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

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour

Evan L. MacLean†, Noah Snyder-Mackler†, Bridgett M. vonHoldt and James A. Serpell
Published:02 October 2019 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0716
Abstract
Variation across dog breeds presents a unique opportunity to investigate the evolution and biological basis of complex behavioural traits. We integrated behavioural data from more than 14 000 dogs from 101 breeds with breed-averaged genotypic data (n = 5697 dogs) from over 100 000 loci in the dog genome. We found high levels of among-breed heritability for 14 behavioural traits (the proportion of trait variance attributable to genetic similarity among breeds). We next identified 131 single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with breed differences in behaviour, which were found in genes that are highly expressed in the brain and enriched for neurobiological functions and developmental processes, suggesting that they may be functionally associated with behavioural differences. Our results shed light on the heritability and genetic architecture of complex behavioural traits and identify dogs as a powerful model in which to address these questions.

From Science News:

Using data from over 14,000 dogs described in C-BARQ, the researchers gave each breed a score for 14 different behaviors, and then searched for overall genetic similarities among breeds that had similar scores. For traits such as aggression toward strangers, trainability and chasing, the researchers found that genes contribute 60 to 70 percent of behavioral variation among breeds. Poodles and border collies, for example, had higher trainability scores, while Chihuahuas and dachshunds had higher aggression toward strangers.

Energy level and fearfulness showed a smaller genetic contribution, about 50 percent, suggesting that differences in environment or training play an equally important role in shaping those behaviors.

I’d be interested in seeing studies of how much variation there is among individuals of a single breed. My impression is that animals are more individualist, even eccentric than one might theorize.

It’s what I might call the Lewontin Question: how much diversity is there within a group versus across groups? People tend to have a hard time thinking about this question, being inclined to all or nothing answers, when the glass is almost inevitably part full and part empty.

 
Hide 164 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dog breeds are an excellent analogy for human races. To be politically correct, we would have to think of them as canine constructs.

  2. syonredux says:

    My impression is that animals are more individualist, even eccentric than one might theorize.

    Very much so. I’ve owned three German Shepherds (two of them were siblings) , and each one had a distinct personality.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    , @Dr. X
  3. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that there is more variation within group than between groups. But who knows, for many characteristics, such as hair/fur type, within groups tend to be pretty homogeneous or multimodal .

  4. So, we can have dog breeds, but we can’t have human races (let alone their differences). Interesting …..

    • Replies: @niteranger
    , @Hypnotoad666
  5. anon[645] • Disclaimer says:

    For traits such as aggression toward strangers, trainability and chasing, the researchers found that genes contribute 60 to 70 percent of behavioral variation among breeds.

    There must be some mistake. Everyone knows that evolution stops at the neck.

    • LOL: Dan Hayes
  6. Franz says:

    Poodles and border collies, for example, had higher trainability scores, while Chihuahuas and dachshunds had higher aggression toward strangers.

    True from experiential testing. My mother got a poodle late in life and I was horrified, thinking they were like nervous beasties as portrayed in movies.

    Turns out poodles are quite bright, often friendly and very adaptable. And that’s why the movies used them as “gag dogs” for many years: Well-behaved and highly trainable, they can respond to cues better than average dogs.

    One local vet, who was mom’s poodle doctor, told me that chihuahuas and dachshunds were often overbred. That can have some accumulated negative influence on behavior.

    Sort of like humans.

  7. t says:

    OT: 18-year-old hit in the head on CTA bus as passenger shouted anti-immigrant comments

    https://wgntv.com/2019/10/03/hate-crime-investigation-underway-after-18-year-old-hit-in-the-head-on-cta-bus/

    Notice that the online article mentioned that the attacker was black but the video version that was seen by far more people on TV did not. Currently Marquette Park is half black half hispanic with the hispanics who have higher incomes moving into the black section but a good number of suburbanites still think it’s full of confederate flag waving Lithuanians and the American Nazi party.

  8. @Buzz Mohawk

    Dog breeds are an excellent analogy for human races.

    I don’t really see how. Regardless of their usefulness or cuddliness to human beings, all dogs everywhere are nothing but degraded and mutilated wolves, and pitiful reflections of their wild forebears.

    Like any domesticated plant or animal, the modifications introduced by selective breeding are not improvements but injuries done to the overall fitness of the creature. Excessive milk production, needlessly large tubers, absent seed coats—what are these but grotesques? The greater the modification, the worse the creature is adapted to survive in the wild.

    Human beings are not degraded or modified descendants of something else. We are not domesticated livestock. I can only surmise that the true and primary racial difference (i.e. that between Africans and everyone else) resulted from a sudden cleavage of the human essence into a subgroup more blighted, bestial, and punished than the others. The story concerning the sons of Ham is true. The other racial differences are incidental terroir resulting from landscape and diet.

  9. @syonredux

    Yeah, and yet I’m sure not one of them had the personality of a typical Chihuahua.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  10. @Franz

    I had a cocker spaniel in the 1960s. They had been the most popular dog breed in America around 1960, but they got too inbred or something, developed a bad reputation, and fell way out of fashion.

  11. @Intelligent Dasein

    There’s a certain amount of “noble savagery” in what you’ve said here.

  12. To get a more complete analogy to humans, I think we need to bring wolves into the picture. Specifically: wolves have a lot more genetic diversity than do dogs, in the sense that every dog line can be traced back to wolves, but there are a whole lot more lines that exist among wolves alone. And yet, despite their greater genetic diversity, wolves are off by themselves in terms of behavior.

    What I’m trying to say is that Africans are to wolves as Eurasians are to dogs.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  13. Dan Hayes says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    Babies’ birth names like dog breeds come into and fall out of fashion!

  14. Each dog has its own personality, which is often a reflection of that of its owners. However, they also usually run true to breed in characteristic behaviors. My black Labrador, Sally, is very true to breed as:

    1. She is fanatical about playing fetch and catching tennis balls. Would make a great ball dog for tennis championships.
    2. She is very good with small children.
    3. She barks as a warning only, if someone knocks on the door, but never shows her teeth at anyone.
    4. She loves to swim.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Alden
  15. syonredux says:
    @International Jew

    Yeah, and yet I’m sure not one of them had the personality of a typical Chihuahua.

    Probably.One has to be aware of variation within breed norms.For example, a friend of mine has a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, a notoriously unfriendly and strong-willed breed. Yet his dog is surprisingly friendly and affectionate.Compared to “Chessie” sweetness norms, he’s 99th percentile.On the Labrador sweetness scale, though, he’d be barely 50th percentile.

  16. Charon says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Virtually all breeds are inbred/overbred. Just one more category of how human vanity screws everything up.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  17. I’m still trying to get the trans ideology proponents to answer the question: do dogs have genders? When I throw the ball and the dog brings it back, do I say “good boy” or “good girl”? How do I know what to say?

  18. fnn says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Likely most of the dogs in the world are free-ranging pariah-type dogs in the Third World.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  19. @Bardon Kaldian

    There will be no more discussion of this according to the ADL, AIPAC, and BLM. The Message is Clear: Dogs iz Racist! So there!

  20. syonredux says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    I know someone who has a Lab that hates water; when he was a pup, he almost drowned and was , apparently, permanently traumatized. My friend knows other Lab owners and often invites them (and their dogs) over to his house. Their Labs spend a good chunk of the visits romping about in the pool, but my friend’s dog sticks to dry land.

  21. anon[645] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Human beings are not degraded or modified descendants of something else. We are not domesticated livestock.

    So no such thing as “dysgenic”? Seems legit.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
  22. Cortes says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Dog breeds = razas caninas in Spanish.

    Just saying…

  23. We had two litter mate Bichon females–beautiful, but even after 14 years we were not certain they knew their own names. The one sign of intelligence was the ability of one to distract you while the other tipped over the garbage can and crawled in. The poodles we’ve had gave daily evidence of intelligence

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  24. KR says:

    May I ask the obvious question: What’s the difference between a breed and a race?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  25. The morphological plasticity of dogs is much much higher than humans though. The smallest breeds weigh less than five pounds, the largest more than an order of magnitude more. (Talking about breed size not obese one offs)

  26. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Human beings are not degraded or modified descendants of something else. We are not domesticated livestock. I can only surmise that the true and primary racial difference (i.e. that between Africans and everyone else) resulted from a sudden cleavage of the human essence into a subgroup more blighted, bestial, and punished than the others. The story concerning the sons of Ham is true. The other racial differences are incidental terroir resulting from landscape and diet.

    The Genesis/Book of Enoch Annunaki /Nephilim enthusiasts, of course, would beg to differ. I doubt blacks are in a state of divine punishment because they tend to be very happy critters in their native environment or in one created for them by more sophisticated beings that accords to their natural impulses. Go to a black Baptist church some Sunday where the Rev. can play the Hammond B-3 well, you’ll see. Blacks experience wild swings of happiness and terror but overall, they themselves are not that unhappy. They make other people unhappy where they are mixed in in a society where their nature is not provided for and controlled.

  27. dearieme says:

    What about corgis: they are heelers aren’t they? Do they run around nipping at people’s feet?

    • Replies: @Cortes
  28. Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour

    Obligatory:

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  29. @fnn

    Did any current breeds emerge less from planned adaptation programs than from genetic drift and differential selection pressures due to geographic isolation?

    A lot of breeds are named after places, but I don’t know whether any of them emerged unplanned. Or do dogs just everywhere and always gravitate back toward that 35 pound pointy nosed short-haired yellowish pariah dog you see in much of the Third World?

  30. Cortes says:
    @dearieme

    Cattle herders, originally, I believe.

    I’ve seen border collies herd cattle and they have to dodge kicks constantly. The lower profile of corgis – able to nip above the hoof and retreat sharpish – makes me think the stories my Welsh sister in law (grew up on a hill farm, big flock of sheep, one or two cows) told might be true.

    • Replies: @Alden
  31. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    If you just want a pet with no working or sporting aspirations, a mixed breed dog is usually a better bet. Usually having one parent a total mutt and the other a purebred dog is more ideal than a total mutt, but dogs are individuals at that point so long as thy don’t strongly have characteristics of certain breeds with extreme chracteristics. If it looks like a chow dog, a pit bull or another such breed, may not be the best bet for “general pet” use.

    If you want a working dog or a dog to do something, always, always buy a purebred working, not show dog from a good breeder.

    There is a lesson in this example that can be applied to humans, however distasteful it may be to some.

  32. @ bardon kaidian-
    .
    no, horses, dogs, cats, goldfish, snakes, corn, roses, et cetera can be bred for certain characteristics; but there is a nekkid ape exception, which allows that EVERY and ALL genetic combinations are double plus good…
    .
    kind of like how ‘equal opportunity’ has been twisted to mean ‘equal ability’; so breeding has been disappeared from the nekkid ape experience…
    .
    as far as dogs, characteristics, etc… keerist on a krutch, how much do ‘researchers’ get paid to ‘prove’ what some -if not most- observant dog owners KNOW from their interactions with many, many dogs over many, many years ? ? ?
    .
    OF COURSE, dogs are individuals that can be outliers in all sorts of behavior characteristics that are otherwise common for their *ahem* breed… had all kinds of dogs and been around a bunch more since a young kid; and for whatever reason, all dogs love me… humans, not so much; but that’s okay, it would be horrible were it the other way around… 8^)
    .
    it always seems my current dogs are the best dogs ever, but i am really liking my one boy who is a southern black mouth cur/pitbull mix; and one of the smartest, loyalist, well-behaved, human-tolerant, other d0g-loving, talkative, bravest, and physically capable dogs i’ve had… super joyful to meet everyone (new pettings !), but if he locks his laser eyes on you, i would not make any sudden moves towards me… he is such a jaunty dog, he KNOWS the earth rotates because he jogs on it…
    .
    had a bunch of dobermans, and been around a bunch more… some ‘highly trained’ ones i would not turn my back on as i don’t trust them, but most are goofy clowns who love to romp and play… smart, loyal, elegant in their physical presence, curious, and affectionate to their pack… had a 135 pound dobie who was a total lap dog and love hound… no doubt, IF someone attacked me, he would have gone berserker; but barring that, other people existed to give pettings and treats and romp with, not menace them…
    .
    really and truly, some of the nastiest, meanest, out-of-control ‘dogs’ (by which i mean the yip-yap rodent-canine hybrids) are the chihuahuas and similar breeds… the thing is, a chihuahua ‘attacks’ a person, they have to put a tiny bandaid on their ankle… i would bet there are actually FAR more ‘attacks’ by yip-yap dogs, it is just that they don’t generally have serious results and therefore probably don’t get reported in any fashion, like emergency room records for dog bites…
    .
    a person who has bunch of cats is a crazy cat person; but if you have a bunch of dogs, it is just an enviable pack… 8^)

  33. Going back to my original hypothesis, that dogs were not domesticated from the northern wolf, but from a middle east / mediterranean version that loved to catch. The original dogs were not hunting helpmeets but frisbee fetching status symbols.

    • Replies: @Alden
  34. Using data from over 14,000 dogs described in C-BARQ ….

    Researchers are so clever in naming their studies these days: Like that Indian who called her study of Indian latrine habits a SQUAT survey.

  35. @Plus Jones

    The poodles we’ve had gave daily evidence of intelligence.

    Good luck finding a job with CNN.

  36. @anon

    The horror. And those are just the white people at the grocery store.

  37. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    One of my daughters trained both her dogs to ride on surf boards by themselves. She’d paddle out with them then get off and swim while they ride the board in.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  38. @Dr. DoomNGloom

    I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that there is more variation within group than between groups.

    Yep. It is easy to see. Consider the arithmetic means (and feel free to apply other means, if you have a notion to do so) and your thesis will be confirmed.

    Our opponents affirm the contradictory, statistics be damned.

    Now, how can we reason with them?

  39. nurdle says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    If I understand Gregory Clark correctly, in western europe we domesticated ourselves through civil institutions.

  40. @KR

    May I ask the obvious question: What’s the difference between a breed and a race?

    As another poster pointed out above, in the Spanish language it is the same word, so I guess the difference is just a linguistic one.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  41. @Intelligent Dasein

    You seem to be a religious person, so bear with this modern deist while he attempts to explain the analogy:

    If God bred the human races via the environmental demands in different parts of the world, then Man bred dogs according to whatever demands he placed on those breeds. As God is to man in the evolution of human races, Man is to dog.

    If you understand how simple, short-term evolution works, then you see how this analogy is inescapable.

    Your description of “grotesqueness” and whatever else, is only how you see it. What would you say if I told you that I find sub-Saharan Africans “grotesque,” because I often do. Yet, I understand that they evolved to be that way because of 60,000 years separated from the rest of us by their God-given environment.

    My German Shepherd dog is smart, disciplined, trainable, trustworthy and loyal. His “race” was selected over time for those traits. Other breeds, like other races of humans, not so much.

    As commenter Cortes pointed out, the Spanish term is “razas caninas,” and it could not be more accurate.

  42. Sean says:

    Lewontin Question: how much diversity is there within a group versus across groups?

    If there is more diversity within a group than between it and a second group then the genes being used to assess diversity are certainly not those genes whose selection created the first group in contradistinction to the second. So unless one is discussing the differences that are under selection within a group (strength and aggression for a pitbull, learning ability and joy in herding for working sheepdog) it is not a glass half full argument, it is an apples and oranges argument.

    I’d be interested in seeing studies of how much variation there is among individuals of a single breed. My impression is that animals are more individualist, even eccentric than one might theorize.

    Pavlov chose wisely. Dogs are quite like humans in their conditionability, also because within a breed you get them with their own particular quirks and ridiculous compulsions. Even if that breed has been subject to selection against such personalities you will always get the odd one, because the aforementioned standard would be a false endpoint from evolution’s standpoint (there are always new circumstances to be dealt with and so in a population of genes don’t settle on a perfect state and stop). Similarly an ideal pet is not totally disciplined, but rather its mind wanders and it is a bit adventurous.

    https://embarkvet.com/dog-dna-diverges/

    Nonetheless, the take-home point here is that many parts of the dog genome, particularly those that do not influence phenotypic traits that are characteristic of a breed, are subject to random fluctuation in frequency. Furthermore, in breeds for which the population size is fairly small, the effect of genetic drift can be great.

  43. Alden says:
    @Cortes

    That’s true. corgis were bred in Wales to be able to run under the sheep.

    Greatest dog I ever knew was a standard size blue Merle collie my brother had. Every morning about 8/30 he herded 40-50 cows out to the fields and 3/30-4 home for miking. All by himself. He was expensive and superior, from a long line of expert cow herders. Expert breeding from a special cow herder breeder. Of course dairy cows are like robots. I don’t think steers can be herded that easily.

  44. Alden says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Dogs may be degraded wolves and essentially welfare parasites and beggars. But they’re a billion times more successful than wolves.

    Wolves have been almost exterminated in many places. They are dangerous to humans and livestock White people at least adore dogs, spend a fortune them, get angry when passers by object to being snarled at and attacked by their beloved mutt and meekly pick up the dog’s poop

    So I’d say, dogs are much more successful than wolves.

  45. @Steve Sailer

    Maybe the Siberian husky and other similar dogs like the Alaskan Malamute

    From Wikipedia:

    In 2015, a study using a number of genetic markers indicated that the Siberian Husky, the Alaskan Malamute and the Alaskan husky share a close genetic relationship between each other and were related to Chukotka sled dogs from Siberia. They were separate to the two Inuit dogs, the Canadian Eskimo Dog and the Greenland dog. In North America, the Siberian Husky and the Malamute both had maintained their Siberian lineage and had contributed significantly to the Alaskan husky, which showed evidence of crossing with European breeds that were consistent with this breed being created in post-colonial North America.

    Nearly all dog breeds’ genetic closeness to the gray wolf is due to admixture. However, several Arctic dog breeds show a genetic closeness with the now-extinct Taymyr wolf of North Asia due to admixture. These breeds are associated with high latitudes – the Siberian Husky and Greenland dog that are also associated with arctic human populations and to a lesser extent, the Shar Pei and Finnish spitz. An admixture graph of the Greenland dog indicates a best-fit of 3.5% shared material, however an ancestry proportion ranging between 1.4% and 27.3% is consistent with the data. This indicates admixture between the Taymyr wolf population and the ancestral dog population of these 4 high-latitude breeds. This introgression could have provided early dogs living in high latitudes with phenotypic variation beneficial for adaption to a new and challenging environment. It also indicates the ancestry of present-day dog breeds descends from more than one region.

  46. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You are obviously not acquainted with the nobility of the Blue Tick Coonhound.

  47. Alden says:
    @Neil Templeton

    The first domesticated dogs were the ones who discovered it was easier to hang around a caveman camp and beg than running around catching rabbits and other critters then squabbling with the rest of the pack for their share of the kill.

    I think pigs were domesticated the same way. Throw out some food and let them hang about till needed for a meal.

  48. @Bardon Kaldian

    So, we can have dog breeds, but we can’t have human races (let alone their differences). Interesting …..

    You must understand that the 70,000 years since humans left Africa is not nearly enough time to evolve different human traits. Never mind that the vast differences in dog breeds were developed in the last 150 years.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    , @anon
  49. @Dr. DoomNGloom

    ‘I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that there is more variation within group than between groups.’

    I dunno. Having owned a Labrador Retriever, my immediate reaction when I read about them being used as war dogs in Afghanistan was ‘that’s ridiculous.’

    It turned out their role was one where their sole duty was sniffing. Okay, that makes sense…

    To cite another example, a guy who was a couple of beers short of a full six-pack wandered into our back yard. When I came out there, Ralph was growling at him very uncertainly, like ‘you’re not supposed to be here. I should do something about this — but damned if I can figure out what.’

    Great animals. Guard dogs, they are not. You know those WW2 movie scenes with the SS men holding barking, snarling German Shepherds? If anyone ever decides to do a spoof, they should shoot the scene with a line of Labrador Retrievers.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  50. @Steve Sailer

    Did any current breeds emerge less from planned adaptation programs than from genetic drift and differential selection pressures due to geographic isolation?

    Depends what you mean by “planned adaptation.” Certainly lots of working breeds were just propagated based on which dogs were most useful to their owners, rather than according to any breeder’s master plan.

    Maybe the least planned of all could be something like a “ratter” or Rat Terrier, because they lived on farms and probably more or less supported themselves from what they could catch and eat. So the best rat catching characteristics would self-select with little or no human intervention.

    Rat Terriers were cherished as loyal hunting companions and efficient killers of vermin on 20th century American farms: as a result, they were one of the most popular dog types from the 1920s to the 1940s. However the widespread use of chemical pesticides and the growth of commercial farming led to a sharp decline in the breed from the 1950s onwards. Breed loyalists maintained the bloodline, leading to the modern Rat Terrier.

    The genetic diversity of the Rat Terrier has contributed to the overall health, keen intelligence, and soundness of the breed. Most modern breeds were developed from a few founding dogs and then propagated from a closed gene pool. In contrast, the Rat Terrier has benefited from a long history of refinement with regular outcrosses to bring in useful qualities and genetic variability.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Terrier

    • Replies: @Old Prude
  51. Dr. X says:
    @syonredux

    Yes, and you can see this more clearly in the unique personalities of cats and rabbits, which are less trainable than dogs, so the variety of personalities is more likely to be genetic than environmental.

    Right now I’ve got a cat who is lithe, agile, engaging, arrogant, obnoxious, and smart as a whip. He is truly the “top cat.” I also have a second cat who is very loving, but shy, quiet, lethargic, and obese. He’s much dumber than the first one, but very sweet and innocent.

    Night and day.

  52. There are Mastiffs and there are all other “dogs”

  53. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    ot:

    Why New York City Stopped Building Subways
    Nearly 80 years ago, a construction standstill derailed the subway’s progress, leading to its present crisis. This is the story, decade by decade.

    ………

    Most challenging of all is the shockingly high cost of subway construction. Anyone would expect costs to have risen since the early days of the system, but the cost of the proposed Second Avenue line is nearly eight times what a comparable project cost in the 1980s, when adjusted for inflation.* Procurement problems and labor relations issues are partial explanations, but the most important factor may be the wholesale loss of experience resulting from the decade-long gaps in construction. One of the distinct characteristics of European systems with much lower building costs is continuous construction: Every time they complete a new line, they are able to apply the lessons from the one previous. But in New York, from the opening of the Archer Avenue Line in 1988 to the construction of the 7 train extension and Second Avenue lines in the 2010s, virtually all the experience and knowledge that had been built up in subway construction had atrophied.

    The same situation risks repeating itself, as the Second Avenue construction has been completed with no new construction immediately on the horizon. The subway’s cost-induced construction paralysis becomes more severe with every passing decade. We must learn from history in order to break it.

    Why can’t they just import English and French experts?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Alden
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  54. Highly heritable and functionally relevant breed differences in dog behaviour

    In other words, some dogs cannot hunt for themselves, are functionally useless to others, and will rip each other apart at the drop of a hat while others operate in tight knit packs so they can successfully hunt and protect their territory from outsiders.

  55. @Steve Sailer

    Many breeds, like German Shepherds, were simply “around” for hundreds of years before someone standardized the breed. The locals all had a certain type of dog that was used for the same thing (hearding, protection, hunting rabbits, rats, deer, etc. There was a wide variance but because they all had to accomplish the same particular function and were somewhat related there were similarities. Von Stephanitz basically selected the shape, coloration, weight, and height of the German Shepherd and then bread for that. The ones that did not fit were ruthlessly culled.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  56. RAZ says:
    @Franz

    Pooodles are great dogs. Have had the large, standard poodles. Smart, loyal, good with kids, etc.

    Poodles are so great they now breed them with everything else to get Labradoodles, Golden Doodles, Cockapoos, Bernadoodles, etc. Though the guy who first bred poodles with Labradors recently lamented that he created a monster with the excessive breeding now being done by breeders who are not careful.

    • Agree: baythoven
  57. fnn says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Did any current breeds emerge less from planned adaptation programs than from genetic drift and differential selection pressures due to geographic isolation?

    Certainly the African Basenji. And the very similar livestock guardian landraces that emerged from Romania to Mongolia:
    https://www.bankhar.org/bankhar-and-the-clarification-of-landraces-vs-breeds-part-i-cold-adaptive-features/

  58. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    Apropos of the recent immigration insurance post, The Globe and Mail (Canada’s equivalent to the New York Times) ran as its headline story this weekend an investigation into safety, ethics, and employment problems in the now immigrant-dominated trucking industry. This is noteworthy since the Globe’s default position is that immigration is the greatest thing ever, and that more is always better. An editorial writer can take pretty much any position they want, but if they mention immigration, they’d better support more of it.

    link

    They fail to make the obvious connections(pretty much everyone they talk to is Punjabi, rather than just Indian). They also fail to discuss the odd-sounding pattern that so many of the drivers they interview started out as “students”. More clued in observers have pointed out that Indians have been gaming the international student system in Canada, applying to take the minimum number of courses, often at scam colleges, then getting a job, working far more hours than their student visas permit, then getting their employer to sponsor them for permanent residency. Some interesting passages:

    The Globe investigation has revealed that immigration authorities let trucking companies hire newcomers through the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, even when the carriers have a proven history of multiple-injury accidents, serious safety violations or exploitative labour practices.

    The Globe compiled data on the B.C. firms from hundreds of court files and other public records. Nearly one-third are either marginal operators or have had significant safety problems, or both. Since 2016, those 29 companies have received approval to hire 291 foreign drivers.
    Startlingly, three of those companies don’t even hold a safety certificate – the legal requirement to operate transport trucks. Yet, Employment and Social Development Canada gave them approvals to hire foreign drivers

    Some employers also make foreign recruits pay kickbacks, sources say, by telling them they must cover company expenses. The Globe found several small-claims cases against drivers for damage to vehicles, which is one way carriers avoid making insurance claims

    More than half the ads posted on government-hosted job sites, from 42 of the 96 companies, had generic e-mail addresses. Some listed the fax number of an immigration consultant’s office. In total, they were seeking 426 truck drivers.
    Local drivers have learned not to apply through those ads, because they are only looking for foreign applicants. “Some people even go to the trucking company for their application, and they say, ‘We don’t need drivers,’ ” says Pawanjit Khandal, who has been a trucker in B.C. for 20 years and is now looking to get out because his pay has shrunk 10 per cent in four years “Canadian drivers are the ones paying for it,” he says. “It is a side business [for carriers] to hire foreign workers and get the money from them. They work many more hours for the same or less pay.”

    Quick, someone alert Giovanni Peri or Alex Nowrasteh so they can educate Pawanjit how this is actually in his best interest. Of course being able to lament that immigration is lowering your wages is generally reserved for people with names like Pawanjit.

    Maybe if developed countries want to have a temporary foreign worker program, they should force the hiring companies to take out the immigration insurance. Want to bring a machine learning researcher for Google’s local office? You pay low premiums. Punjabi truck drivers who will be paying kickbacks and falsifying records? You pay more.

  59. Nick Diaz says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Very poor comparison. First of all, dog breeds have been genetically selected for specific traits. Such is not the case with humans. Dog breeds vary genetically much more distinctly than so-called human “races”. And guess what? *Different dog breeds can still produce viable offspring*. That is, they do not fit into the definition of belonging to different species.

    I have challenged Sailer to present a valid definition of “race”. He has failed. There is a valid definition for species, which is that of a category of living organisms that can only produce viable offspring among themselves. That is a clear biological defintiion. That is scientific. “Race” is not scientific.

    A race is a completely arbitratry construct based on randomlly selected phenotypical and morphological characteristics. In this particular case, skin color. You could, for instance, decide that a certain eye color represents a race, and then all white people with brown eyes would be lumped with Chinese and blacks. And a black man with blue eyes(yes, they exist) would be lumped together with a Swede that also has blue eyes.

    Steve Sailer’s definition of race as being who your family are is also not acceptable because there is also a clear definition of what a family is. Degrees of relatedness beyond the third degree are no longer considered to fit into the definition of a family. Where does it end? If we use reductio ad absurdum, then we are all family, since everything that is alive on Earth evolved from a single original living organism, probably some anaerobic bacteria living in some deep ocean vent some 3.5 billion years ago. Saying that race is who your family is, is not only a vague definition, it can be extended indefinitely to encompass everything alive that exists. A terrible definition.

    “Race”, like “sexuality” is a 19th centiry construct, the result of taxonomy, the Industrial Revolution and colonialism. “Race” literally did not exist in the past. The Greeks and Romans did not speak of “race”. They spoke of “peoples”(gentes) and “nations”(nationes), but they did not speak of race. They did note morphological and phenotypical characterists, like height and skin color, but they did not categorize people based on them, but rather on what people or nation they belonged to.

    • LOL: res, TWS
    • Troll: Alden, TTSSYF
  60. @Colin Wright

    You know those WW2 movie scenes with the SS men holding barking, snarling German Shepherds? If anyone ever decides to do a spoof, they should shoot the scene with a line of Labrador Retrievers.

    I would pay to see that – conversely, make them English Setters (who would basically head in whichever direction took their interest, ignoring the person holding the lead).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  61. anon[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    You must understand that the 70,000 years since humans left Africa is not nearly enough time to evolve different human traits. Never mind that the vast differences in dog breeds were developed in the last 150 years.

    And really, really, really do not even look at the Soviet / Russian experiment with foxes that has only been going on since 1959.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

  62. anon[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Why can’t they just import English and French experts?

    NYC should hire the Bavarians to build for them. Munich’s subway system is remarkable.

    • Replies: @Alden
  63. @Kratoklastes

    Are there comedians who tell jokes about dog breeds?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  64. Perhaps as interesting as the varieties of dogs is the variety of human attitudes towards them. A work animal, a companion, a display of wealth, a garbage disposal, a hunter, a guard, a meal, a filthy untouchable beast, an early warning system, man’s best friend – is there any other animal so variously entwined with humanity?

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Autochthon
  65. anon[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Cocker Spaniels look harmless, but they’ve got a hard enough bite to break a man’s leg.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  66. @anon

    My cocker spaniel bit a lot of my friends.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    , @TWS
    , @TWS
  67. Alden says:
    @Anonymous

    The laws of affirmative action forbid employing competent experienced trained skilled workers if they are White. That’s why.

  68. Alden says:
    @anon

    Bavarians are skilled competent experienced workers who do an excellent job. They’re also White. Therefore, it’s a violation of the laws of affirmative action to hire them for a government project

    • Replies: @anon
  69. Alden says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Why did you keep an untrained dog around? Why didn’t you train it to obey you?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  70. El Dato says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I don’t really see how. Regardless of their usefulness or cuddliness to human beings, all dogs everywhere are nothing but degraded and mutilated wolves, and pitiful reflections of their wild forebears.

    Like any domesticated plant or animal, the modifications introduced by selective breeding are not improvements but injuries done to the overall fitness of the creature. Excessive milk production, needlessly large tubers, absent seed coats—what are these but grotesques? The greater the modification, the worse the creature is adapted to survive in the wild.

    These are JUDGEMENTS which have no relevance to genetics or breeding.

    We are not domesticated livestock.

    You are completely wrong. Good luck trying to survive in an ice age setting with no central heating and a stick as tool.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  71. Alden says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Pseudo intellectual moron and idiot. Think you’re the only person in the world who knows a bit of Latin?

    The Roman word for people in general was indeed gentes. They also had a word for the different races of humans. Gentus. As in, the Nubian gentus is not the same gentus as the middle eastern White gentus north of Nubia.

    Greeks also had a word for all people in general and a different word for different races of people

    Suppose you learned that nonsense in college. Another example of why every college in the country should be shut down and every college employee sent to a detention camp.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Corvinus
    , @Nick Diaz
  72. One thing canine and hominid biodiversity have in common is that both are the result of human decisions. That’s why dogs aren’t “breedists”. To them, there’s no point.

    while Chihuahuas and dachshunds had higher aggression toward strangers.

    Do they mean real dachshunds, or those faddish bonsai ones?


    The real ones bark.

    • Replies: @Haruto Rat
  73. @Steve Sailer

    Are there comedians who tell jokes about dog breeds?

    I’m sure Ron Reagan has a stock of cat breed gags for the shows he hosts.

  74. @Alden

    Why did you keep an untrained dog around? Why didn’t you train it to obey you?

    You’re assuming. Maybe Steve did train it– to let his friends know it was time to go home.

    Especially this variety of friend:

  75. Nick Diaz says:
    @Nick Diaz

    You seem angry, boy. Got your panties stuck in your ass?

    When did the Romans speak of *races* which was my point from the start? The word gentus does not imply peoples divided by a notion of biology, you fool. Gentus simply means “peoples” and not races. They often used it to design peoples from the same vast geographical location, but that is *NOT* the same as race. For a so-called intellectual like you, you should understand the etiology of words better than a supposedly pseudo-intellectual like me.

    The Romans did *NOT* divide humans by biological characteristics. They noted biological characteristics, but noting biological characteristics and creating categorizations based on them are two very different things. They noted that the Celts were taller, fairer and blonder they were, and that the Nubians were darker than themselves, but “Nubian” and “Celt” are NOT racial categorizations. The Celts were a “people” and the many tribes “nations”. The same for the Nubians.

    *Show me where the Romans specifically divided human beings based on morphological or phenotypical characteristics.*

    The Romans spoke of peoples and nations, but not “races”. For instance, this is how St.Jerome described the barbarian invaders raiding the Eastern Empire:

    “Innumerabilis et ferocissimae nationes.”

    Again, nations and not races. Not a single word using as reference for blond Vandals their white skin or blond hair, or brown skin and slant eyes for the Huns. Go back to school, boy. Maybe then one day you can evolve to the level of being to being a moron and idiot.

    • Replies: @C. Van Carter
  76. @Prof. Woland

    After WWII the West abolished the Leistungsprüfung – that von Stephanitz had mandated (it be wayciss, see) – and bred for show (= American taste) tall, good-looking, with hips that lasted little over a year; it got so bad not even the police – who traditionally ran the best kennels – could get their hands on a good one any longer.

    Meanwhile the East honored the Founder and continued the old ways. Their Shepherds looked like a grossly oversized rat had forgotten himself with a compost heap, but I would pit them against a Border anytime.

    There are several teachable moments here 😛

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    , @kaganovitch
  77. @Nick Diaz

    I see. They purged “of pure race” from the Olympic Oath at about the same time they invented it. Was it something like Adam and Eve “dicovering they were naked”?

  78. Old Prude says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    My neighbor has a dog like this. He’s the smartest, meanest, killer son-of-a-bitch I’ve ever seen. He regularly kicks my dog’s ass, kills the neighbors chickens and outsmarts his owners.

  79. TTSSYF says:
    @Franz

    I’ve had poodles all my life and probably will never be without one. They are wonderful — like having very bright, three-year-old children. I’ve always trained mine to do a lot of tricks, and people are amazed by it.

    Poodles are also known for having a sense of humor, which I’ve seen in action when, recently, my miniature poodle would lure a friend’s very large dog (only about a year old) one way around the living room and then casually double back to lure it the opposite way. This went on for several minutes as the large dog would go back and forth trying to get at my dog to play with it.

    They are fantastic dogs, and mine have never had one hint of aggression. Yes, there are grooming costs, but that’s offset by saving on housecleaning bills (their coats don’t shed).

  80. @Nick Diaz

    There is a valid definition for species, which is that of a category of living organisms that can only produce viable offspring among themselves.

    Not true.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/are-neanderthals-the-same-species-as-us/

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  81. @nokangaroos

    You are 100% correct about that. I (we) have had many Shepherds, all but one had a German blood line, and they are definitely different from the Americans, both physically and mentally. The last German one I had was 76 pounds wet which if memory serves me was one pound over the minimum to qualify as a schutzhund. They are also edgier. My last shepherd was a Malinois. She was my bitch. At 45 lbs, she was the smartest and most dominant dog I ever saw. Great dogs but be prepared.

  82. @Anonymous

    In the UK they hire Austrians and Czechs, with Austrian gear, to replace old new railway track with new. I’m told Brits are being trained up to use the system.

    https://www.plassertheurer.com/en/machines-systems/track-renewal-laying.html

    • Replies: @Fen Tiger
  83. Some breeds of dog are known for their high intelligence and knowledge of world affairs. Here we see the famous Konni engaged in tripartite discussion with Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel,

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
  84. @nokangaroos

    After WWII the West abolished the Leistungsprüfung – that von Stephanitz had mandated (it be wayciss, see) – and bred for show (= American taste) tall, good-looking, with hips that lasted little over a year; it got so bad not even the police – who traditionally ran the best kennels – could get their hands on a good one any longer.

    I don’t know if it’s fair to blame Americans. Shiloh Shepherds (an American breed) are just as good looking as their parent breed German Shepherds and are much less susceptible to hip dysplasia.

  85. @Reg Cæsar

    One thing canine and hominid biodiversity have in common is that both are the result of human decisions.

    What about the dogs that decided to run away and withdraw their genes from the project?

    For a more extreme example, consider cavies (a.k.a. “guinea pigs”): did Quechua intentionally breed them to be so inert, timid and stupid, or perhaps they just didn’t care about some running away as cavies breed like, well, rodents that they are?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  86. Corvinus says:
    @Alden

    Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices. In a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

    Furthermore, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. For example, the California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The scientific name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it.

    Men and women had sought, and continue to seek, to explain sensory experience of our world. Thus, we affix labels to make sense of our environment. Race, biology, ethnicity–all are concepts created by human beings as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe. “Canis” refers to a real thing, but human beings designated that term—canis, which means “dog” in Latin, and also refers to their prominent teeth used for killing their prey. Dogs (like cats) did not magically appear as those animals automatically to human beings. People described the characteristics in a manner that made sense to them by developing criteria to differentiate the species in their natural habitats.

    Breeds are manufactured through selective breeding (artificial selection). A Boston terrier is an explicitly defined animal: the AKC ultimately decides which dog meets the criteria. I am probably stating the obvious here, but geographic isolation, and natural or sexual selection, have resulted in some alleles in human beings being more frequent in some groups compared to human beings, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes. As far as I know, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%. It also seems to me that this debate over race as a biological construct–I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct–originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  87. Corvinus says:
    @Alden

    Clearly, you need a lesson in history and biology.

    The notion of “race”, specifically “whites”, “European whites”, and “blacks”, came about as a result of Social Darwinism and imperialism in the late 1800’s–the distinction that separated “us” from “them”. In this manner, the “lowest-rung” whites were deemed superior in social standing than their darkie counterparts, while at the same time knew full well their “pecking order” within the European hierarchy. The following source offers extensive evidence to prove this point.

    http://science.jrank.org/pages/10962/Race-Racism-in-Europe-French-Revolution-Nation.html

    One of the first and most important thinkers of the nineteenth century to elaborate this view of society was Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau, who began publishing his L’essai sur l’inegalité des races humaines (Essay on the inequality of the human races) in 1853. Gobineau’s history presented human development for the first time as a contest of races. His book was heavily researched in an attempt to draw together the most up-to-date scholarship of the new realms of science, especially German archaeology and philology and French anthropology. He concluded that contemporary nations were the patrimony of a racial past defined by the conquest of weaker races by stronger ones. He posited three great races, the white, the black, and the yellow, that engaged in constant battle. For Gobineau, the victor and true driving force of human history was the white, or European, race. Yet, this victory came always at a price. Lesser races never disappeared. Instead, they mixed into the conquering races, leaving a weaker whole. The mixture, in fact, elevated lower races, in which he included the yellow and the black and their lingering influence among European peasantry and urban working classes, while the white race was degraded.

    Georges Vacher de Lapouge, in his study of European skulls in 1888, saw three European races and ordered their quality and value: European Man, Alpine Man, and Homo Contractus. He argued that none of these races directly correlated with a specific nation, but his descriptions of their behaviors and religious ideas were clearly meant to correspond to Germany, Southern Europe, and the population of European Jews. The naturalized German citizen Houston Stewart Chamberlain wrote in 1899 that the German race struggled to maintain its purity because of the Darwinian form of natural selection that caused Germans to feel a revulsion toward intermixing with lesser races. Overall, this putative science of race uncoupled nationalism from its liberal roots, implying that those who lived within a national community did not necessarily belong. One could act, speak, or feel German or French but never be German or French.

    In newly unified Italy, northern Italians in Lombardy saw the threat of southern peoples, the Sicilians or Neapolitans, as racially enervating. They were thought to be different because of their hot-blooded, less rational characters—elements believed to emanate from their hotter climate and their proximity to Africa. Similar ideas existed in Spain toward those from the south, in particular Andalu sia. In northern Spain, notions of racial purity became important adjuncts of the Basque nationalist movement that sprang up in the late nineteenth century. The presence of foreign guest workers, or maketos, from other parts of Spain, was perceived as a threat to Basque purity. Sabino Arana, an early founder of Basque nationalism, proposed miscegenation laws in 1901 to prohibit the marriage of Basques to Spaniards.

    Imperialism helped solidify a view of the world as a hierarchy of races with Europeans at the zenith and all others arrayed below. One ugly symbol of this worldview was the “human zoo” that appeared throughout fin de siècle Europe in international fairs and other public spectacles. This kind of menagerie, replete with dioramic portrayals of humans living in their “typical” habitat, produced wide-eyed amazement among Europeans of the late nineteenth century and established racial hierarchy not just as an elite, scientific view of history but also as a popular one. By the 1880’s and 1890’s, race existed as a concrete idea recognizable to any European. Race became an essential element of national strength—and required defense and protection.

    Furthermore…

    Source –> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/White.htm

    “Between 1880 and WWI, the United States experienced large waves of European immigration. These “new immigrants” however did not come from northern Europe and represented a frightening diversity to many. The difference perceived in these immigrants was frequently described as a racial difference in which Europeans were represented as, not one, but many races identified by region (Alpine, Mediterranean, Slavic and Nordic) or by alleged headshape (roundheads, slopeheads). Madison Grant, a biologist and curator for the American Museum of Natural History in New York explained in his book The Passing of the Great Race that White Americans, the great race, were losing out to hordes of inferior European immigrants. Grant’s book was so popular it experienced 7 reprints before WWII. According to Grant, “These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones…The transportation lines advertised America as a land flowing with milk and honey and the European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums…Our jails, insane asylums and almshouses are filled with this human flotsam and the whole tone of american life, social, moral and political has been lowered and vulgarized by them.”

    Hans F. K. Günther, in his work Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (1929), came up with five sub-races: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, East Baltic, and Dinaric. He defined each subtype general physical appearance and their psychological qualities including their “racial soul” – referring to their emotional traits and religious beliefs, and provided detailed information on their hair, eye, and skin colors, facial structure, and body type, as well as their typical behaviors. On the lower end of the totem pole, those groups were identified as possessing undesirable traits.

    Anglo-Saxons were insistent that certain European groups were utterly incapable of understanding republican values. Even Alt-Right leader Vox Day makes the case–Europeans, most notably the **Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Polish**, lack the ability to comprehend and put into practice Anglo-Saxon ideals. Yet, those same people whose ancestors had been deemed “unfit” for American inclusion by nativists in the 1850’s and 1890’s, today claim to possess the inherent qualities required to perpetuate Western Civilization. Nativists held those groups** in contempt for “alien ways of life”, yet by the power of magic dirt, they have transformed themselves into one of the natives.

    You do understand the hypocrisy here, right?

    • LOL: Alden
  88. One of the things I’ve been expecting to find, based on my working hypothesis about the evolution of European individualism, is one or more genetic markers of the coevolution with wolves. The hypothesis being that wolf ‘domestication’ was a two way street — Europeans were able to be more independent of human groups for hunting.

    The G allele of rs2254298 may be such a marker.

    When I saw the paper “Associations between Oxytocin Receptor Gene Polymorphisms, Empathy towards Animals and Implicit Associations towards Animals” I thought immediately this might be the first such marker. I looked in the paper for two things in the referenced allele:

    * Geographic distribution of the G allele weighted toward northern European populations and

    * Preference for G homozygousity.

    The paper mentioned the fact that the G allele for oxytocin was associated with empathy toward animals — but only in the absence of the A allele.

    Of geography, it only said:

    Homozygous G individuals reported higher levels of empathy towards animals than minor A allele carriers. However as in this sample there were only 2 homozygous A individuals, due to the fact that the present sample comes from a European population where the A allele is quite uncommon (http://grch37.ensembl.org), it is impossible to say if this effect was diluted in heterozygous individuals compared to AA homozygotes. Furthermore, OXTR rs2254298 has also been shown to be involved in emotional empathy in schizophrenic and healthy individuals [35].

    The link provided permits one to show the geography and it is quite suggestive, although the G allele is as frequent among south Asians as it is among northern Europeans. This might be explained by a combination of Aryan invasion coupled with intensive, high population density animal husbandry.

    Another paper did a PCA in which the vertical axis shows a clear gradient of the A allele (hypothetically suppressing cross-species empathy) from south to north — nearly disappearing among the Finns.

  89. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    Europeans, most notably the **Germans, the Irish, the Italians, and the Polish**, lack the ability to comprehend and put into practice Anglo-Saxon ideals.

    Germans….

    Irish…

    Italians….

    Poles….

    As compared to Blacks…

    And Amerinds…..

  90. anonymous[177] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    Heh.
    Our yellow Lab, the late lamented Gabriel, would dive off a floating dock into shallow water at low tide, to retrieve rocks we threw in…and he would generally come up with one. Not the same rock we threw, of course, but he didn’t know the difference.

  91. @Haruto Rat

    Cavies have no natural predators. Isn’t that true of koalas, too?

  92. @syonredux

    Commissar Corvinus is quoting Derb via Vox Day. Only Anglo-Saxons can do democracy.

    BTW, Amazon autocorrects “Corvinus” to “Virginia”. As in “Yes, Virginia, there is a racial Santa Claus.”

    • Replies: @syonredux
  93. syonredux says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I know. I get a kick out of Corv. Is he stupid? Or is is he a parody of a simple-minded SJW? I can’t quite make up my mind…..

  94. @Steve Sailer

    You and your undisciplined dog sucked.*

    My Amerindian friend in Colorado had two St. Bernards who always came after me and my dog. Fortunately nobody got bit, buy my German Shepherd worked awfully hard protecting me from those big brutes.

    My dogs, then and now, could kill, but they never have even barked or growled unless there was a good reason. Then again, they weren’t Cocker Spaniels. (My parents had one of those when I was born, around the time of maximum Cocker Spaniel popularity. He died when I was still little.)

    *Just kidding, sort of.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  95. @Corvinus

    As far as I know, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%.

    I am not sure about Pacific Islanders; I think Australian Abos are the 5th racial group (I’ve read somewhere- Unz? – that Wade in his heretical book gave graphs of 5 Gaussians with distinct clusters for different races). I didn’t read the book because I’m not too interested in the topic.

    Sure, races do exist (never mind the term, species or any other), but what about South Asians (who may be even further subdivided into north & south)? Indo-China peoples (Burma, Cambodia,..)? “Malay race”- OK, they’re probably Polynesians.

    Visually, it is evident that 4 big clusters of people exist: Caucasians, black Africans, east Asians (“yellow race”) & American Indians (“red race”). Just, re numerous populations- what about Pakistanis & Hindu Indians (and-are they one species?) & Pacific peoples (Indonesia, Philippines,…- they’re probably Pacific Islanders)?

    Abos, Bushmen,… are rather small populations.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  96. res says:
    @Corvinus

    Clearly, you need a lesson in history and biology.

    The notion of “race”, specifically “whites”, “European whites”, and “blacks”, came about as a result of Social Darwinism and imperialism in the late 1800’s–the distinction that separated “us” from “them”.

    That was hilarious. And you think Alden needs a history lesson?!

    P.S. To be clear, the idea that the notion of “race” came about as late as the late 1800s is absurd.

    P.P.S. Yes, I know responding to Corvinus is a waste of time, but that was so over the top ridiculous it needed response. For Corvinus’ sake I sincerely hope he is trolling and not serious.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  97. @syonredux

    I think he’s a tag team at SPLC. A main guy, with occasional relievers.

    Tiny is probably a bot. I was looking up an obscure Belizean waterway called Cut and Throw Away Creek. Turns out there are two of them, and their only Wikipedia pages are in Swedish and Cebuano. Written by– and credited to– the same bot.

  98. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    Bavarians are skilled competent experienced workers who do an excellent job. They’re also White. Therefore, it’s a violation of the laws of affirmative action to hire them for a government project

  99. anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    St. Bernards, like Great Dames, have become severely over bred. The St. Bernards can be vicious, which is a bad trait in a dog that size. Don’t get me wrong, I love Danes, but they are short-lived and prone to weird problems like “twisted stomach” which can be fatal.

    By the way, I don’t think taking back an insult with an asterisk is quite cricket.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  100. @Corvinus

    No, Crow, I still don’t get the hypocrisy. It’s true that many Germans, Poles, Irish, and Italians assimilated into the liberty loving Pioneer culture and other cultures exported from the British isles, but that does not imply that a love of liberty is a median focal value for any of these peoples even after arrival and “assimilation” into America. For instance, Wisconsin and Minnesota are strongholds of Germanic immigrants, and also electoral nuclei of good-thinking conservatives, Never-Trumpers, socialists, gun grabbers, and immigration and climate change true-believers. None of these positions are consistent with preserving the little liberty we have left.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Alden
  101. @Steve Sailer

    Overbreeding usually includes both inbreeding and lack of culling. Reputable breeders make sure the defective are spayed, entered, or destroyed.

  102. Nick Diaz says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I’ve read that, and it is complete bullshit. In fact, Sailer specifically made that post in response to a previous post I had mande on another thread about how race truly is a social construct – Sailer never replies to me directly, but only indirectly, maybe because he is afriad he might lose if he takes me on directly. I didn’t respond in that thread because nothing of what he said disproved me, and I had already said everything I had to say on the topic.

    The fact that humans and Neaderthals could produce viable offspring indicates that they were genetically close enough to be considered the same spces. The same applies, for instance, to dogs and wolves, since they can produce viable offspring(wolf-dogs)

    Humans and chimpanzees cannot produce offspring because they are different species; humans and Nenaderthals were the same species, hence viable offspring. Not a difficult concept to understand.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @anon
  103. Nick Diaz says:
    @Alden

    You seem angry, boy. Got your panties stuck in your ass?

    When did the Romans speak of *races* which was my point from the start? The word gentus does not imply peoples divided by a notion of biology, you fool. Gentus simply means “peoples” and not races. They often used it to design peoples from the same vast geographical location, but that is *NOT* the same as race. For a so-called intellectual like you, you should understand the etiology of words better than a supposedly pseudo-intellectual like me.

    The Romans did *NOT* divide humans by biological characteristics. They noted biological characteristics, but noting biological characteristics and creating categorizations based on them are two very different things. They noted that the Celts were taller, fairer and blonder they were, and that the Nubians were darker than themselves, but “Nubian” and “Celt” are NOT racial categorizations. The Celts were a “people” and the many tribes “nations”. The same for the Nubians.
    *Show me where the Romans specifically divided human beings based on morphological or phenotypical characteristics.*

    The Romans spoke of peoples and nations, but not “races”. For instance, this is how St.Jerome described the barbarian invaders raiding the Eastern Empire:
    “Innumerabilis et ferocissimae nationes.”
    Again, nations and not races. Not a single word using as reference for blond Vandals their white skin or blond hair, or brown skin and slant eyes for the Huns. Go back to school, boy. Maybe then one day you can evolve to the level of being to being a moron and idiot.

  104. Anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s too bad in English we don’t use the word “race” when referring to canine groups the way they do in Spanish and French, for example. In Spanish you can speak of both las razas perros(dog races) and las razas humanos (human races) and in French, les races de chiens (dog races) and les races humaines (human races). Maybe if we started calling Poodles and Dobermans and Beagles and Greyhounds “races” people would see how manifestly absurd it is to say that (human) race is “just a social construct.”

  105. Fen Tiger says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Good story, but a little behind the times.

    Before going to university in the late 1970s, I worked on the railways in England for a few months. I encountered Plasser+Theurer machines (which even then were remarkable) more than once: no Germans, Swiss, Austrians, or any other brand of foreigner involved, I’m afraid.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  106. anon[223] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s what I might call the Lewontin Question: how much diversity is there within a group versus across groups?

    As much diversity as the environment can create. Because every dog is a blank slate that nurture writes upon. Sure, there are gaps, but those are all created by environment.

    Take speed, there’s a speed gap between greyhounds and dachshunds, but it’s all about how the dachshunds are raised. Nothing else matters. All we have to do is integrate dachshunds with greyhounds in just the right way, and the gap will close. It must close, because otherwise the tabula rasa would be false but it is revealed truth.

    Stop the bigoted segregation of dogs, integrate the dachshunds with the greyhounds, and the speed gap will close. Because it must. Anyone who disagrees is a hopeless bigot.

  107. anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Great Danes. Who got the bright idea to put the N key next to the M key?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  108. @Nick Diaz

    What is there to reply to, anyway? And why this personal, whining intonation about the abstract topic?

    Simply, modern humans & Neanderthals could produce fertile offspring- but are not, nor have ever been considered to be a single species. Because fertile offspring is a necessary, but not sufficient condition in the area of taxonomy (which is not something scientifically strict, as various taxonomies differ). Most dog breeds can produce offspring by mating among the (sub)species, but are classified as different species (or subspecies), as do birds.

    As for humans, of course races do exist, that could see even Stevie Wonder. There are 5 or more races, differing on variables one uses. Now, with gene testing, we can ascertain to which race or mixture someone belongs. Only, much earlier, forensic anthropology could, with perhaps 95% certitude, decide just by examining the skeleton, which race a body belonged to- Caucasian, African or Asian.

    Races exist, sexes exist. Live with that.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  109. @Fen Tiger

    “no Germans, Swiss, Austrians, or any other brand of foreigner involved”

    There are a lot of Plasser machines doing things like tamping.

    This was a tracklaying train, an amazing beast carrying and laying replacement track in huge lengths which were then welded with a thermite paste. I spoke to the guy on the level crossing letting traffic across, and he said the guys operating the machine were Austrian and Czech. About three years ago.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  110. @anonymous

    That’s all right. Great dames may have been overbred too. Certainly they have been overinflated.

    Regarding insults, asterisks and cricket: I don’t understand cricket. Steve has implied here that he doesn’t either, but I am hoping he will understand the asterisk.

    *)

    • Replies: @anonymous
  111. MEH 0910 says:
    @Nick Diaz

    A race is a completely arbitratry construct based on randomlly selected phenotypical and morphological characteristics. In this particular case, skin color.

    So an albino sub-Saharan African is of a different race than an ordinary sub-Saharan African?

  112. anon[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz

    The fact that humans and Neaderthals could produce viable offspring indicates that they were genetically close enough to be considered the same spces.

    Similarly the species of “lion” and “tiger” are mere social constructs, because ligers exist.

    Likewise mountains. Pikes Peak is really no different from any random part of Kansas except for the minor detail of altitude. It’s just a social construct.

    Like the color blue. Or red. Those are just social constructs, too.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    , @utu
  113. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz

    The Romans spoke of peoples and nations, but not “races”. For instance, this is how St.Jerome described the barbarian invaders raiding the Eastern Empire:
    “Innumerabilis et ferocissimae nationes.”
    Again, nations and not races. Not a single word using as reference for blond Vandals their white skin or blond hair, or brown skin and slant eyes for the Huns. Go back to school, boy. Maybe then one day you can evolve to the level of being to being a moron and idiot.

    Pearls before swine, but here we go:

    Black Classicist Frank Snowden on the topic of race in antiquity:

    Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid.

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks,

    Arrian (Indica 6.9)

    The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.

    Strabo Geography 15.1.13

    As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.

    Flavius Philostratus: c.170 to c.247

    It was a market place to which the Ethiopians bring all the products of their country; and the Egyptians in their turn take them all away and bring to the same spot their own wares of equal value, so bartering what they have got for what they have not. Now the inhabitants of the marches (Nubian/Egyptian border) are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians.

    Satyricon, Chapter 102:

    With this remedy, then, let’s change our complexions, from hair to toe-nails! Then, in the guise of Ethiopian slaves, we shall be ready at hand to wait upon you, light-hearted as having escaped the torturer, and, with our altered complexions, we can impose upon our enemies!” “Yes, indeed,” sneered Giton, “and be sure and circumcise us, too, so we will be taken for Jews, pierce our ears so we will look like Arabs, chalk our faces so that Gaul will take us for her own sons; as if color alone could change one’s figure! As if many other details did not require consideration if a passable imposture is to result! Even granting that the stained face can keep its color for some time, suppose that not a drop of water should spot the skin, suppose that the garment did not stick to the ink, as it often does, where no gum is used, tell me! We can’t make our lips so hideously thick, can we? We can’t kink our hair with a curling-iron, can we? We can’t harrow our foreheads with scars, can we? We can’t force our legs out into the form of a bow or walk with our ankle-bones on the ground, can we?

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  114. Anon[945] • Disclaimer says:

    Open access link to the pre-peer review version of the paper:

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/509315v1

  115. @Nick Diaz

    Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn?
    _____

    As for men’s laws, it is evident that men have established them to correspond with their own natural dispositions; that is to say, constitutional and humane laws were established by those in whom a humane disposition had been fostered above all else, savage and inhuman laws by those in whom there lurked and was inherent the contrary disposition. For lawgivers have succeeded in adding but little by their discipline to the natural characters and aptitudes of men. Accordingly the Scythians would not receive Anacharsis among them when he was inspired by a religious frenzy, and with very few exceptions you will not find that any men of the Western nations have any great inclination for philosophy or geometry or studies of that sort, although the Roman Empire has now so long been paramount. But those who are unusually talented delight only in debate and the art of rhetoric, and do not adopt any other study; so strong, it seems, is the force of nature. Whence then come these differences of character and laws among the nations?
    _____

    And yet among mankind the difference between the customs and the political constitutions of the nations is in every way greater than the difference in their language. What Hellene, for instance, ever tells us that a man ought to marry his sister or his daughter or his mother? Yet in Persia this is accounted virtuous. But why need I go over their several characteristics, or describe the love of liberty and lack of discipline of the Germans, the docility and tameness of the Syrians, the Persians, the Parthians, and in short of all the barbarians in the East and the South, and of all nations who possess and are contented with a somewhat despotic form of government?
    _____

    For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they have?

    http://acrossdifficultcountry.blogspot.com/2007/08/fainter-and-languishing.html

    • Replies: @anonymous
  116. Nick Diaz says:
    @Nick Diaz

    That is exactly what I wrote,, dummy. They noted morphological and phenotypical characteristics like eye and skin color, but they did not *categorize groups of humans based on them* .

    Nubia by definition was a geographical location, and not a skin color,, dummy! They did refer to Nubians as “black people” like western Europeans and Americans have for the past 200 years or so.

    “Race” is a pseudo-scientific construct, the result of European colonialism, and the misuses of taxonomy, which in itself was an “evolution”(pun intended) od Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. “Race” is a recent development, where the genuine science of taxonomy was misused to classify humans based on their morphological,, physionomic and phenotypical characteristics.

  117. Nick Diaz says:
    @syonredux

    That is exactly what I wrote,, dummy. They noted morphological and phenotypical characteristics like eye and skin color, but they did not *categorize groups of humans based on them* .

    Nubia by definition was a geographical location, and not a skin color,, dummy! They did refer to Nubians as “black people” like western Europeans and Americans have for the past 200 years or so.
    “Race” is a pseudo-scientific construct, the result of European colonialism, and the misuses of taxonomy, which in itself was an “evolution”(pun intended) od Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. “Race” is a recent development, where the genuine science of taxonomy was misused to classify humans based on their morphological,, physionomic and phenotypical characteristics

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @syonredux
  118. Nick Diaz says:
    @anon

    There are species and sub-species. Lions and tigers are genetically close enough to produce viable offspring *but ligers are often sterile* . You completely ignored this very important distinction.

    Colors are not social constructs, just like skin and eye color are not social construcct. You are comingg up with a bunch of staw mans.

    If you read what I wrote, I said that morphological, physionomic and phenotypical characteristics are definitely biological, but the *categorization* of people that have those similar traits as “races” , which is arbitrary and conditioned by history, politics and social conditions at the time, is a social construct.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  119. Moses says:

    There is only one breed of dog, the Dog breed.

    All dogs are exactly the same. If they show any difference it’s only because they were socialized that way.

  120. Moses says:
    @Corvinus

    Tiny Duck does it better.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  121. anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Got it. OK by me, Mr. Mohawk.

  122. anonymous[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @C. Van Carter

    Time to revive the website, Mr. Carter.

  123. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moses

    Tiny’s so vain, he probably thinks this song is about him!

  124. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Ligers and tiglons are usually unhealthy and are often dangerous to be around.

    If you want a lion you want a circus lion from a long line of European circus lions if you can manage to find one. They have 20 to 30 generations of breeding to look fierce but be predictable and are thus semi-domesticated. They still aren’t a pet in the usual sense but are much more handleable than a random lion from a recently smuggled or zoo stolen cubs.

    Cheetahs are actually fairly suited as pets but for the fact they shit on any high surface they can get on and are very tough to housebreak. However, until recently, breeding them in captivity was thought impossible. They have figured it out but now it’s impossible to actually get one in the US, the professionals would prefer the species go extinct than become popular in the pet trade and have said so.

    Tigers are available because most are legally hybrids between protected subspecies. Mike Tyson gets along with his but in general, not a great critter for the house.

    The thing about having a big cat is that as many of them as are out there, especially in Texas, so few people are killed or mauled. They are now expensive enough that people don’t casually buy them: the people who do are prepared financially and equipment and training wise to deal with them. Still, if you get lionized it’s by definition your own fault, there are no wild lions in North America and you did something or other dumb.

  125. @Bardon Kaldian

    You’re a sample of one from a population of zero, so your opinions on race and specie will not be considered. Thank you.

  126. Nick Diaz says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    It is debatable if humans and Nenaderthals were from different species. Many anthropologists regard them as a sub-species of humans. That would be akin to lions and tigers: they are considered different species and yet can breed, but *the offspring is often unhealthy and infertile* This is not what you observe when different humans ” races” breed: the children are often *more* healthy than the parents. That is something called hybrid vigor. Go study it.

    Dog breeds are genetically much more dissimilar to each other than human “races”, and yet they can breed and produce fertile offspring. This goes to show that it takes quite a lot for two category of living creatures to be considered different species. The genetic differences responsible for things like skin and eye color in humans are trivial in comparison.

    Oh, race and sexuality are real and I shoulld get over it? Except for the fact that you are 100% wrong?

    “Race” is a pseduo-scientific, social and political construct of the 19th century. It was motivated by colonialism, by the Western Man’s desire to justify his superiority over his conquered,, and received a “scientific cover” from the incipient science of taxonomy at the time, which of course was motivated by Darwin and Mendel’s work.

    The ability to produce viable offspring is the *only* criteria to separate living beings into species. Race does not exist. Nor does sexuality. Get over it.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  127. @International Jew

    That is an interesting observation and analogy.

  128. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    It is debatable if humans and Nenaderthals were from different species. Many anthropologists regard them as a sub-species of humans. That would be akin to lions and tigers: they are considered different species and yet can breed, but *the offspring is often unhealthy and infertile* This is not what you observe when different humans ” races” breed: the children are often *more* healthy than the parents. That is something called hybrid vigor. Go study it.

    The hybrid may itself have more desirable characteristics but its progeny may have none and may have a worst-of-both-worlds character.In animals where one simply culls the undesirable ones, this is a chance worth taking: labradoodles are bred as pets and do not breed true, no one cares.

    In humans we’re stuck with the results, good or bad, for the next 70, 80 years, unless they commit a capital crime and we execute or they win the Darwin Award early. So it behooves us all the more to make good choices and for society to encourage such good choices. We should do whatever it takes to keep imbeciles, criminals, social misfits, welfare bums, people with heritable serious deformities or illnesses, from the gene pool and within reason to make it attractive for high IQ, attractive, birthworthy women to birth the children of high IQ, physically capable men and rise them productively. This doesn’t require death camps, abortion, or even government coercion except for maybe convicted felons and adjudicated retards and crazies.

  129. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz

    They noted morphological and phenotypical characteristics like eye and skin color,

    Which means that they noticed that Gauls were different from Ethiopians….

    Nubia by definition was a geographical location, and not a skin color,, dummy! They did refer to Nubians as “black people” like western Europeans and Americans have for the past 200 years or so.

    And they noted that the people living in that part of the world looked kinda odd….

    “Race” is a recent development,

    Sure. We understand racial differences better than the Greeks and Romans did. Science marches on.

  130. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz

    That is exactly what I wrote,, dummy. They noted morphological and phenotypical characteristics like eye and skin color, but they did not *categorize groups of humans based on them* .

    Can you read English, Nicky?

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks,

  131. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Again, nations and not races. Not a single word using as reference for blond Vandals their white skin or blond hair, or brown skin and slant eyes for the Huns.

    Jordanes certainly seemed to think that the Huns had a distinctive phenotype. Here’s his description of Attila:

    Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and swarthy skin, showing evidence of his origin

  132. utu says:
    @anon

    Like the color blue. Or red. Those are just social constructs, too.

    There’s Evidence Humans Didn’t Actually See Blue Until Modern Times
    https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-didn-t-see-the-colour-blue-until-modern-times-evidence-science

    How do Namibian Himbas see colour?
    https://www.gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour/

    • Replies: @res
  133. anonymous[903] • Disclaimer says:

    Dogs are are a result of selection of traits, you can’t compare them to races. I can go to a small village where everyone is related, have the tall people breed only with tall, big ears breed with big ears, round eyes with round eyes etc. Are we gonna call the groups races, the big eye race, the big nose race, the tall races, i don’t think so. These are just physical traits, nothing else. Dogs are more related than the so called races are, despite the many differences.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @res
  134. syonredux says:
    @anonymous

    Are we gonna call the groups races, the big eye race, the big nose race, the tall races,

    Why not?

  135. @Nick Diaz

    First- change your attitude. I’m not interested in exchange of opinions with carriers of gigantic chips on their shoulders. Anyone’s lack of manners is not my problem, and if a person persists in it, (s)he goes to ignore in my book.

    As for races, I’ve already said: necessary, not sufficient. Contemporary attitude is that Neanderthals, who could procreate with homo sapiens sapiens to produce fertile offspring are classified as a different species. True, some academics are trying to put them together under one species, but this has not been accepted.

    Then- I’ve never mentioned lions & tigers, they’re irrelevant. Fertile offspring is a product of mating of different breeds of dogs & birds, so this is another example that taxonomically different species (or subspecies) can mate to create a fertile progeny.

    As for racism, this is a complex issue, but: race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.

    So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.

    Forensic anthropology, as I’ve said, is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006

    Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).

    These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….

    • Replies: @anon
  136. @El Dato

    These are JUDGEMENTS which have no relevance to genetics or breeding.

    Yes, of course. The fact that fields of wheat left to their own devices will grow, in a few years, not wheat but weeds, is just a social construct. Fitness is always socially constructed. Pure JUDGEMENT on my part. (The caps are nice touch, by the way.)

    You are completely wrong. Good luck trying to survive in an ice age setting with no central heating and a stick as tool.

    I suppose the fact that you’re trying to have it both ways just sailed over your head like a zeppelin.

  137. I’d be interested in seeing studies of how much variation there is among individuals of a single breed. My impression is that animals are more individualist, even eccentric than one might theorize.

    You’re probably correct insofar as for several decades now most dog breeding has been conducted in the primary interests of conformation to type – it’s very important to breed a Golden Retriever that looks like the Platonic ideal of a Golden Retriever, an English Bulldog like an English Bulldog and so on. Temperament and other “personality” concerns – including the aptitude of a dog to actually do the work for which its breed was developed – are secondary if considered at all. All manner of diverse behavior can be displayed by these animals.

    Conversely, dogs thoughtfully and carefully bred from working lines (where the primary concern is the animal’s ability to fulfill its particular purpose for which the breed was developed or to which it was adapted) are more standard in personality. For example, working German Shepherds must pass a series of temperament tests before proceeding to Schutzhund training and attainment to be considered suitable for breeding.

    The difference in raw intelligence between working lines dogs and show conformation dogs is significant – they’re like an entirely different species. Years ago I had a DDR lines Shepherd puppy who quickly learned to open his crate from the inside by striking the area of the latch with his paw. He then graduated to figuring out how to operate doorknobs and open cabinets, and I believe the only thing which precluded him from operating the doors’ locks was the lack of an opposable thumb.

  138. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    LOL, you were exposed as a fraud the last time you pulled this stunt. You are not making an apples to apples comparison.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  139. Corvinus says:
    @res

    “That was hilarious. And you think Alden needs a history lesson?!”

    Absolutely.

    “P.S. To be clear, the idea that the notion of “race” came about as late as the late 1800s is absurd.”

    Not in the context as laid out by the authors I cited.

    “P.P.S. Yes, I know responding to Corvinus is a waste of time, but that was so over the top ridiculous it needed response. For Corvinus’ sake I sincerely hope he is trolling and not serious.”

    Code for “Corvinus made several cogent points that I dare not admit, so I will engage in a hit and run post to keep up my credentials among my Alt Right brethren”.

    • LOL: res
  140. Corvinus says:
    @Neil Templeton

    “No, Crow, I still don’t get the hypocrisy.”

    Oh, you do comprehend quite well, you just dare not admit it to others.

    “It’s true that many Germans, Poles, Irish, and Italians assimilated into the liberty loving Pioneer culture and other cultures exported from the British isles, but that does not imply that a love of liberty is a median focal value for any of these peoples even after arrival and “assimilation” into America.”

    How to qualify and quantify this “median focal value”? Give specific examples.

    “For instance, Wisconsin and Minnesota are strongholds of Germanic immigrants, and also electoral nuclei of good-thinking conservatives, Never-Trumpers, socialists, gun grabbers, and immigration and climate change true-believers. None of these positions are consistent with preserving the little liberty we have left.”

    According to Who/Whom?

  141. anon[470] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    First- change your attitude. I’m not interested in exchange of opinions with carriers of gigantic chips on their shoulders.

    Some people are so self-unaware that they go about in perpetual indignation at the wrongs done them, both real and imaginary; yet they cannot understand why no one wishes to interact with them. Then again, some people want attention so badly that they will settle for negative attention, and of course that includes those who are just trolling.

    “Nick Diaz” is one of a small set of commenters who really, really, really want Steve to notice them. “Look at me! Look at ME!” is the gist of their rant. One wonders why those desperate for Steve’s attention don’t just go and start their own low traffic blog.

    Oh, wait.

  142. Alden says:
    @Neil Templeton

    One thing I’d like to point out is that southerners the most freedom loving independent ornery old Americans aren’t really Anglo Saxons. They are Celts. Scots and Irish. Many are descendants of deported rebels and fighters against the English takeover of those countries.

    Corvunius is a typical Jew an idiot intellectual proud of his ignorance. What’s the word for ignorant Jew who thinks he’s an intellectual lecturing everybody? There’s got to be a Yiddish word.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  143. res says:
    @utu

    Interesting point. Worth noting that there are two different ways to define blue.
    – A range of light frequencies.
    – A set of stimuli which the human eye and brain interpret as blue.

    The second isn’t necessarily the same as the first given the trichromatic nature of the cone cells in the human eye.

    It would be interesting to see if the groups with different color senses (or words) have different genetics.

    This paper and associated article talk about the genetics of blue perception.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141218210100.htm
    https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004884

    Given that, I don’t think the idea that “There’s Evidence Humans Didn’t Actually See Blue Until Modern Times” holds up.

  144. res says:
    @anonymous

    Dogs are more related than the so called races are, despite the many differences.

    Fst data indicates otherwise. This link has some Fst numbers for human races.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

    Despite emphasizing that much dog variation is caused by a small number of SNPs, this 2010 paper gives a mean Fst for 60k dog SNPs of 0.28 (much higher than the Fst between human continental races) in the Figure 2 caption.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

  145. @Franz

    Poodles and border collies are acknowledged to be the two smartest breeds–with the latter being downright scary smart sometimes. As a kid we had a dachshund who could be aggressive sometimes. On the other hand, dachsies were bred as hunting dogs (the name in English means “badger hound”) and it would not surprise that, as such, they might tend to be more aggressive than say the herding breeds. Even among the latter, however, aggression can certainly be bred-in (consider German shepherds as police dogs for example).

  146. @syonredux

    Being of German-Irish ancestry the first two are…well, what else is there to say? On the other hand, I sure wouldn’t kick the other two outta bed unless there was more room on the floor.

  147. @Alden

    What’s the word for ignorant Jew who thinks he’s an intellectual lecturing everybody? There’s got to be a Yiddish word.

    דער חכם פון מה־נשתנה
    dehr khuchem fun mah nishtaneh

  148. @Intelligent Dasein

    A man called Bok, whose brother was a sometime president of Harvard, had a ranch of sorts out in the desert east of Los Angeles. He kept wolves there and let the occasional visitor into their compound. I was one of those chosen ones, some 44 years ago.

    To tell the truth, they were not particularly impressive and did not engender much in the way of fear. One, bolder than the rest, came up and ran its side along my leg as it passed.

    It looked up pleadingly, just as dogs do. I was about to stroke its back as it moved past, but then I noticed its jaws.

    This was no dog, after all.

  149. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    People cross wolves with wolflike breeds of dog once in a while. What happens if you cross a wolf with, say, a retriever or some other very unwolflike dog?

  150. @Old Palo Altan

    I know what you mean. Please permit me to tell a complimentary story.

    I was out one day for work doing rounds in a fairly ghetto-ish neighborhood when, while walking down the sidewalk, I espied a sharp looking white lab about 20 feet away, and inside a chain link fence. The gate in the fence was ajar, but I didn’t think anything of it because the dog was on the other side of the yard from the gate and was showing no interest in getting out. I looked down for the briefest of intervals, which could not have been more than a fraction of a second, and then looked back, and the dog was standing right in front of me.

    All he wanted was to sniff me and play, and I never felt a moment’s alarm; but I was deeply impressed that the animal had bounded across the yard, out of the gate, and had closed all the intervening distance so quickly and so silently. To my chagrin, I did not hear him coming.

    Afterwards I could only think to myself: “Imagine a creature twice as heavy, several times stronger, even keener and quicker, much more intelligent, and working together with others with a mind and purpose and habit of killing me. It would have been the last thing I ever didn’t hear.”

    That is what it means to be dealing with wolves. Their reputation for deadliness is well deserved.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  151. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    LOL, you were exposed as a fraud the last time you pulled this stunt. You are not making an apples to apples comparison.

    Correct. I’m comparing Europeans to non-Europeans:

    Here’s Europe:

    And here’s Black Africa:

    I agree; it’s apples-to-oranges.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  152. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz

    The Romans spoke of peoples and nations, but not “races”. For instance, this is how St.Jerome described the barbarian invaders raiding the Eastern Empire:
    “Innumerabilis et ferocissimae nationes.”
    Again, nations and not races

    Ever look up the etymology of the word “nation,” Nicky?

    nation (n.)
    c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

  153. @Intelligent Dasein

    Close encounters with animals, mammals particularly, is always a sobering experience.

    Intellect is our prize, but the price we payed for it in all other measures of mammalian superiority has been a heavy one.

  154. Corvinus says:
    @syonredux

    “Correct. I’m comparing Europeans to non-Europeans:”

    No, you are comparing a beautiful person to a non beautiful person. In order for it to be an apples to apples comparison, you must take a beautiful European and a beautiful non-European based on specific standards for beauty. Per usual, you are being dishonest and employing confirmation bias to “prove” a point. LOL, and you call yourself a “professor”.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  155. syonredux says:
    @Corvinus

    “Correct. I’m comparing Europeans to non-Europeans:”

    No, you are comparing a beautiful person to a non beautiful person.

    Are you actually stating that these Black African women are not beautiful?

    Maybe your beauty standards are Eurocentric…..

  156. TWS says:
    @Nick Diaz

    You are consistently hilarious. A little long winded but you make up for it by great parody. Absolutely ridiculous but still close to what a brain dead clueless pseudo-intellectual would spout. You’ve perfectly captured the cargo cult jabbering of our bleating intellectuals who understand nothing of real science. Well done.

  157. TWS says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Lots of cocker spaniels bit I suspect a popular sire was bitey sometime in the forties or thereabouts.

  158. TWS says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Lots of cocker spaniels bit I suspect a popular sire was bitey sometime in the forties or thereabouts.

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