here are where supervising firefighters fall, between here and here are high school math teachers, to the left of here are the people that are too dim to be in the military. This shows the origin of “disparate impact” very graphically. Its not racism, it’s population numbers in various IQ ranges.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    One thing to keep in mind is that the main Bell Curve dataset, the 1980 Pentagon renorming of the AFQT using the NLSY79 has an excessively large white-black IQ gap of about 18.6 points. This is because the AFQT was 105 pages long and more blacks than whites, especially black males, who were doing poorly gave up part way through this endless test, so a lot of black guys who were headed for, say, a 75 wound up with a 65.

    When the AFQT was renormed in 1997 on the NLSY97 sample using computer testing where if you get several wrong in a row they feed you easier questions next, the white-black gap was only 14.7 points.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. songbird says:

    Is there an abridged version, without the squid ink?

    Read More
    • LOL: Harry Baldwin, Kylie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. AndrewR says:

    Current year leftist ideology is completely unequipped to handle the theory that different populations can have different median IQ and other psychological traits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    Mildly OT perhaps, the people of the Reich Lab, in photos. Plenty of women, I have to say (hopefully no #metoo will surface), a couple of NE Asians, Indians, otherwise white and Jewish.

    https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/people

    The women seem to be lab managers or lab techs, probably doing the DNA extraction from bones.

    The math guru who makes so many appearances in the book, surprisingly, looks to be about 90 years old. I think if you want to make any real progress in a math-heavy field (and ancient DNA stuff is mostly statistics on huge data sets), you need math guys in their 20s and 30s in my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Reich's right hand man Nick Patterson is about 70. But he has had quite a career.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html

    Patterson was kind of the Alan Turing of his generation of British code-cracking, taking on the hardest decrypting problems for British intelligence. Then he worked for Renaissance, the super-successful American hedge fund, and made some money. Then he got into genes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Forbes says:

    It’s kind of fascinating to watch the prog-left and SJWs who have been so worked up over diversity for the last generation now pulling their hair out over the discovery of actual difference (however large or small).

    Meanwhile, Reich asserts that “race” is fundamentally a social category, so clearly all the diversity nonsense associated with race in regard to employment and college admissions should be dropped forthwith–if only because individuals are more diverse than race.

    Makes sense, and will never happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous[718] • Disclaimer says:

    Reich doesn’t have a political agenda at all. No sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. 1. I can’t honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He’s seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it’s just spewing racist hatred, you know.

    2. Liberals perplex me on the entire race debate. On the one hand, we have Reich reciting the orthodoxy of:

    “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

    Yet then liberals do things like:

    But the Obama Administration sure got worked up over black students getting suspended three times more often for bad behavior even though there is plenty of variation in misconduct among youths.

    It seems liberals have this idea of “Schrödinger’s race.” Does acknowledging race exists as more than social construct make you a racist? Yes and no! It’s racist if it negatively affects “minority” racial groups (which don’t actually exist, mind you) and not racist if it positively affects minority racial groups (which do actually exist). To further extend the quantum analogy, if a policy that was at first not racist turns out to have negatively affected minority groups, then it was actually racist the entire time!

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    1. I can’t honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He’s seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it’s just spewing racist hatred, you know.
     
    Give him credit for at least publishing his results. Another Harvard guy, Robert Putnam, sat on his findings for years until he could figure out a way to break the news.

    Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could "develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity" (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times)
     
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    " I can’t honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He’s seen what happens to those who speak truth to power"

    Yes, but did he have to badmouth people to do that?

    Steven Pinker manages to stay employed without that kind of unpleasantness. Shows poor character IMHO, especially dissing Watson, who you could argue founded his discipline.

    , @Dan W.
    Well said. The left's fixation on race would be admirable if the intent was ensuring due process and equal justice under the law for all people. But what we have is the left using race as a means to claim political power over those who don't want to live in a society fixated on race.

    The left says people should not be judged for the color of their skin. The non-left says it agrees - people should be judged for their individual actions. But then the left says NO! You can't do that if it will yield a "racist" outcome.

    In short, the left wants the power to decide who wins and loses in society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Anonymous
    Mildly OT perhaps, the people of the Reich Lab, in photos. Plenty of women, I have to say (hopefully no #metoo will surface), a couple of NE Asians, Indians, otherwise white and Jewish.

    https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/people

    The women seem to be lab managers or lab techs, probably doing the DNA extraction from bones.

    The math guru who makes so many appearances in the book, surprisingly, looks to be about 90 years old. I think if you want to make any real progress in a math-heavy field (and ancient DNA stuff is mostly statistics on huge data sets), you need math guys in their 20s and 30s in my opinion.

    Reich’s right hand man Nick Patterson is about 70. But he has had quite a career.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12prof.html

    Patterson was kind of the Alan Turing of his generation of British code-cracking, taking on the hardest decrypting problems for British intelligence. Then he worked for Renaissance, the super-successful American hedge fund, and made some money. Then he got into genes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. peterike says:

    Oy, gevalt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Anonymous[394] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    OT
    Israel celebrates Passover by closing the Gaza border, in remembrance of Moses telling Pharoh "don't let those people in". Palestinians try to 'pass over' the fence, are struck down by the Angel of Death.


    Palestinians say 7 protesters killed by IDF during 'March of Return' near Gaza fence
    ...
    In the early morning hours, an IDF tank fired at two Palestinians engaging in "suspicious behavior" near the fence in the southern Gaza Strip.
    ...
    Palestinian sources have said seven protesters were killed by IDF fire since the beginning of the Hamas-led "March of Return" on Friday morning near the Gaza Strip border fence.
    ...
    The IDF confirmed the shooting, stating, "Two suspects approached the fence in the southern Gaza Strip during the night and engaged in suspicious behavior on the ground next to it. In response, an IDF force fired at them with a tank."
    ...
    Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman tweeted ... "Anyone who gets close to the fence today is putting themselves in danger.
    ...
    On Thursday, JOL reported that the IDF had instructed its troops to shoot whoever tries to cross the Gaza fence. The IDF Spokesperson announced a complete closure of the West Bank and the Gaza border crossings during Passover, with the exception of humanitarian and health-related cases.

     

    Well to be fair, Passover is a holiday based on the story of mass infanticide of one of their host societies. Israel isn’t really violating the spirit of the holiday here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Anonymous
    The classic drop-the-mic comment that race non-realists think absolutely destroys the racists is some variation on the observation that the difference between the means for white and black IQs is smaller than the span between, say, minus 3 sigma and plus 3 sigma.

    The graph in the post here, and better yet the version scaled to reflect population, are what puts the lie to this observation. Show that graph and then point out that to the right of here are people smart enough to go to college, to the right of here are the people smart enough to be doctors, between here and here are where supervising firefighters fall, between here and here are high school math teachers, to the left of here are the people that are too dim to be in the military. This shows the origin of "disparate impact" very graphically. Its not racism, it's population numbers in various IQ ranges.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the main Bell Curve dataset, the 1980 Pentagon renorming of the AFQT using the NLSY79 has an excessively large white-black IQ gap of about 18.6 points. This is because the AFQT was 105 pages long and more blacks than whites, especially black males, who were doing poorly gave up part way through this endless test, so a lot of black guys who were headed for, say, a 75 wound up with a 65.

    When the AFQT was renormed in 1997 on the NLSY97 sample using computer testing where if you get several wrong in a row they feed you easier questions next, the white-black gap was only 14.7 points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    I took the Asvab test back in 1983. It was hilariously easy; my buddy and I snickered all the way through. Third graders could pass it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Anonymous

    My idea is, contra both Hitler and Reich: Let’s not have invasions and conquests, just like we don’t have human sacrifice or cannibalism much anymore. We aren’t nomadic barbarians anymore, we are civilized peoples who have settled down in specific places that are clearly marked on maps.
     
    Well, the problem is that human nature is unlikely so easily modifiable as to conform to this.

    You have three choices: conquer, be conquered, or defend what you have by use of force of arms.

    The Swiss have decided on option three, but they have suitable terrain to do it with.

    The US has a couple of oceans. The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
     
    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds's 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it's not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world's greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Rosie says:

    As a society, we are already committed to giving everyone a full opportunity for self-realization — regardless of the particular hand each person is dealt from the deck of life.

    Does “everyone” means every single person on the face of the Earth, or can we take group differences into account in immigration policy? Let me guess. That’s not who we are. Am I right?

    The key point is that whatever science finds should not affect the way we behave toward one another.

    Why not? The whole premise of the Civil Rights movement was that we were all the same but for “skin color.”

    Whatever small average differences across groups might exist (and genetic studies have already made it clear that average differences across populations are much less than those between individuals

    Why does that matter?

    We are members of a single species, all of whom must be given every opportunity to flourish in every realm.

    Why? Am I not entitled to prefer my own? It sounds like he’s saying, “Well yes, your group actually is distinctive after all, but not so distinctive that you should care about its well-being or continued existence.

    I don’t think this will go over. Race denialism was an indispensable article of the multicultural faith.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. istevefan says:

    OT – Thomas Edsal has an opinion piece in the NY Times about the breakdown of the 2016 election. There is some interesting stuff on the white working class vote. For example the excerpt below suggests that 1/3 of democrat voters and leaners are whites without degrees. This group is the largest bloc of democrat voters. Yet the democrats hate them. That’s an awful lot of votes for the taking if the GOP would just adopt the Trump campaign agenda.

    Perhaps most significant, a March 20 Pew Research Center public opinion survey found that 33 percent of Democratic voters and Democratic leaners are whites without college degrees. That’s substantially larger than the 26 percent of Democrats who are whites with college degrees — the group that many analysts had come to believe was the dominant constituency in the party.

    According to Pew, this noncollege white 33 percent makes up a larger bloc of the party’s voters than the 28 percent made up of racial and ethnic minorities without degrees. It is also larger than the 12 percent of Democratic voters made up of racial and ethnic minorities with college degrees.

    In sum, Pew’s more precise survey methods reveal that when Democrats are broken down by education, race and ethnicity, the white working class is the largest bloc of Democratic voters and substantially larger than the bloc of white college-educated Democratic voters.

    Further, they estimate the white working class vote was about 44 percent of the entire vote.

    In a detailed analysis of the 2016 vote, Pew found that 44 percent, or 60.1 million out of a total of 136.7 million votes cast on Nov. 8, 2016 were cast by whites without college degrees — demographic shorthand for the white working class.

    Hillary Clinton won 28 percent of white working-class votes, according to Pew, less than Obama’s 36 percent in 2012. Still, a quarter of her total vote of 65.85 million — that is, 16.8 million votes — came from the white working class.

    Get ready to watch the democrats suddenly pretend to like whites like they did in PA-18. Of course this presents Trump and the GOP an opportunity to force the democrats to make votes that puts the white working class against the democrat fringe. That is why immigration is such a big deal. The white working class doesn’t want it, but the democrat fringe does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    How much of that 1/3rd is 18-21 year olds in college, just without degrees yet? Maybe not all that much but probably a relatively monolithic block.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. For example, in Britain, we know that beginning after forty-five hundred years ago … ancient Britons harbored a blend of ancestries very similar to that of present-day Britons.

    Whu?? He just wrote the Pakis and West Indians out of his definition of “present-day Britons”. I think he just dug himself deeper into the “white supremacist” hole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Tiny Duck says:

    The only reason their are differences is because of white perfidy

    400 years of oppression, obliteration, of degradation, of destruction of families, mass rape, of robbed labor and wealth, of stolen art and music, the theft of Rock and Roll! &…Roseanne wants to call it on her terms with a celebration of White Supremacy! Resist! at all costs!

    I DARE you to watch the vlogbrothers John and Hank Green

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @White Guy In Japan
    Rosanne has yummy cookies. Try one!
    , @Briny Schmuck
    Classical music was stolen by white men from PoC during colonialism and slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. istevefan says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The US has a couple of oceans. The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.

    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds’s 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it’s not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world’s greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @theMann
    Since all it would require is an electronic frontier, a rapid reaction force, a few helicopters, AND THE WILL TO USE THEM, it would be absurdly easy to control the border.


    It does help give the lie to the criminal oligarchs in DC, that they will ever do a damn thing about illegal immigration.
    , @al-Gharaniq

    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either.
     
    The drug cartels are quite militarized, however. They fall somewhere between non-state actor paramilitary groups and insurgency forces. While the U.S. could deal with them, insurgencies have proven particularly difficult for our conventional forces.

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it's staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it's got potential to be a budgetary black hole.
    , @Whiskey
    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no "real successful White man" would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.
    , @Disordered
    The thing is, Mexico pretty much settled its borders before the era of fighter jets and tanks. Therefore, they never really needed them. True, its border regions are still porous and relatively high in crime and corruption - but they rather have the classic Latin approach of "let the local crony handle it, I may or may not bring some public/private investment but keep the kickbacks coming, specially from drug lords and contraband"... an approach that pretty much happens in most Latin border regions, save those that have been contested for their resources and/or have some sort of autonomist/rebel bent, where the only difference is that a somewhat larger military presence is warranted, and the area looks kind of crappier and more desolated as a result. Ecuador and Peru, who did have a protracted border conflict, by the 90s had acquired several choppers and jets, and the last few flare-ups saw interesting dogfights before permanent peace was signed. The border regions were very crap, roads were terrible on purpose to delay a potential invasion, and contraband was rampant as Ecuador subsidized its gas. Today the area is relatively better under peacetime, more public investment, but still kind of shoddy and full of crooked people, specially as the left-liberal Ecuadorian government keeps tariffs on stuff that the country definitely doesn't make while also keeping high business taxes - the Bernie recipe, btw - thus making life easy for contraband and Chamber of Commerce importers, and terrible for Ecuadorian peasants, manufacturers, and exporters that don't make the same old commodities (banana, shrimp, et al). Compare this to Ciudad del Este, on the Paraguay-Brazil border, over which disputes ended way earlier, and where there is such thriving commerce (legal and otherwise) that people are nearly bilingual, even if there's also the unavoidable rampant crime and inequality (lots of dirty money washed, specially as Paraguay is a more haphazardly run state), as stated above in the description of the average Latin border...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. res says:
    @DPG
    Andrew Sullivan dresses down Ezra Klein. Kudos to NY Mag for publishing it.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

    Thanks for linking that. Sullivan’s article seems pretty reasonable overall, but I can’t get past him simultaneously arriving at the same conclusion as The Bell Curve:

    My own brilliant conclusion: Group differences in IQ are indeed explicable through both environmental and genetic factors and we don’t yet know quite what the balance is.

    While spending paragraphs going on about how TBC was wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DPG
    I think he’s being sarcastic when he says “brilliant.” As in, he’s taking a relatively moderate position that should be shared by anyone who’s explored the evidence. As our host Steve likes to say, it’s a safe bet to say nature and nurture are about 50/50, but today it’s extremist not to say nurture is 100%.

    I don’t think you’re correctly characterizing the article when you say Sullivan spends paragraphs denouncing The Bell Curve. At one point he actually says that Murray falls “perfectly within the academic mainstream in studies of intelligence.”

    There is a backstory here. Sullivan, as editor of The New Republic, caused a furor by giving attention to TBC when it was first published. As a compromise, he allowed a number of rebuttals to be published as well. He needs to make the requisite denunciations of racism to keep his place in polite company. But the brisk language he uses towards Klein reveals where his loyalties lie in this debate. I suspect he’s believed in genetic racial differences since at least the time he covered TBC in TNR.
    , @Logan
    My experience has been that it is pretty obvious that few of those who criticize The Bell Curve have actually read it.

    The race discussion was a pretty minor component of the book and not at all its focus. That focus was actually on the fact that society was increasingly excluding the "less-bright" from any productive or meaningful role, forcing them into irrelevance and awareness of their being unwanted.

    They focused on suggestions for making changes that would allow such people to have lives with some meaning.

    Their predictions have only been validated in the years since publicaiton. Indeed, the process is accelerating.

    If their suggestions, or others to the same effect, were implement, black people would benefit disproportionately since far more of them are in the affected group.
    , @a Newsreader
    I'm seeing this more and more often. The good liberal will agree with everything the race realist believes, but only on the condition that we all agree that the race realist is a deplorable racist and wrong about everything and that the good liberal is a friend of science and an ally to all oppressed minorities. It's all who/whom.

    As an aside, it has always struck me as odd the liberal's fear that scientific understanding of racial differences would lead to discrimination/lynchings/segregation/etc. As a conservative and someone who lives among and knows conservatives, I always found this fear irrational, and always suspect the liberal of arguing in bad faith. But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.

    Race realists and conservatives, people who Thomas Sowell say have the "constrained vision", understand that people are different and have different abilities and interests, and that these differences cause challenges that can (depending on the actual groups and actual differences) be overcome.

    But the liberal believes in superiority and inferiority and believes that the inferior need to be punished. This is why they relish the destruction of the white working class: they believe that poor whites have squandered their privilege and deserve their fates. This is also why they need to believe in racist conspiracies: they can't reconcile their hatred for underachievers with their belief in human equality without believing that someone interfered with minorities' opportunities.

    If this hypothesis is right, then if HBD starts to become generally accepted, the danger to minorities won't come from the right, but from the left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Belfast taxi drivers display in their cabs on their licenses their pictures but not their surnames to prevent drunken passengers of the opposite religion from assaulting them

    How would one tell from the surname? Maybe someone knowledgeable in Hibernian onomastics could have a word…

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Belfast Protestants are not Irishmen who attended an especially persuasive revival.
    "Religion" in the Northern Irish context is a misleading mischaracterization for the migration or conquest of a specific set of people who came from somewhere else. Can you tell the difference between the names "Levi" and "Said"? Exactly how much theology and apologetics did you draw upon to tell them apart?
    , @Flip
    Northern Irish Protestants have roots in Scotland and Northern England- the Scotch-Irish who settled much of the upper South in the US like Andrew Jackson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Everyone is a “blend” if you want to play word games. We each come from a mother and father. Taken to extremes, revealing a population is a mix or blend, reveals nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. istevefan says:
    @al-Gharaniq
    1. I can't honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He's seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it's just spewing racist hatred, you know.

    2. Liberals perplex me on the entire race debate. On the one hand, we have Reich reciting the orthodoxy of:

    “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.
     
    Yet then liberals do things like:


    But the Obama Administration sure got worked up over black students getting suspended three times more often for bad behavior even though there is plenty of variation in misconduct among youths.
     
    It seems liberals have this idea of "Schrödinger's race." Does acknowledging race exists as more than social construct make you a racist? Yes and no! It's racist if it negatively affects "minority" racial groups (which don't actually exist, mind you) and not racist if it positively affects minority racial groups (which do actually exist). To further extend the quantum analogy, if a policy that was at first not racist turns out to have negatively affected minority groups, then it was actually racist the entire time!

    1. I can’t honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He’s seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it’s just spewing racist hatred, you know.

    Give him credit for at least publishing his results. Another Harvard guy, Robert Putnam, sat on his findings for years until he could figure out a way to break the news.

    Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could “develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity” (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. theMann says:
    @istevefan

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
     
    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds's 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it's not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world's greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    Since all it would require is an electronic frontier, a rapid reaction force, a few helicopters, AND THE WILL TO USE THEM, it would be absurdly easy to control the border.

    It does help give the lie to the criminal oligarchs in DC, that they will ever do a damn thing about illegal immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @istevefan

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
     
    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds's 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it's not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world's greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either.

    The drug cartels are quite militarized, however. They fall somewhere between non-state actor paramilitary groups and insurgency forces. While the U.S. could deal with them, insurgencies have proven particularly difficult for our conventional forces.

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it’s staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it’s got potential to be a budgetary black hole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it’s staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it’s got potential to be a budgetary black hole.
     
    Were this scenario to play out, it won't be the budget that suffers a black hole...
    , @Daniel Chieh
    In fact, they did threaten that and not with IEDs, but with special-operation type assassination of law enforcement officers in the United States. It did not help that Los Zetas at the time indeed were trained(perhaps even with US dollars) to conduct specifically those types of strikes and would be amply supported by signal and human intelligence almost on a level of a state antagonist.

    Such attacks would be difficult to negotiate, as they do not quite rise to the level of a state threat but are far more dangerous than usual criminal or even terrorist sources(who, despite funding, are likely more impoverished than the cartels).

    Texas at the time responded by threatening to hire mercenaries, which were also "not actually a state but capable of state-level operations." I don't know how it would actually play out had the threats been realized on both sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Stand back, I’m about to apply Reich’s reasoning and derive an explosive result.

    The best NBA players average some 30 points per game. The median player scores only about 5 points. Now the average 60-year-old white guy would average zero points if you put him on the court and a pro bothered to guard him.

    30-5 = 25 > 5.

    Therefore variation within the NBA is greater than variation between the average NBA player and the average 60-year-old white guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bgates
    Boston's high temp in 2017: 95F; low: 12F; a difference of 83F.
    Orlando's high and low temps in 2017: 96F and 35F, a difference of 61F.

    Current temperatures are 46F and 71F, a difference of only 25 degrees. Therefore climate doesn't exist any more than race does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    If Races should mix, races must exist. Then race must be real. Belief in existence of races is valid. Thus race-ism is real.

    It used to people like Reich said ‘races’ should mix because race is not real and doesn’t exist except as social construct. To believe in the validity of race is ‘racist’.

    Now, people like Reich say, yes, race is real and there are different races. And THAT is why they should mix. So, now they take the position that used to be ‘racist’ — belief in existence of different genetic groups — and claim it is no longer ‘racist’ because… races should mix because they mixed in the past.

    So, it went from ‘races should mix because race isn’t real’ to ‘races should mix because race is real’.

    What a…..

    If the point is that every race is the product of ancient mixtures, the ingredients still matter.
    After all, not all mixtures are like. If I create a new drink by mixing orange juice and apple juice and another drink by mixing grape juice and peach juice, both drinks are mixed but they are different due to different mixing. Drink A is a unique mixture apart from Drink B. Because A and B were made of mixing, should they both be mixed too?

    Japanese are mixture of Ainu and Mongoloid.

    Turks are mixture of bunch of different folks.

    But the genetic ingredients still produced unique mixtures distinct from one another.

    Pizza is the product of mixing different ingredients.

    So is Chop Suey.

    Using Reichian Cook Book, “because pizza is made of mixed ingredients and chop suey is made of mixed ingredients, we must mix pizza and chop suey together.” What’s that? Pizzuey?

    All alloys of mixed metals. But it depends on what elements and the process.

    Whatever mixtures made modern Europeans, they made Europeans develop unique features and characteristics. What is wrong with preserving it?

    Is the Latin American model really the best for all of humanity?

    Also, there is North Africa as Reich’s utopian laboratory. It’s a mixture of every race. So… how are things there?

    Better than sub-Africa but worse than Europe.

    Whiteness > mixture of white and black > blackness

    Whites should keep their unique mixture. Not bad genetic recipe for achieving good societies.

    By the way, if Reich really believes in what he says, I suggest all American Jews move to Africa and mix with the natives. Piss your unique Jewish mixture away.

    PS. Mongols now have another reason to revere Genghis. He was the most progressive man that ever lived by mixing the genes. Sure he killed people but you gotta crack a million eggs to make one giant omelet. The 1000 Harem Reich.

    They should make a movie.

    A Scene. Mongols at the gates of Poland. They say, “we will spare you if you let us rape all your women.”
    Polish men say NO.

    Mongol guy is like, “What are you, racist?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Who does Reich refer to when he says “WE should embrace it?”

    How about WE decide for ourselves instead of our fate being decided by elites as high priests.

    And if people like Reich want to EMBRACE, leave the WEST right and take all of his ethnic kind to Africa or some other place and have wild orgies. That should really do wonders for the Jewish gene pool. You see, if Einstein’s father had a kid with a Pgymy and if Einstein’s mother had a kid with a Yanamanao Indian, they kids would have been 10x smarter than Einstein that dummy who was only mixed of Semitic and European blood.

    People like Reich oppose ethno-state but they got their ethno-gate and elito-gate. Gated community of high IQ folks mostly made of whites, Jews, and some Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. bgates says:
    @International Jew
    Stand back, I'm about to apply Reich's reasoning and derive an explosive result.

    The best NBA players average some 30 points per game. The median player scores only about 5 points. Now the average 60-year-old white guy would average zero points if you put him on the court and a pro bothered to guard him.

    30-5 = 25 > 5.

    Therefore variation within the NBA is greater than variation between the average NBA player and the average 60-year-old white guy.

    Boston’s high temp in 2017: 95F; low: 12F; a difference of 83F.
    Orlando’s high and low temps in 2017: 96F and 35F, a difference of 61F.

    Current temperatures are 46F and 71F, a difference of only 25 degrees. Therefore climate doesn’t exist any more than race does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    1. Races should mix because race isn’t real.

    2. Races should mix because race is real.

    Sounds like chimney logic. Heads I win, tails you lose.

    https://aleph.org/resources/the-rabbi-is-in-two-men-come-down-the-same-chimney

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. genetic studies have already made it clear that average differences across populations are much less than those between individuals

    Yes, it is surprising how, when you take a bunch of averages, things turn out to be more, well, average.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. J.Ross says: • Website
    @James Braxton
    If you aren't a racist you are either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

    I called Reich a “pseudoscientist” in a comment that didn’t make it, not because I am unaware of his excellent qualifications, but because I don’t think you should be able to go back and forth on your own data for political convenience and still keep such staus. Becoming a scientist ought to mean becoming willing to look the Yellow Emperor in the eye and explain that the mandate of heaven cannot be real if heaven isn’t real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. J.Ross says: • Website
    @DPG
    Andrew Sullivan dresses down Ezra Klein. Kudos to NY Mag for publishing it.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

    Dressing down Ezra Klein is straw dog sacrifice. Righteousness is asking how such an absolute nothing enjoys any attention in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. J.Ross says: • Website
    @International Jew

    Belfast taxi drivers display in their cabs on their licenses their pictures but not their surnames to prevent drunken passengers of the opposite religion from assaulting them
     
    How would one tell from the surname? Maybe someone knowledgeable in Hibernian onomastics could have a word...

    Belfast Protestants are not Irishmen who attended an especially persuasive revival.
    “Religion” in the Northern Irish context is a misleading mischaracterization for the migration or conquest of a specific set of people who came from somewhere else. Can you tell the difference between the names “Levi” and “Said”? Exactly how much theology and apologetics did you draw upon to tell them apart?

    Read More
    • Replies: @hhsiii
    Mc vs. O’
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. DPG says:
    @res
    Thanks for linking that. Sullivan's article seems pretty reasonable overall, but I can't get past him simultaneously arriving at the same conclusion as The Bell Curve:

    My own brilliant conclusion: Group differences in IQ are indeed explicable through both environmental and genetic factors and we don’t yet know quite what the balance is.
     
    While spending paragraphs going on about how TBC was wrong.

    I think he’s being sarcastic when he says “brilliant.” As in, he’s taking a relatively moderate position that should be shared by anyone who’s explored the evidence. As our host Steve likes to say, it’s a safe bet to say nature and nurture are about 50/50, but today it’s extremist not to say nurture is 100%.

    I don’t think you’re correctly characterizing the article when you say Sullivan spends paragraphs denouncing The Bell Curve. At one point he actually says that Murray falls “perfectly within the academic mainstream in studies of intelligence.”

    There is a backstory here. Sullivan, as editor of The New Republic, caused a furor by giving attention to TBC when it was first published. As a compromise, he allowed a number of rebuttals to be published as well. He needs to make the requisite denunciations of racism to keep his place in polite company. But the brisk language he uses towards Klein reveals where his loyalties lie in this debate. I suspect he’s believed in genetic racial differences since at least the time he covered TBC in TNR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That's a fair response (I looked through the article again). Thanks (especially for reminding me of the backstory). I read the bit below too reflexively:

    Reich’s point about the importance of reasonably discussing these questions so as to avoid irresponsible abuse of the information is precisely the reason I remain proud of having published well over a dozen reasoned, eloquent rebuttals to Charles Murray’s core (The Bell Curve) argument on race and IQ in The New Republic.
     
    And then didn't pay close enough attention to his opinion of Murray vs. those he quoted.

    Read your way, the part I quoted in my original comment comes off more as "see, TBC was right." Which is a very different message.

    I wonder which way the anti-Reich folk will read it.

    P.S. Is your memory that those "reasoned, eloquent rebuttals" were actually as described? My recollection is that few (if any?) Bell Curve rebuttals fell into that category in anything but a relative sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:

    For a guy so worried about being unpersoned, David Reich obsesses a lot about racial purity, and does so with higher standards than your run of the mill racialist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. This means that when a teacher looks around a classroom of students of diverse “races,” she or he shouldn’t see them as members of fundamentally different groups of people. “Race” has trivial predictive power about an individual person’s biological capabilities.

    It has far more predictive power than sex or anything else a teacher can observe merely by looking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. D. K. says:

    Did any of the readers of our country’s self-styled paper-of-record happen to ask Dave if he considers the roughly three-standard-deviation difference between the median IQ scores of sub-Saharan Africans and his own ethnic group to be merely “small” and “trivial” in the grand scheme of things?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Steve Sailer
    Reich's next book: "Is 'Pure' Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually An Impure Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen"

    Reich’s next book: “Is ‘Pure’ Water Really Pure? Science Proves Shocking Fact that So-Called Pure Water Is Actually An Impure Hybrid of Hydrogen and Oxygen”

    Ha ha. Brilliant!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Whiskey says: • Website
    @istevefan

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
     
    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds's 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it's not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world's greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no “real successful White man” would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    Problem is, then the Bezos et al elites will say that the immavaders are refugees fleeing the nasty pro-Russian commies. As they have already done in some cases, such as with those coming from Cuba or Venezuela. These more middle- and upper-class people make for relatively better immigrant communities, to be fair, but large immigrant communities nonetheless. One only has to drive through Miami.

    What the American government needs to support in Latin America is pro-Putin center-right nationalists that aren't against business but also that don't want to sell their nations out, ergo keeping enough stability that guarantees no mass emigrations. Thing is, those have always been scarce, their role usually fulfilled by temporary and/or repressive military caudillos; the Latin right since WW2 has always been the internationalist Chamber of Commerce that can only be loved by old aristocracy (it has been funded by American thinktanks/CIA fronts after all). Ask a rich/white Hispanic, they vote right-wing in their countries but love Obama and Hillary, and hate Bush and Trump. For these reasons, populist/democratic nationalism in Latin America sadly tends to be leftwing and commie, with all the invectives against the gringos and the Imperio and whatnot. AMLO is the Mexican example. If he wins (probably), I wouldn't get fully excited. While he doesn't seem as radical as his real-life buddies Chavez and Maduro, you don't want Venezuela just south of the river either. We shall see.
    , @M_Young
    In the past few decades cops have learned very well how to control and manipulate crowds w/0 generating public (mostly female) 'outrage'. Compare the reaction of cops to the G20 riots in, say, London with those of the 1968 Chicago cops bashing SDS demonstrators.

    The techniques learned against our own could easily be applied to illegal immigrants with just a little political will.
    , @Rosie

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.
     
    Doesn't that depend on who decides which photos "will go around the world causing massive feelz"?

    https://whisnews21.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/farmmurders20.jpg

    Moreover, our women feel that no “real successful White man” would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.
     
    Sigh. I'm still waiting on that explanation of why 70% of women in Georgia voted for Trump. I guess I'll be waiting for a very long time.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga
    , @Joe Stalin
    The Germans in 1915 constructed a 2,000 Volt 125 mile electric fence between Belgium and Holland that even had it's own power plant.

    Texas has it's own isolated power grid.

    ----

    Efficient

    The main purpose of the wire was to guard the Belgian-Dutch border. Border patrol required so many soldiers who could be deployed elsewhere, that the German occupation authorities choose for this 'efficient solution'.
    In the first weeks after the war started, Belgians began to cross the border to Holland. In autumn 1914 already one million Belgian refugees stayed in the Netherlands. In the next months many of them returned. Eventually about 100,000 would stay, until the end of the war.
    But during all years of the war new refugees kept coming and, almost daily, tried to cross the border. Their reasons to flee were diverse: some felt unsafe in their German occupied country, others wanted to join their relatives who had already fled. Many also wanted to take part in the war and choose this detour to join the forces on the allied front.

    Daily

    A victim lies between the contact wires.
    How many people the fence killed is unknown. Estimates vary from 2,000 to 3,000. Local newspapers in the south of Netherlands (bordering Belgium), from spring 1915 on, carry almost daily small messages about people 'lightened to death'.
    Not every crosser died though. Many also succeeded in crossing the dangerous border. Today people whose (grand)parents lived here, still can show you wooden sash-windows and casks, used to force a safe entrance through the entanglement. Sometimes they also used very long wooden ladders; when applied from both sides they worked as a scaffolding.
    The fence also drove family's and friends apart. Funeral-processions used to walk to the fence and halt there, to give relatives and friends on the other side the opportunity to pray and say farewell to the deceased.

    http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-fence.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Somewhat OT (on the nature of snap judgments and subjective superficial perceptions):

    Earlier, I was catching up on iSteve for the first time in a few days and, while skimming through this one, formed a superficial negative impression of Reich. (I didn’t read the whole thing.) I was sleep-deprived, so my mind wasn’t firing on all cylinders.

    I made a blunt comment (“Physiognomy is real”) about him, but, after taking another look at the article, decided that it was too harsh and deleted it before the deadline. Then I read Steve’s other posts.

    With the benefit of further reflection, I still find that, based on this picture:

    …I have a negative impression of him. This is a visceral emotional reaction to that one single photograph. He reminds me of someone I know (and despise) in meatworld.

    I have a similar visceral reaction to pictures of Gary Oldman. Oldman looks an awful lot like someone I know (and loathe).

    In this picture, the resemblance is especially strong:

    If I were to meet Reich, I might find him delightful. But I haven’t met him. I should avoid looking at his picture, lest I judge him unfairly.

    Steve looks likable in his pictures. The photos posted on this site make him look intelligent and approachable. I’ve never met him, and I’ve only seen a handful of pictures of him, but on a visceral level I have a positive (superficial) impression of him.

    Typically, I read iSteve when I have a free moment and am feeling slightly bored. Besides iSteve, I lurk on Vox Day, Heartiste, and Lion of the Blogosphere, among others. I rarely post comments anywhere but here.

    When I first saw a picture of one of the other bloggers I read regularly, I immediately formed a negative impression of him. At that particular moment, reacting to that particular picture, I thought he looked like a total prick. That impression was reinforced when, shortly after seeing his picture for the first time, I read something on his blog that (in my opinion) made him seem petty and thin-skinned. He was boasting of his intellectual superiority, which I found extremely distasteful. I never quite enjoyed his blog in the same way after that. Still, I didn’t drop him from my list.

    I always try to keep an open mind. If I suddenly decided that I disliked Steve based on his appearance, I would still read him, but I would be less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    (Full disclosure: I have gone to considerable lengths to keep my own picture off the grid.)

    How well do blind folks’ snap prejudices line up with normies’?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior.

    So what is the status of the government’s case regarding the NBA? When will they take “affirmative” action?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That four-fifths rule is discussed in this definitive article about the legal doctrine of disparate impact by Amy Wax, the Penn Law professor who has been the target of a couple of recent Twitterstorms (the bourgeois culture op piece, and the Glenn Lowry podcast where she says that black law students tend to be in the bottom half of the class):

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead-end-of-disparate-impact

    There is a more documented law review article underlying this:

    http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351

    The National Affairs article is very clear and readable; the law review article is mostly ... footnotes.

    Disparate impact is one of several areas where the assumption that black and white people have identical ability is baked into hard law as an assumption, so everything that follows is kind of crazy by definition.

    The Wax piece explains the absurdity that results from this, along with surfacing some undefined parts of the doctrine, such as exactly what population is the basis for the comparison, nationwide, local, some level of qualified, or what?

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior."

    Surely Reich's lab and every law firm and hedge fund in the country should be investigated then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mr. Anon says:

    I think the most important point in the article, that could’ve been emphasized a bit more, is that differences in individuals are far greater than that of populations.

    What’s remarkable is that people keep repeating this factoid despite the fact that it is essentially meaningless.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record
    the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior.

    So what is the status of the government's case regarding the NBA? When will they take "affirmative" action?

    That four-fifths rule is discussed in this definitive article about the legal doctrine of disparate impact by Amy Wax, the Penn Law professor who has been the target of a couple of recent Twitterstorms (the bourgeois culture op piece, and the Glenn Lowry podcast where she says that black law students tend to be in the bottom half of the class):

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead-end-of-disparate-impact

    There is a more documented law review article underlying this:

    http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351

    The National Affairs article is very clear and readable; the law review article is mostly … footnotes.

    Disparate impact is one of several areas where the assumption that black and white people have identical ability is baked into hard law as an assumption, so everything that follows is kind of crazy by definition.

    The Wax piece explains the absurdity that results from this, along with surfacing some undefined parts of the doctrine, such as exactly what population is the basis for the comparison, nationwide, local, some level of qualified, or what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the references! Your law review link was broken for me, but I was able to download the article from http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/352/
    (which actually points to the same place as your link, but adds a context tag)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. hhsiii says:
    @J.Ross
    Belfast Protestants are not Irishmen who attended an especially persuasive revival.
    "Religion" in the Northern Irish context is a misleading mischaracterization for the migration or conquest of a specific set of people who came from somewhere else. Can you tell the difference between the names "Levi" and "Said"? Exactly how much theology and apologetics did you draw upon to tell them apart?

    Mc vs. O’

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Is Mc abbreviated from Mac?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. rogue-one says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    OT
    Israel celebrates Passover by closing the Gaza border, in remembrance of Moses telling Pharoh "don't let those people in". Palestinians try to 'pass over' the fence, are struck down by the Angel of Death.


    Palestinians say 7 protesters killed by IDF during 'March of Return' near Gaza fence
    ...
    In the early morning hours, an IDF tank fired at two Palestinians engaging in "suspicious behavior" near the fence in the southern Gaza Strip.
    ...
    Palestinian sources have said seven protesters were killed by IDF fire since the beginning of the Hamas-led "March of Return" on Friday morning near the Gaza Strip border fence.
    ...
    The IDF confirmed the shooting, stating, "Two suspects approached the fence in the southern Gaza Strip during the night and engaged in suspicious behavior on the ground next to it. In response, an IDF force fired at them with a tank."
    ...
    Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman tweeted ... "Anyone who gets close to the fence today is putting themselves in danger.
    ...
    On Thursday, JOL reported that the IDF had instructed its troops to shoot whoever tries to cross the Gaza fence. The IDF Spokesperson announced a complete closure of the West Bank and the Gaza border crossings during Passover, with the exception of humanitarian and health-related cases.

     

    Somebody’s got will to defend their borders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. rogue-one says:

    OT:

    Real life The Camp of the Saints.

    A Huge Caravan Of Central Americans Is Headed For The US, And No One In Mexico Dares To Stop Them

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/a-huge-caravan-of-central-americans-is-headed-for-the-us?utm_term=.wpYz1owbm#.frMEWeAG9

    (Wondering if Africans start following the same model, would the Europeans have the will to stop them? Past experience suggests no.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @al-Gharaniq
    1. I can't honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He's seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it's just spewing racist hatred, you know.

    2. Liberals perplex me on the entire race debate. On the one hand, we have Reich reciting the orthodoxy of:

    “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.
     
    Yet then liberals do things like:


    But the Obama Administration sure got worked up over black students getting suspended three times more often for bad behavior even though there is plenty of variation in misconduct among youths.
     
    It seems liberals have this idea of "Schrödinger's race." Does acknowledging race exists as more than social construct make you a racist? Yes and no! It's racist if it negatively affects "minority" racial groups (which don't actually exist, mind you) and not racist if it positively affects minority racial groups (which do actually exist). To further extend the quantum analogy, if a policy that was at first not racist turns out to have negatively affected minority groups, then it was actually racist the entire time!

    ” I can’t honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He’s seen what happens to those who speak truth to power”

    Yes, but did he have to badmouth people to do that?

    Steven Pinker manages to stay employed without that kind of unpleasantness. Shows poor character IMHO, especially dissing Watson, who you could argue founded his discipline.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @for-the-record
    the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior.

    So what is the status of the government's case regarding the NBA? When will they take "affirmative" action?

    “the EEOC has used for many decades “the four-fifths rule” that if one race is employed in a field less than four-fifths as often per capita as any other race, than the government has a prima facie case for investigating this suspicious behavior.”

    Surely Reich’s lab and every law firm and hedge fund in the country should be investigated then?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Logan says:
    @res
    Thanks for linking that. Sullivan's article seems pretty reasonable overall, but I can't get past him simultaneously arriving at the same conclusion as The Bell Curve:

    My own brilliant conclusion: Group differences in IQ are indeed explicable through both environmental and genetic factors and we don’t yet know quite what the balance is.
     
    While spending paragraphs going on about how TBC was wrong.

    My experience has been that it is pretty obvious that few of those who criticize The Bell Curve have actually read it.

    The race discussion was a pretty minor component of the book and not at all its focus. That focus was actually on the fact that society was increasingly excluding the “less-bright” from any productive or meaningful role, forcing them into irrelevance and awareness of their being unwanted.

    They focused on suggestions for making changes that would allow such people to have lives with some meaning.

    Their predictions have only been validated in the years since publicaiton. Indeed, the process is accelerating.

    If their suggestions, or others to the same effect, were implement, black people would benefit disproportionately since far more of them are in the affected group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. “Small” sounds so reassuring, but it turns out that people often get very worked up over seemingly small differences.

    Exactly. And since ninety-eight percent of our DNA is indistinguishable from that of the Bonobo chimpanzee, maybe we should start thinking about giving chimps the right to vote and hold public office. Hey–we couldn’t possibly do any worse than the politicians we’ve got now, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Joe Walker says: • Website

    And in Northern Ireland, DNA can distinguish the Protestant from the Catholics (even though they famously look alike to even the trained eye — Belfast taxi drivers display in their cabs on their licenses their pictures but not their surnames to prevent drunken passengers of the opposite religion from assaulting them for stupid sectarian reasons).

    Stupid or not, the fact that DNA can distinguish between the two groups shows that the reasons are tribal, not sectarian. The northern Ireland situation shows that any amount of genetic diversity can lead to conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. And in Northern Ireland, DNA can distinguish the Protestant from the Catholics (even though they famously look alike to even the trained eye …

    Of course it can. The Catholics are all almost entirely of indigenous stock, while the Protestants came mostly from the south of Scotland and the north of England starting around 1600 AD. There has been very little intermarriage at all because of the strong religious/political divide. And so, even though the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish, they forked from the latter about 14 centuries ago, so their bloodlines would now be fairly distinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruford or White
    "the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish"

    Utter nonsense.

    The vast majority of the indigenous population of Scotland is not remotely Gaelic Celtic.

    It would be more accurate - but sill misleading - to describe them as Anglo-Saxons .
    , @RebelWriter
    To pile on with Bruford or White, the Borderers who settled the Plantations were almost all Lowland Scots and Northern Englishmen, and had nearly identical ancestry. I have referred to it as Anglo-Saxon-Dane, though there is a smattering of Celtic DNA, but even that is smaller than the amount of Norwegian ancestry. Bernicia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom dating from the 6th Century which included most of the area from which the settlers came, and it was entirely invested by the Danes in the 9th Century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Flip says:
    @International Jew

    Belfast taxi drivers display in their cabs on their licenses their pictures but not their surnames to prevent drunken passengers of the opposite religion from assaulting them
     
    How would one tell from the surname? Maybe someone knowledgeable in Hibernian onomastics could have a word...

    Northern Irish Protestants have roots in Scotland and Northern England- the Scotch-Irish who settled much of the upper South in the US like Andrew Jackson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Tiny Duck
    The only reason their are differences is because of white perfidy

    400 years of oppression, obliteration, of degradation, of destruction of families, mass rape, of robbed labor and wealth, of stolen art and music, the theft of Rock and Roll! &...Roseanne wants to call it on her terms with a celebration of White Supremacy! Resist! at all costs!

    I DARE you to watch the vlogbrothers John and Hank Green

    Rosanne has yummy cookies. Try one!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Dan W. says:
    @al-Gharaniq
    1. I can't honestly fault Reich for trying to soften the message and appeal to liberals. He's seen what happens to those who speak truth to power—I doubt he wants to become a martyr like Charles Murray. Once branded as a racist, white supremacist, no one will ever read his book because it's just spewing racist hatred, you know.

    2. Liberals perplex me on the entire race debate. On the one hand, we have Reich reciting the orthodoxy of:

    “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.
     
    Yet then liberals do things like:


    But the Obama Administration sure got worked up over black students getting suspended three times more often for bad behavior even though there is plenty of variation in misconduct among youths.
     
    It seems liberals have this idea of "Schrödinger's race." Does acknowledging race exists as more than social construct make you a racist? Yes and no! It's racist if it negatively affects "minority" racial groups (which don't actually exist, mind you) and not racist if it positively affects minority racial groups (which do actually exist). To further extend the quantum analogy, if a policy that was at first not racist turns out to have negatively affected minority groups, then it was actually racist the entire time!

    Well said. The left’s fixation on race would be admirable if the intent was ensuring due process and equal justice under the law for all people. But what we have is the left using race as a means to claim political power over those who don’t want to live in a society fixated on race.

    The left says people should not be judged for the color of their skin. The non-left says it agrees – people should be judged for their individual actions. But then the left says NO! You can’t do that if it will yield a “racist” outcome.

    In short, the left wants the power to decide who wins and loses in society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    The left wants power! Full stop. Does not matter if power comes through commerce, or saving souls, or spreading civilization to savages. Progressives are everywhere and they get power through this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. hhsiii says:
    @istevefan
    OT - Thomas Edsal has an opinion piece in the NY Times about the breakdown of the 2016 election. There is some interesting stuff on the white working class vote. For example the excerpt below suggests that 1/3 of democrat voters and leaners are whites without degrees. This group is the largest bloc of democrat voters. Yet the democrats hate them. That's an awful lot of votes for the taking if the GOP would just adopt the Trump campaign agenda.

    Perhaps most significant, a March 20 Pew Research Center public opinion survey found that 33 percent of Democratic voters and Democratic leaners are whites without college degrees. That’s substantially larger than the 26 percent of Democrats who are whites with college degrees — the group that many analysts had come to believe was the dominant constituency in the party.

    According to Pew, this noncollege white 33 percent makes up a larger bloc of the party’s voters than the 28 percent made up of racial and ethnic minorities without degrees. It is also larger than the 12 percent of Democratic voters made up of racial and ethnic minorities with college degrees.

    In sum, Pew’s more precise survey methods reveal that when Democrats are broken down by education, race and ethnicity, the white working class is the largest bloc of Democratic voters and substantially larger than the bloc of white college-educated Democratic voters.
     

    Further, they estimate the white working class vote was about 44 percent of the entire vote.

    In a detailed analysis of the 2016 vote, Pew found that 44 percent, or 60.1 million out of a total of 136.7 million votes cast on Nov. 8, 2016 were cast by whites without college degrees — demographic shorthand for the white working class.

    Hillary Clinton won 28 percent of white working-class votes, according to Pew, less than Obama’s 36 percent in 2012. Still, a quarter of her total vote of 65.85 million — that is, 16.8 million votes — came from the white working class.
     

    Get ready to watch the democrats suddenly pretend to like whites like they did in PA-18. Of course this presents Trump and the GOP an opportunity to force the democrats to make votes that puts the white working class against the democrat fringe. That is why immigration is such a big deal. The white working class doesn't want it, but the democrat fringe does.

    How much of that 1/3rd is 18-21 year olds in college, just without degrees yet? Maybe not all that much but probably a relatively monolithic block.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    Good question. I don't have the demographic data at hand, but I bet you could come up with a good estimate if you knew how many white 18-21 year olds there are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @istevefan

    The border with Mexico is long but hardly undefensible.
     
    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either. Unbelievable as it might seem for a nation of over 100 million with the worlds's 11th largest GDP, Mexico has ZERO fighter jets in her air force. Zero. Nada. And it's not just the air force. The Mexican army has no main battle tanks.

    Contrast that to the world's greatest military super power who just received an extra $70 billion for its budget and there is no way one could consider defending that border as anything but a piece of cake.

    The thing is, Mexico pretty much settled its borders before the era of fighter jets and tanks. Therefore, they never really needed them. True, its border regions are still porous and relatively high in crime and corruption – but they rather have the classic Latin approach of “let the local crony handle it, I may or may not bring some public/private investment but keep the kickbacks coming, specially from drug lords and contraband”… an approach that pretty much happens in most Latin border regions, save those that have been contested for their resources and/or have some sort of autonomist/rebel bent, where the only difference is that a somewhat larger military presence is warranted, and the area looks kind of crappier and more desolated as a result. Ecuador and Peru, who did have a protracted border conflict, by the 90s had acquired several choppers and jets, and the last few flare-ups saw interesting dogfights before permanent peace was signed. The border regions were very crap, roads were terrible on purpose to delay a potential invasion, and contraband was rampant as Ecuador subsidized its gas. Today the area is relatively better under peacetime, more public investment, but still kind of shoddy and full of crooked people, specially as the left-liberal Ecuadorian government keeps tariffs on stuff that the country definitely doesn’t make while also keeping high business taxes – the Bernie recipe, btw – thus making life easy for contraband and Chamber of Commerce importers, and terrible for Ecuadorian peasants, manufacturers, and exporters that don’t make the same old commodities (banana, shrimp, et al). Compare this to Ciudad del Este, on the Paraguay-Brazil border, over which disputes ended way earlier, and where there is such thriving commerce (legal and otherwise) that people are nearly bilingual, even if there’s also the unavoidable rampant crime and inequality (lots of dirty money washed, specially as Paraguay is a more haphazardly run state), as stated above in the description of the average Latin border…

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    The thing is, Mexico pretty much settled its borders before the era of fighter jets and tanks. Therefore, they never really needed them.
     
    Couldn't you say the same about the USA and Canada? And you could say the same about Australia too.

    The bottom line is it is very embarrassing that a pathetically weak neighbor is able to demographically transform the world's greatest military power.

    BTW, Mexico doesn't need a military because the USA will not invade them, we don't want to inherit a hundred million Mexicans, and no one else would invade them because the USA would not tolerate that. So Mexico is receiving a huge "gift" in not having to invest billions into its armed forces like most nations of the world. But apparently they have squandered that gift along with the gift of having a resource-rich nation with access to the world's two greatest oceans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Whiskey
    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no "real successful White man" would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.

    Problem is, then the Bezos et al elites will say that the immavaders are refugees fleeing the nasty pro-Russian commies. As they have already done in some cases, such as with those coming from Cuba or Venezuela. These more middle- and upper-class people make for relatively better immigrant communities, to be fair, but large immigrant communities nonetheless. One only has to drive through Miami.

    What the American government needs to support in Latin America is pro-Putin center-right nationalists that aren’t against business but also that don’t want to sell their nations out, ergo keeping enough stability that guarantees no mass emigrations. Thing is, those have always been scarce, their role usually fulfilled by temporary and/or repressive military caudillos; the Latin right since WW2 has always been the internationalist Chamber of Commerce that can only be loved by old aristocracy (it has been funded by American thinktanks/CIA fronts after all). Ask a rich/white Hispanic, they vote right-wing in their countries but love Obama and Hillary, and hate Bush and Trump. For these reasons, populist/democratic nationalism in Latin America sadly tends to be leftwing and commie, with all the invectives against the gringos and the Imperio and whatnot. AMLO is the Mexican example. If he wins (probably), I wouldn’t get fully excited. While he doesn’t seem as radical as his real-life buddies Chavez and Maduro, you don’t want Venezuela just south of the river either. We shall see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. res says:
    @DPG
    I think he’s being sarcastic when he says “brilliant.” As in, he’s taking a relatively moderate position that should be shared by anyone who’s explored the evidence. As our host Steve likes to say, it’s a safe bet to say nature and nurture are about 50/50, but today it’s extremist not to say nurture is 100%.

    I don’t think you’re correctly characterizing the article when you say Sullivan spends paragraphs denouncing The Bell Curve. At one point he actually says that Murray falls “perfectly within the academic mainstream in studies of intelligence.”

    There is a backstory here. Sullivan, as editor of The New Republic, caused a furor by giving attention to TBC when it was first published. As a compromise, he allowed a number of rebuttals to be published as well. He needs to make the requisite denunciations of racism to keep his place in polite company. But the brisk language he uses towards Klein reveals where his loyalties lie in this debate. I suspect he’s believed in genetic racial differences since at least the time he covered TBC in TNR.

    That’s a fair response (I looked through the article again). Thanks (especially for reminding me of the backstory). I read the bit below too reflexively:

    Reich’s point about the importance of reasonably discussing these questions so as to avoid irresponsible abuse of the information is precisely the reason I remain proud of having published well over a dozen reasoned, eloquent rebuttals to Charles Murray’s core (The Bell Curve) argument on race and IQ in The New Republic.

    And then didn’t pay close enough attention to his opinion of Murray vs. those he quoted.

    Read your way, the part I quoted in my original comment comes off more as “see, TBC was right.” Which is a very different message.

    I wonder which way the anti-Reich folk will read it.

    P.S. Is your memory that those “reasoned, eloquent rebuttals” were actually as described? My recollection is that few (if any?) Bell Curve rebuttals fell into that category in anything but a relative sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. J.Ross says: • Website
    @hhsiii
    Mc vs. O’

    Is Mc abbreviated from Mac?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. res says:
    @Anonymous
    That four-fifths rule is discussed in this definitive article about the legal doctrine of disparate impact by Amy Wax, the Penn Law professor who has been the target of a couple of recent Twitterstorms (the bourgeois culture op piece, and the Glenn Lowry podcast where she says that black law students tend to be in the bottom half of the class):

    https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dead-end-of-disparate-impact

    There is a more documented law review article underlying this:

    http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1351

    The National Affairs article is very clear and readable; the law review article is mostly ... footnotes.

    Disparate impact is one of several areas where the assumption that black and white people have identical ability is baked into hard law as an assumption, so everything that follows is kind of crazy by definition.

    The Wax piece explains the absurdity that results from this, along with surfacing some undefined parts of the doctrine, such as exactly what population is the basis for the comparison, nationwide, local, some level of qualified, or what?

    Thanks for the references! Your law review link was broken for me, but I was able to download the article from http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/352/
    (which actually points to the same place as your link, but adds a context tag)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. M_Young says:

    I’ve never understood why this line about ‘much more variation between individuals than groups’ isn’t a classic ecological fallacy. You’re not starting with the same unit of analysis, so you can’t really compare the things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. M_Young says:
    @Whiskey
    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no "real successful White man" would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.

    In the past few decades cops have learned very well how to control and manipulate crowds w/0 generating public (mostly female) ‘outrage’. Compare the reaction of cops to the G20 riots in, say, London with those of the 1968 Chicago cops bashing SDS demonstrators.

    The techniques learned against our own could easily be applied to illegal immigrants with just a little political will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. ” ‘Race’ has trivial predictive power about an individual person’s biological capabilities.”

    He’s right. The 27 point IQ difference between the average American black and the average Ashkenazi Jew is trivial.

    It’s not like if any ISteve reader woke up tomorrow with 27 more IQ points he’d be a Newton level genius, or anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Rosie says:
    @Whiskey
    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no "real successful White man" would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    Doesn’t that depend on who decides which photos “will go around the world causing massive feelz”?

    Moreover, our women feel that no “real successful White man” would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Sigh. I’m still waiting on that explanation of why 70% of women in Georgia voted for Trump. I guess I’ll be waiting for a very long time.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. The really nasty thing about biased “scientists” like Reich and Chetty is they have custody of critical artifacts/data to which the rest of the scientific community are granted inadequate access. It reminds me of the book about Ötzi I read by the guy initially given custody — don’t recall his name — who when questioned which living population is most related answered that since N generations had passed, there were 2^N descendants of he or his relatives so everyone is related to him. Fortunately, he didn’t destroy the evidence before it could show him to be a moron at best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. jb says:

    Once again I find myself quite happy with what Reich has to say. In fact other than his carefully self-protective use of diminutives (e.g., implying that a 15 point difference in average IQ should be considered “small” because individuals vary by more than that), I really find nothing to disagree with. Good job!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Steve Sailer
    One thing to keep in mind is that the main Bell Curve dataset, the 1980 Pentagon renorming of the AFQT using the NLSY79 has an excessively large white-black IQ gap of about 18.6 points. This is because the AFQT was 105 pages long and more blacks than whites, especially black males, who were doing poorly gave up part way through this endless test, so a lot of black guys who were headed for, say, a 75 wound up with a 65.

    When the AFQT was renormed in 1997 on the NLSY97 sample using computer testing where if you get several wrong in a row they feed you easier questions next, the white-black gap was only 14.7 points.

    I took the Asvab test back in 1983. It was hilariously easy; my buddy and I snickered all the way through. Third graders could pass it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals)

    Oh really? Perhaps Mr. Reich should take a tour of Japan and then a tour of sub-Saharan Africa. He might notice that those “small” average differences can really add up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Can someone help me understand where my thinking is going wrong on something. People such as Mr. Reich – and even people around here sometimes – keep telling me that you can’t judge a person on their race or population group because the differences between individuals is far larger than the group differences.

    Basically, judge a person on who they are as an individual, not by what race they belong to.

    However, due to regression toward the mean, doesn’t that only apply in situations where your interactions with an individual (and his children and relatives) will be less than one generation? Doesn’t the fact that the individual’s children (and relatives) will move back toward the group mean give me cause to judge an individual by their race if I will be dealing with either the individual’s relatives or children?

    So, for example, let’s say that I’m hiring for job. In this case, I very likely can judge a person by their individual traits and not their racial traits because I will only be interacting with the individual and our relationship won’t involve either their relatives or children.

    However, let’s use every liberal’s favorite example, the nice black couple moving into your neighborhood. The black couple may very well be quite nice and reasonably bright. But odds are that their children will move back to the black mean which means that they will be less bright and more violent. The same would hold true of the nice black couple’s relatives who may come to live or who may decide to live in your neighborhood now that there’s a black beachhead.

    In this example, why shouldn’t the white (or Asian) neighbors judge the black couple not on their individual merits but on their race? I suppose that one could argue that assortative mating would help their children, but there would still be regression to the mean and what about the relatives.

    The same reasoning would apply to immigration. Group differences and regression to the mean would argue in favor of judging people on their race rather than their individual merits anytime that will be dealing with a person and their family beyond one generation.

    How am I wrong? What am I missing?

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Seamus Padraig

    And in Northern Ireland, DNA can distinguish the Protestant from the Catholics (even though they famously look alike to even the trained eye ...
     
    Of course it can. The Catholics are all almost entirely of indigenous stock, while the Protestants came mostly from the south of Scotland and the north of England starting around 1600 AD. There has been very little intermarriage at all because of the strong religious/political divide. And so, even though the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish, they forked from the latter about 14 centuries ago, so their bloodlines would now be fairly distinct.

    “the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish”

    Utter nonsense.

    The vast majority of the indigenous population of Scotland is not remotely Gaelic Celtic.

    It would be more accurate – but sill misleading – to describe them as Anglo-Saxons .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    I suppose it depends on what you consider "indigenous". The Picts were in Scotland before the Scots. The Romans fought with Picts, not Scots. The Vikings acknowledged that the people of Orkney, whom they displaced, were different from the people on the mainland, who were Scots. What happened in between? Why do the Irish, Welsh, and Scots (and for that matter Bretons, Cornish, and Manx) speak related languages if they are not related?
    Genetic studies will tell you whatever they want. I know a brother and sister that did the "Ancestry DNA" thing, that showed they have different origins, even though they have the same parents whose families came from England. How can that be?
    How often do you hear that Human DNA found in Greece and Romania predates the "out of Africa" theory, and that it is found in Southern Africa at a later date? Humans share about 98% of their DNA with Bonobos apes, yet are profoundly different. James Watson was correct. We know little about how different combinations of DNA affect races and outcomes.
    Race = Species.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Seamus Padraig

    And in Northern Ireland, DNA can distinguish the Protestant from the Catholics (even though they famously look alike to even the trained eye ...
     
    Of course it can. The Catholics are all almost entirely of indigenous stock, while the Protestants came mostly from the south of Scotland and the north of England starting around 1600 AD. There has been very little intermarriage at all because of the strong religious/political divide. And so, even though the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish, they forked from the latter about 14 centuries ago, so their bloodlines would now be fairly distinct.

    To pile on with Bruford or White, the Borderers who settled the Plantations were almost all Lowland Scots and Northern Englishmen, and had nearly identical ancestry. I have referred to it as Anglo-Saxon-Dane, though there is a smattering of Celtic DNA, but even that is smaller than the amount of Norwegian ancestry. Bernicia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom dating from the 6th Century which included most of the area from which the settlers came, and it was entirely invested by the Danes in the 9th Century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Whiskey
    The border is indefensible. You are confusing military prowess with demographic prowess.

    There is no way a society like the US (or even Israel) can consistently shoot a mass of non military people trying to cross the borders. Our women (and Israeli women) will weep over the immavaders, there will be some dead toddler on a beach somewhere, and the photo will go around the world causing massive feelz.

    You could create a five million man army on the border and it could not stop Manuel and Marisela from coming over the border with their eight kids. The US military is configured to fight mobile warfare against armored threats, as is our society. Unless and until we are able to kill thousands or more of women and children swarming over the border with their men then no, the border is completely indefensible and will remain so.

    Moreover, our women feel that no "real successful White man" would be threatened by mass immavasion and only losers in all sense of the world want protection from unlimited immigration and labor competition and ethnic violence and the like. Thats just how women are hard-wired and there is no changing them.

    Now, if AMLO wins (please!) and allies with Putin and puts missiles there pointed at the US, that is a different story. If the Baronial Oligarchs like Gates, Murdoch, Buffett, Soros, and the Koch brothers are fearful that Putin and / or Xi will take some of their money, well all bets are off. Bezos will have the Post whip up stories about how Manuel and Marisela are taking orders from Vlad direct from the Kremlin and are a dangerous fifth column that needs to be deported yesterday.

    Come to think of it, promoting pro-Russian communism amongst Latinos and have them demand confiscation of anything over a billion among Whitey would be very good political ju-jitsu.

    The Germans in 1915 constructed a 2,000 Volt 125 mile electric fence between Belgium and Holland that even had it’s own power plant.

    Texas has it’s own isolated power grid.

    —-

    Efficient

    The main purpose of the wire was to guard the Belgian-Dutch border. Border patrol required so many soldiers who could be deployed elsewhere, that the German occupation authorities choose for this ‘efficient solution’.
    In the first weeks after the war started, Belgians began to cross the border to Holland. In autumn 1914 already one million Belgian refugees stayed in the Netherlands. In the next months many of them returned. Eventually about 100,000 would stay, until the end of the war.
    But during all years of the war new refugees kept coming and, almost daily, tried to cross the border. Their reasons to flee were diverse: some felt unsafe in their German occupied country, others wanted to join their relatives who had already fled. Many also wanted to take part in the war and choose this detour to join the forces on the allied front.

    Daily

    A victim lies between the contact wires.
    How many people the fence killed is unknown. Estimates vary from 2,000 to 3,000. Local newspapers in the south of Netherlands (bordering Belgium), from spring 1915 on, carry almost daily small messages about people ‘lightened to death’.
    Not every crosser died though. Many also succeeded in crossing the dangerous border. Today people whose (grand)parents lived here, still can show you wooden sash-windows and casks, used to force a safe entrance through the entanglement. Sometimes they also used very long wooden ladders; when applied from both sides they worked as a scaffolding.
    The fence also drove family’s and friends apart. Funeral-processions used to walk to the fence and halt there, to give relatives and friends on the other side the opportunity to pray and say farewell to the deceased.

    http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-fence.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. istevefan says:
    @Disordered
    The thing is, Mexico pretty much settled its borders before the era of fighter jets and tanks. Therefore, they never really needed them. True, its border regions are still porous and relatively high in crime and corruption - but they rather have the classic Latin approach of "let the local crony handle it, I may or may not bring some public/private investment but keep the kickbacks coming, specially from drug lords and contraband"... an approach that pretty much happens in most Latin border regions, save those that have been contested for their resources and/or have some sort of autonomist/rebel bent, where the only difference is that a somewhat larger military presence is warranted, and the area looks kind of crappier and more desolated as a result. Ecuador and Peru, who did have a protracted border conflict, by the 90s had acquired several choppers and jets, and the last few flare-ups saw interesting dogfights before permanent peace was signed. The border regions were very crap, roads were terrible on purpose to delay a potential invasion, and contraband was rampant as Ecuador subsidized its gas. Today the area is relatively better under peacetime, more public investment, but still kind of shoddy and full of crooked people, specially as the left-liberal Ecuadorian government keeps tariffs on stuff that the country definitely doesn't make while also keeping high business taxes - the Bernie recipe, btw - thus making life easy for contraband and Chamber of Commerce importers, and terrible for Ecuadorian peasants, manufacturers, and exporters that don't make the same old commodities (banana, shrimp, et al). Compare this to Ciudad del Este, on the Paraguay-Brazil border, over which disputes ended way earlier, and where there is such thriving commerce (legal and otherwise) that people are nearly bilingual, even if there's also the unavoidable rampant crime and inequality (lots of dirty money washed, specially as Paraguay is a more haphazardly run state), as stated above in the description of the average Latin border...

    The thing is, Mexico pretty much settled its borders before the era of fighter jets and tanks. Therefore, they never really needed them.

    Couldn’t you say the same about the USA and Canada? And you could say the same about Australia too.

    The bottom line is it is very embarrassing that a pathetically weak neighbor is able to demographically transform the world’s greatest military power.

    BTW, Mexico doesn’t need a military because the USA will not invade them, we don’t want to inherit a hundred million Mexicans, and no one else would invade them because the USA would not tolerate that. So Mexico is receiving a huge “gift” in not having to invest billions into its armed forces like most nations of the world. But apparently they have squandered that gift along with the gift of having a resource-rich nation with access to the world’s two greatest oceans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. istevefan says:
    @hhsiii
    How much of that 1/3rd is 18-21 year olds in college, just without degrees yet? Maybe not all that much but probably a relatively monolithic block.

    Good question. I don’t have the demographic data at hand, but I bet you could come up with a good estimate if you knew how many white 18-21 year olds there are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “My idea is, contra both Hitler and Reich: Let’s not have invasions and conquests, just like we don’t have human sacrifice or cannibalism much anymore. We aren’t nomadic barbarians anymore, we are civilized peoples who have settled down in specific places that are clearly marked on maps.I realize that progressives these days have lost almost all interest in progress and instead obsess over the sins of the past and how to visit Bronze Age-style invasion and rapine upon those whom they assert enjoy historical privilege. In contrast, I prefer peace, protection of property, and rule of law and their extension where possible. But that makes me a reactionary in 2018 ”

    Except, of course, that modern immigration is in no way comparable to late Copper Age/early Bronze Age invasions by raiders intended on robbing, raping and murdering. Your comparisons are *absurd* . Furthermore, I see no reason why national borders and nations are needed at all. In fact, the existence of nations proves you wrong, that we are not that civilized: if we were truly civilized, we could have a World with no borders. The reasons why borders even exist is because people are not tolerant of different cultures and want separation. One of the traits of civilized people is being tolerant of people that are different from you. It is the uncivilized that want to use violence against others because they have a different culture, different social organization, different race, etc. So the existence of nations is proof that human beings are not civilized. In fact, the elite, which is far more sophisticated and civilized than common people, are much less nationalistic than ordinary people. They tend to decide whether they like people on their individual merits, and not on accidents of birth, such as the race or nation that one was born in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Furthermore, I see no reason why national borders and nations are needed at all.
     
    Okay, I will board animals at your house. Its a good business.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Forbes says:
    @al-Gharaniq

    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either.
     
    The drug cartels are quite militarized, however. They fall somewhere between non-state actor paramilitary groups and insurgency forces. While the U.S. could deal with them, insurgencies have proven particularly difficult for our conventional forces.

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it's staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it's got potential to be a budgetary black hole.

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it’s staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it’s got potential to be a budgetary black hole.

    Were this scenario to play out, it won’t be the budget that suffers a black hole…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Tiny Duck
    The only reason their are differences is because of white perfidy

    400 years of oppression, obliteration, of degradation, of destruction of families, mass rape, of robbed labor and wealth, of stolen art and music, the theft of Rock and Roll! &...Roseanne wants to call it on her terms with a celebration of White Supremacy! Resist! at all costs!

    I DARE you to watch the vlogbrothers John and Hank Green

    Classical music was stolen by white men from PoC during colonialism and slavery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. MEH 0910 says:

    That’s why those racist ideologues Herrnstein and Murray never mention the existence of bell curves in The Bell Curve … Oh, wait … It actually turns out that the Bad Guys like Herrnstein and Murray spend a lot more time talking about variance and overlap than the Good Guys like Gould, who mostly get worked up over the difference in means.

    Freddie deBoer says that he’s going to write a book about the importance of variance in intelligence, while denying that there is any difference in means between the races.

    https://fredrikdeboer.com/2018/03/30/if-we-cant-sort-individual-difference-from-group-were-stuck/

    I have a book under contract about individual genetic variation and what it means for education, meritocracy, and the need for a new egalitarian social order to replace liberalism. That is, my interest lies in why John and Joe have different academic potentials, not why black and white or girls and boys might be perceived to. This is an absolutely essential distinction to understand, and yet nearly everything I’ve read in the popular press about this subject elides the two. That is an analytical mistake and a moral disaster. If you believe that black people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white, that is indeed racist, and in my view not supported by the research. If you believe that some individual students are born predisposed to be less intelligent than others, and that these predispositions profoundly shape academic outcomes, you are simply expressing the consensus view of experimental psychology, one established by literally hundreds of high-quality studies.

    https://fredrikdeboer.com/2018/03/30/my-book-is-in-fact-an-anti-race-science-book/

    Since this has come up – I am not writing a pro-race science book. I am writing a book that, among other things, is anti-race science. It unequivocally rejects the idea that different races have inherent differences in intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @res
    Thanks for linking that. Sullivan's article seems pretty reasonable overall, but I can't get past him simultaneously arriving at the same conclusion as The Bell Curve:

    My own brilliant conclusion: Group differences in IQ are indeed explicable through both environmental and genetic factors and we don’t yet know quite what the balance is.
     
    While spending paragraphs going on about how TBC was wrong.

    I’m seeing this more and more often. The good liberal will agree with everything the race realist believes, but only on the condition that we all agree that the race realist is a deplorable racist and wrong about everything and that the good liberal is a friend of science and an ally to all oppressed minorities. It’s all who/whom.

    As an aside, it has always struck me as odd the liberal’s fear that scientific understanding of racial differences would lead to discrimination/lynchings/segregation/etc. As a conservative and someone who lives among and knows conservatives, I always found this fear irrational, and always suspect the liberal of arguing in bad faith. But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.

    Race realists and conservatives, people who Thomas Sowell say have the “constrained vision”, understand that people are different and have different abilities and interests, and that these differences cause challenges that can (depending on the actual groups and actual differences) be overcome.

    But the liberal believes in superiority and inferiority and believes that the inferior need to be punished. This is why they relish the destruction of the white working class: they believe that poor whites have squandered their privilege and deserve their fates. This is also why they need to believe in racist conspiracies: they can’t reconcile their hatred for underachievers with their belief in human equality without believing that someone interfered with minorities’ opportunities.

    If this hypothesis is right, then if HBD starts to become generally accepted, the danger to minorities won’t come from the right, but from the left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    You can see how liberals have drifted from worshipping thinkers like John Stuart Mill to the sado-masochist Foucault.
    , @res

    But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.
     
    The projection hypothesis as an explanation for liberal behavior (not just bigotry, another good example is fear of violence from Trump supporters) explains a great deal. It is rapidly becoming my default hypothesis for explaining much behavior I have trouble accounting for otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @a Newsreader
    I'm seeing this more and more often. The good liberal will agree with everything the race realist believes, but only on the condition that we all agree that the race realist is a deplorable racist and wrong about everything and that the good liberal is a friend of science and an ally to all oppressed minorities. It's all who/whom.

    As an aside, it has always struck me as odd the liberal's fear that scientific understanding of racial differences would lead to discrimination/lynchings/segregation/etc. As a conservative and someone who lives among and knows conservatives, I always found this fear irrational, and always suspect the liberal of arguing in bad faith. But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.

    Race realists and conservatives, people who Thomas Sowell say have the "constrained vision", understand that people are different and have different abilities and interests, and that these differences cause challenges that can (depending on the actual groups and actual differences) be overcome.

    But the liberal believes in superiority and inferiority and believes that the inferior need to be punished. This is why they relish the destruction of the white working class: they believe that poor whites have squandered their privilege and deserve their fates. This is also why they need to believe in racist conspiracies: they can't reconcile their hatred for underachievers with their belief in human equality without believing that someone interfered with minorities' opportunities.

    If this hypothesis is right, then if HBD starts to become generally accepted, the danger to minorities won't come from the right, but from the left.

    You can see how liberals have drifted from worshipping thinkers like John Stuart Mill to the sado-masochist Foucault.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Nick Diaz
    Steve Sailer:

    "My idea is, contra both Hitler and Reich: Let’s not have invasions and conquests, just like we don’t have human sacrifice or cannibalism much anymore. We aren’t nomadic barbarians anymore, we are civilized peoples who have settled down in specific places that are clearly marked on maps.I realize that progressives these days have lost almost all interest in progress and instead obsess over the sins of the past and how to visit Bronze Age-style invasion and rapine upon those whom they assert enjoy historical privilege. In contrast, I prefer peace, protection of property, and rule of law and their extension where possible. But that makes me a reactionary in 2018 "

    Except, of course, that modern immigration is in no way comparable to late Copper Age/early Bronze Age invasions by raiders intended on robbing, raping and murdering. Your comparisons are *absurd* . Furthermore, I see no reason why national borders and nations are needed at all. In fact, the existence of nations proves you wrong, that we are not that civilized: if we were truly civilized, we could have a World with no borders. The reasons why borders even exist is because people are not tolerant of different cultures and want separation. One of the traits of civilized people is being tolerant of people that are different from you. It is the uncivilized that want to use violence against others because they have a different culture, different social organization, different race, etc. So the existence of nations is proof that human beings are not civilized. In fact, the elite, which is far more sophisticated and civilized than common people, are much less nationalistic than ordinary people. They tend to decide whether they like people on their individual merits, and not on accidents of birth, such as the race or nation that one was born in.

    Furthermore, I see no reason why national borders and nations are needed at all.

    Okay, I will board animals at your house. Its a good business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @al-Gharaniq

    Add to this that Mexico is not exactly a military power either.
     
    The drug cartels are quite militarized, however. They fall somewhere between non-state actor paramilitary groups and insurgency forces. While the U.S. could deal with them, insurgencies have proven particularly difficult for our conventional forces.

    Imagine just a handful of IEDs or conventional explosives lobbed at the wall daily (or nightly) by these cartels. The amount of upkeep and repair costs would add up over time. Unless it's staffed with a large amount of personnel and/or an automated defense system, it's got potential to be a budgetary black hole.

    In fact, they did threaten that and not with IEDs, but with special-operation type assassination of law enforcement officers in the United States. It did not help that Los Zetas at the time indeed were trained(perhaps even with US dollars) to conduct specifically those types of strikes and would be amply supported by signal and human intelligence almost on a level of a state antagonist.

    Such attacks would be difficult to negotiate, as they do not quite rise to the level of a state threat but are far more dangerous than usual criminal or even terrorist sources(who, despite funding, are likely more impoverished than the cartels).

    Texas at the time responded by threatening to hire mercenaries, which were also “not actually a state but capable of state-level operations.” I don’t know how it would actually play out had the threats been realized on both sides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. res says:
    @a Newsreader
    I'm seeing this more and more often. The good liberal will agree with everything the race realist believes, but only on the condition that we all agree that the race realist is a deplorable racist and wrong about everything and that the good liberal is a friend of science and an ally to all oppressed minorities. It's all who/whom.

    As an aside, it has always struck me as odd the liberal's fear that scientific understanding of racial differences would lead to discrimination/lynchings/segregation/etc. As a conservative and someone who lives among and knows conservatives, I always found this fear irrational, and always suspect the liberal of arguing in bad faith. But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.

    Race realists and conservatives, people who Thomas Sowell say have the "constrained vision", understand that people are different and have different abilities and interests, and that these differences cause challenges that can (depending on the actual groups and actual differences) be overcome.

    But the liberal believes in superiority and inferiority and believes that the inferior need to be punished. This is why they relish the destruction of the white working class: they believe that poor whites have squandered their privilege and deserve their fates. This is also why they need to believe in racist conspiracies: they can't reconcile their hatred for underachievers with their belief in human equality without believing that someone interfered with minorities' opportunities.

    If this hypothesis is right, then if HBD starts to become generally accepted, the danger to minorities won't come from the right, but from the left.

    But I am coming to think an alternative hypothesis is more possible: the liberal is projecting his bigotry onto others.

    The projection hypothesis as an explanation for liberal behavior (not just bigotry, another good example is fear of violence from Trump supporters) explains a great deal. It is rapidly becoming my default hypothesis for explaining much behavior I have trouble accounting for otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Romanian says: • Website
    @Dan W.
    Well said. The left's fixation on race would be admirable if the intent was ensuring due process and equal justice under the law for all people. But what we have is the left using race as a means to claim political power over those who don't want to live in a society fixated on race.

    The left says people should not be judged for the color of their skin. The non-left says it agrees - people should be judged for their individual actions. But then the left says NO! You can't do that if it will yield a "racist" outcome.

    In short, the left wants the power to decide who wins and loses in society.

    The left wants power! Full stop. Does not matter if power comes through commerce, or saving souls, or spreading civilization to savages. Progressives are everywhere and they get power through this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Bruford or White
    "the Scots are also Gaelic Celts just like the Irish"

    Utter nonsense.

    The vast majority of the indigenous population of Scotland is not remotely Gaelic Celtic.

    It would be more accurate - but sill misleading - to describe them as Anglo-Saxons .

    I suppose it depends on what you consider “indigenous”. The Picts were in Scotland before the Scots. The Romans fought with Picts, not Scots. The Vikings acknowledged that the people of Orkney, whom they displaced, were different from the people on the mainland, who were Scots. What happened in between? Why do the Irish, Welsh, and Scots (and for that matter Bretons, Cornish, and Manx) speak related languages if they are not related?
    Genetic studies will tell you whatever they want. I know a brother and sister that did the “Ancestry DNA” thing, that showed they have different origins, even though they have the same parents whose families came from England. How can that be?
    How often do you hear that Human DNA found in Greece and Romania predates the “out of Africa” theory, and that it is found in Southern Africa at a later date? Humans share about 98% of their DNA with Bonobos apes, yet are profoundly different. James Watson was correct. We know little about how different combinations of DNA affect races and outcomes.
    Race = Species.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?